> you're saying military commanders and judge advocates knowing and understanding the bounds of their authorities are mere technicalities

Yes, I'm saying that given the right circumstances what is legal on paper does not matter in the real world.

> This "armed and emotional" bit gives off some real "I never served and don't understand the military as much as I think I do" vibes.

I have never served but I have read history books. This isn't a pure hypothetical: these things have happened before, there are examples going back as far as you would like. My sibling comment even expanded on one of these.

> I'm sorry

If you're sorry then I think it would have been possible to edit your comment not to have the tone of personal insult.

It also would have been possible for you to not claim that military servicemembers are not in control of their emotions, and that this may make them present a danger to others by misusing their weapons.

But you did claim that, or at least imply it, so here we are.

Then it seems you are not sorry. Either way, it would have been absurd for me to ignore the humanity of the people I share the world with, especially given the ample amount of examples of military men being lost in their emotions.

I think it took the tone of an insult partly because "armed and emotional" comes off as a huge insult to our military leadership. There's probably nothing more important to being a great military leader than the ability to keep a cool head in the midst of trying and even horrifying situations. I would guess there is a point of pride in doing that which was being assailed in your comment.

> "armed and emotional" comes off as a huge insult

Care to explain how having weapons or emotions is insulting? Everyone serving in the military is a human and humans have emotions. There's no shame in that and I think it requires quite a mean spirited mis-reading of what I said to take that from it.

> the ability to keep a cool head in the midst of trying and even horrifying situations

I think we're in agreement, you just have a different idea of what it means to be emotional. The desire to maintain a cool head in the face of horror is based in emotion. The effect of keeping a cool head might be exactly the reason why the technicalities of legality break down.

All that said we also have to remember that not everyone serving is a "great military leader" and that's also part of the point at hand.

This is getting a bit silly, but I'll try again.

> it comes down to people who are armed and emotional.

This implies that real people are making emotional decisions instead of guided by reason.

> technical terms like this of what is and isn't permitted

These technical terms that you are discounting are some of the real weapons that human beings use to give them options beyond simply following orders that they disagree with.

This is an incredibly nuanced topic, and to reduce it to people making "armed and emotional" decisions shows a lack of appreciation for what people try to do in difficult situations.

Again, your position is based on a disdain for emotion and a preference for "reason.' This is not a position I share, we are not Vulcans. I see no shame in recognising the emotional nature of our fellow actors.

I would point out the humour in an emotional reaction to my choice of words derailing the conversation but the realisation that there are people who believe their "great military leaders" are somehow "above" emotions and that this is a good thing is genuinely terrifying

Nobody is saying emotions don't exist. But I, like many others, believe that our ability to choose our reactions based on reason rather than emotion is what separates us from animals. We don't always succeed, but this is why your unevidenced claim implying that emotion is the primary driver of decision making has ruffled feathers.

People including myself have emotional reactions, but I choose to respond with a reasoned explanation, and I certainly wouldn't engage in violence with you over it, even if a portion of my lizard brain demanded that I should.

> unevidenced claim implying that emotion is the primary driver of decision making

You've added the words "primary driver" here yourself, I never made such a claim. But I hope you can see that not only that leap but also your desire to overcome your "animalistic" emotions are both rooted in emotion.

I won't waste my time looking for evidence for a claim I didn't make and I don't think it's up for debate that the majority of people in the armed forces are "armed and emotional." But in terms of the original claim that checks and balances only serve up to the point of human failure I could point to any number of examples and would repeat the fact that others have raised some in this thread.