Mighty Caty
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2014
- Messages
- 221
- Reaction score
- 8
- Country
- Location
The psychology of war is not based on any family relation, that much is for sure. If that had to be true, then there are other personal aspect that one can relate to the will to fight. Item suchs as maritial status, whether or not if a soldier have children. If being an only son is one of the contributed factor, then we would also need to put the reason i quote into consideration.
As the Imperaial Jpanese general Kuribayashi once say "The duty to protect our family make us lay down our life and fight, however, the exact thought of the family make it hard for us to laid down our life"
A person told to go to war by choice. Their personal background is not in the equation. A soldier will fight according to the situation. Sometime you are forced to fight, sometime you are reacted to fight. But above all, the person's own initiative.
There are also only son's and daughter's in any armed force in the world. They are not as "wimpy" as any other soldiers. The prospect to fight and killed is what you would have accepted when you enlist yourselves in that situation, you will fight like everybody else.
Actually, i would not be intimated by the question of whether the chinese soldier are wimpy because they came from an only child family. I would have pay more attention for the current chinese generation if they were indeed to fight a war. There always casualty in war. However, it would be worse off when you sustain casualty from a multiple child family than a single child family. The primary problem would be the recurperation of population if that only child dies. That does not end with them as you also ended a family lineages as well (That child dies then there are no next generation) and if this would be parallel for mulitple factors. The casualty would not just be the 10,000 or 50,000 or more soldier killed, but you are talking about multiple family.
Not to mention the impact of losing the mobilised generation, the population that's in their prime. I would more worry about that then them being wimpy and flakey.
As the Imperaial Jpanese general Kuribayashi once say "The duty to protect our family make us lay down our life and fight, however, the exact thought of the family make it hard for us to laid down our life"
A person told to go to war by choice. Their personal background is not in the equation. A soldier will fight according to the situation. Sometime you are forced to fight, sometime you are reacted to fight. But above all, the person's own initiative.
There are also only son's and daughter's in any armed force in the world. They are not as "wimpy" as any other soldiers. The prospect to fight and killed is what you would have accepted when you enlist yourselves in that situation, you will fight like everybody else.
Actually, i would not be intimated by the question of whether the chinese soldier are wimpy because they came from an only child family. I would have pay more attention for the current chinese generation if they were indeed to fight a war. There always casualty in war. However, it would be worse off when you sustain casualty from a multiple child family than a single child family. The primary problem would be the recurperation of population if that only child dies. That does not end with them as you also ended a family lineages as well (That child dies then there are no next generation) and if this would be parallel for mulitple factors. The casualty would not just be the 10,000 or 50,000 or more soldier killed, but you are talking about multiple family.
Not to mention the impact of losing the mobilised generation, the population that's in their prime. I would more worry about that then them being wimpy and flakey.