Standard military dog training starts when the dogs are just puppies. The pups begin in boot camp and are raised to be obedient towards authority, and scarily aggressive towards enemies. They are also trained to sniff through doors for any sort of suspect, bomb, or dangerous machine or substance. San Antonio Lackland, Texas, is home to the 341st U.S. Airbase. f San Antonio Lackland also has a dog training facility where about 300 dogs are raised per year. After they graduate the training, dogs serve 6-8 years in the military. To put it in perspective, the average life expectancy for a dog is 10-13 years, meaning their military service takes up half of their life minimum. Whereas humans who only serve have to serve for 4 years have an average life span of 80 years, which is about 5% of a human lifetime.
These dogs take human type risks, like jumping off a plane with a parachute. “To me, they’re the first line of defense,” said Ron Aiello, president of the United States War Dogs Association. He is referring to the fact that dogs (and handlers) lead the way to sniff out landmines, snipers, any sort of trap, which makes them like test dummies.
Military dogs are not like other dogs. Their strict training makes it hard for them to adjust after retirement. They are territorial and aggressive. After retirement, they need to learn how to be a dog again, which should never happen.
Military dogs are not like other dogs. Their strict training makes it hard for them to adjust after retirement. They are territorial and aggressive. After retirement, they need to learn how to be a dog again, which should never happen.
1. How do you feel about military dogs being trained to take down or even kill someone?
2. Are military dogs necessary in the military with all the new technology available to the U.S?
3. Do big dogs off-leash scare you and why?
4. What would you do if your dog had been trained to attack anyone who you did not welcome (If you do not have one... IMAGINE)?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1. If military dogs can be used as an option to both take down enemies and preserve US lives, they should certainly be used in combat. Dogs continue to be one of the best ways to ensure the safety as US soldiers. The article from Vox said that “the dog went into the tunnel not only to track the terrorist, but also to ensure that the following troops weren’t running into a trap.” Although dogs cannot consent to military service, if they can be used as valuable weapons and safety measures, they should be trained to the fullest extent possible. However, Conan did not directly kill Baghdadi, and it is inhumane and immoral to train dogs to directly kill or assassinate enemies of the US government. It is wrong to recruit animals that cannot consent to their own actions to kill other people. There is also no certainty that a dog that is trained to kill would attack the right target, and not a civilian. Dogs should be used in the military as a support role, helping operations and guaranteeing the safety of US soldiers, but should not be the ones who actually kill enemies of the US government.
ReplyDelete2. Military dogs are necessary with current technology because if they weren’t, the US military would not be utilizing them. A deliberate choice has been made by the government to continue using dogs because they feel like dogs are the best way to perform certain tasks that automated machines might not be able to do. A machine cannot smell, nor have the same instincts that a dog has. Even with new technology, dogs should be used to help the US military.
3. I assume that any big dog off leash is well trained so I am never afraid of them. In very few situations (only at the dog park) do I ever see big dogs off leash and when I do see them, there are always many other people around. For a big dog to attack, one would have to aggravate it and I try not to aggravate dogs.
4. If my dog was trained to attack unwelcome individuals, I would try to retrain it so it did not attack people. A dog cannot morally discern whether someone is a true enemy or just a stranger, and I would far rather have an unwelcome person leave unscathed than 100 innocent strangers bit by a dog. No dog can have the same sense of morality as a human, so a dog that is trained for combat should always be kept in a tightly controlled and regulated environment so humans have control over who that dog should target.
1)I think that military dogs should be used and trained to kill someone bad. They should be used to insure safety to the U.S soldiers, as they could be used in combat to take down the opponent without risk of any humans from the U.S dying. Although I believe that there shouldn't be a mass production of these "dog soldiers" and they should only be used in the most extreme circumstances.
ReplyDelete2.They are necessary because without them we wouldn't have been able to kill Mr. al-Baghdadi. In addition, dogs can do a lot more than some drones or machines, as they can smell and have better traits then some machines. Overall, I think the dogs are necessary in our military because without them, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
3.I have normally never been scared of dogs off-leash because I see them as very well trained being able to walk by themselves. Obviously if I saw a dog with white foam coming out its mouth I might get a little scared, but most dogs are very well behaved so, no.
4. If my dog had been trained to attack anyone who I didn't welcome I would try and get it to change, or maybe train it again so it would learn to love everyone with the same amount of respect. Although it might be hard to retrain a dog after Henry sayed it takes along time to train dogs as they have such a short lifespan.
1) I agree with Bradford that although dogs can be a valuable help for the military, as well as helping our country, they should not be the ones who do the killing. Dogs can be very useful when it comes to tracking down a person or a weapon, but it is inhumane to put a dog in the position of the actual killing. As Bradford said dogs cannot give consent for this job, as well as not understand specific instructions on who to kill, which could end in loss of innocent lives.
ReplyDelete2) Dogs are necessary because they have more capabilities than machines or drones. Although drones and machines are useful for our military there are several traits dogs have that machines/drones don't. Dogs are capable of recognizing certain smells which is very useful when it comes to finding a certain person or place. Although dogs may not be needed for every job in the military, they are certainly helpful.
3) Big off-leash dogs do not tend to scare me. Most dogs, just like most humans, are only violent when necessary or when provoked. If I see a large dog off-leash I will assume it is friendly. However, if I recognize it does not like humans or seems to be provoked I will likely keep my distance.
4) I agree with Bradford and Thomas in that I would try to retrain my dog. Although the saying goes that you can't teach an old dog new tricks it is not always true. If a dog is simply trained as an attack dog but was not born that way, there is no reason that over time you cannot break a dog's attacking habits.
1) I agree with Bradford that these dogs should be used in the military as a support role, they should be there to protect the soldier from anything harmful but they should not have to kill someone on command. When these dogs are trained to kill they cannot fight back and say they will not do it. They cannot give consent, that is why they should just be there for the soldier's protection and catching the criminal rather than killing.
ReplyDelete2) I don't think these dogs are necessary to attack the enemy because of all the technology the US has. They do not need dogs to kill others when they have weapons like guns and other weapons. I do think these dogs are necessary to protect the soldiers from the enemy.
3) Sometimes I am scared of big dogs especially when they are off-leash. When I see a pitbull they usually scare me even though I shouldn't be scared because I know not all of them are agressive. I know it's a stereotype but its just the way I react.
4) If my dog were trained to attack someone I think in some way that would be good because she would be protecting my family and my house from intruders. I would also probably keep my dog on a leash or maybe even a muzzle because I don't know how she would react with a guest. Maybe she could feel threatened and assume I was too and attack.
1, I don't think that dogs should be directly involved in the killing of someone but can assist forces to the location of a terrorist or someone wanted by the U.S. government. A great example of this is the recent killing of Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi. Dogs were extremely helpful in his capture as they were the ones to first locate where he was. I completely agree with what Bradford said in his post and I believe that dogs would be a great way to make sure that our soldiers are safe.
ReplyDelete2, Military dogs are necessary for the military even with all the other technology that has been in place. Building robots is a lot more expensive than training dogs. Like I mentioned before dogs are essential to figuring out if there are any traps or land mines in a certain location, a skill that many robots have yet to master. Until then the use of robots is 100% effective, less expensive and more reliable than trained dogs, we must keep the canines in the military.
3, Big dogs off-leash usually scare me because of their size and sometimes unpredictability. Big dogs many times are almost as tall as my knees. Furthermore, the run faster and have better eyesight. A possible scientific solution to why people like me maybe afraid of big dogs is because they more or less resemble wolves and un-domesticated animals in the same family.
4, It will be difficult to train these dogs not to attack unwelcomed individuals after being told to attack them for many years. So I agree with Bradfords solution which is by containing the dog and carefully instructing it to perform specific actions. The environment in which dogs are breed in is vital to how well they do when they are done with their duty and when they are on duty. A dog may attack someone else in the same alliance with the same common enemy without knowing, which may cause many problems. So carefully training them is very important.
1. I agree with Bradford that dogs can be very beneficial to the military, but should be used to kill. Unlike people dogs are unable to give consent and speak their mind and it feels cruel to force animals to do this. Dogs are very helpful for other aspects in the military and have natural gifts schuh asa their sense of smell that the military should utilize instead of forcing them to kill.
ReplyDelete2. Although maybe they are not crucial to the military, dogs can offer a very specific skill set that helps the military a lot. Dogs appear to be the best animals/ thing to help with finding smell and many other skills that a machine may not be able to offer.
3. When I encounter a big dog off leash I am not scared because I know the dog does not have an intention to harm me. I also assume that the dog is well trained because the owner feels comfortable enough to let the dog off leash.
4. If my dog had been previously trained to hurt unwelcome people, I would try and retrain it. Although it would be challenging I would work very hard with my dog on this because it is important and I would probably keep it on the leash for a while.
1) If dogs can take dangerous military jobs that humans would normally have to do, then I agree with Thomas that they should definitely be trained and used, even if they need to kill an enemy. The U.S. should take advantage of any weapons that can be used to protect our country and citizens. If someone or something is threatening our country, they need to be stopped, and it does it really matter what they are stopped by? If we can use dogs to take on missions that would be really dangerous for a human, then we should definitely train them to our advantage.
ReplyDelete2) Dog are necessary in the military, even with all the new technology in the U.S. They have powerful senses that can be used to find drugs or explosives, and as it said in the article, they can also be used to track down enemies. A machine or robot doesn’t have the instincts that a dog does, which means the U.S. still needs them in the military. If new technology is developed, however, that can do these same jobs for us, our country should stop using dogs and turn to the new method because they would not need to be trained.
3) Sometimes big dogs off-leash scare me because they can be unpredictable. My aunt has a huge bull mastiff that is tall enough to reach my waist, and I was terrified of it when I was younger because it is crazy and gigantic. They always keep it shut in the bedroom whenever they have guests because although it is trained, it still is unpredictable.
4) If I had a dog that was trained to attack anyone who I did not welcome, my family would give it away so that it could be retrained. Unpredictable, trained attack dogs can really hurt a person, and having one around in my everyday life would not be a good idea.
1. I agree with Bradford's statement. Dogs are a great help and resource to insure the safety of US soldiers. However, when trained to kill a human being, there is no way to ensure the dog would kill the correct person and could be incredibly dangerous if a mistake happens. Although I agree that dogs can and should be used for protection purposes for US soldiers, there are many safety risks to having a dog trained to kill a human being.
ReplyDelete2. Both dogs and technology are used in the military, but both for different reasons. Depending on the situation, a dog can track down and smell the scent of someone while something like a machine or drone could not. Machines, on the other hand, can detect things that dogs can't. They are both important to have because they're abilities are utlizied and help ensure the safety of others. Ideally, dogs would not need to be used since they are living things as well, and can't agree or disagree to what they are assigned to do. However, technology is not that advanced yet, and the military still needs dogs.
3. Many big dogs are friendly and would not hurt you, but there is no way of knowing if you are a stranger walking by. Hypothetically, big dogs can deffinitly harm people and potentially kill them. Although training dogs usually works, dogs are still living things with minds of their own and unpredictable. I generally don't get scared because I assume that the owner knows their dog well enough to trust it won't attack anyone, but I can understand how the unpredictablity of what they might do it scary.
4. If I had a trained dog that could attack people I would probably have to train it to not do so or give it away. Although dogs are smart, they don't have morals like humans do and I wouldn't know who they would attack. How would the dog tell apart a stranger from a unwelcomed person? A dog would not be able to assess the situation and judge what the best reaction and outcome would be.
1) I agree with Bradford that there are many things a military dog can be used for in the military but, assassination is not one of them. Dogs can be used to locate bombs, and other dangerous items or contraband, track enemy soldiers and help ensure the safety of human soldiers. However, it is unsafe and inhumane to train dogs to murder someone. While dog’s special skills make them much better at locating dangerous substances or tracking as compared to humans, there is no reason they should be trained to murder someone. A soldier can eliminate an enemy soldier much more effectively with the use of firearms or other tools. Also, a dog trained to kill on command could pose a major safety issue when they return from service and struggle to adapt to regular dog life. This is already hard for dogs as some show signs of PTSD after they retire (The Guardian).
ReplyDelete2) I strongly believe that military dogs should be used in armed forces. Military dogs have a wide range of skills that could never be achieved by technology making dogs an essential part of specific operations. What I disagree with is trying to overuse dogs in situations where technology could do just as well or better. For example, I fully support using dogs to sniff out bombs and find traps on the battlefield, but why have dogs chase someone down and brutally murder when a soldier could simply use a gun. In this situation, a gun eliminates the danger quickly and effectively, whereas using a dog to do this is messy and traumatic for both the dog and their target. Yes, dogs should be used in the military, but only for jobs that they specifically can do better than technology.
3) Off-leash dogs of any size used to scare me, but not anymore. Even a small growling poodle always made me nervous, but since I got a dog that has changed. Now I have an English Lab named Bear who is a strong dog. I have learned from Bear what you can and cannot do with big dogs. I am now confident around dogs big or small. Now, I look back and laugh when I see my neighbors King Charles Spaniel who used to make me nervous when it growled.
4) Having to care for an aggressive would be very difficult. My dog Bear can be very scary until he confirms that you are a friend (and then he is nice), but during the period of being defensive it is fully my responsibility to control him. I am always responsible for his behavior so I must make sure that he doesn’t do anything I wouldn’t want to experience myself. If I had a dog that attempted to maul a person, (a dangerous person or not) I would be socially responsible for my dog’s actions. Since I would have to be sure that my dog didn’t hurt anyone, it would impact my ability to bring him or her into public places. If your child swears at a teacher, you as the parent are also responsible, and if your dog attacks someone, you are responsible.
1) I think the idea of military dogs being trained to take down a person seems perfectly fine, if it is for good causes. I completely agree with Bradford, if they know how to take down enemies and save their countries lives, they should be put to use. The idea of simply protecting the nation seems good, and if these dogs can do it, they should definitely be put to use.
ReplyDelete2) Military dogs are certainly needed even with modern technology because it is always safe to have a second line. Obviously at this time period, we as a society have not mastered the use of all technology. If the technology used in war and battle, malfunction or spaz out, these military dogs will be trained to get whatever job done. The military dogs can also detect a lot of things that robots and AI’s can’t.
3) If I see a big dog without a leash as I am strolling down the street, I don’t usually get scared. If it is a dog with a normal person just walking, I don’t feel scared because it means the dog dangerous. But if it is a dog with and officer, I tend to get a little scared simply because I know that dog has had training in how to hurt a person with bad intentions. Even though the dog doesn’t have anything to do with me, I still get scared because I know what it is capable of doing if it wanted to.
4) If I had a dog that was trained to attack people I do not like, I would simply use it to hurt or terrify people I don’t like. If I do not like a person a little, I could use my dog as a warning. If I hated someone and they weren’t treating me well, I could tell my dog to attack them. If there were any complications with the police, I could just say that my dog wasn’t trained, and it was only because he/she was big and untrained.
1.) For one, I am glad that no military personnel were killed on the raid. Bradford's claim on whether it is immoral to kill a dog because it cannot consent can be cross-examined with the question if it is moral to let Baghdadi live (even if just for a little longer) or put a soldier in danger because military dogs can’t consent to do the things they were trained to do. It is the US military's job to carry out orders from the Secretary of Defense/President
ReplyDelete(Commander-in-Chief) with swiftness,discreteness, and ensuring that minimal resources and personnel are used, even if it infringes on moral grounds. Also to acknowledge Nicole’s statement that the dog might kill the wrong person we should recognize that our military is the best, most well-funded, and high-tech military in the world. The military acknowledges that plans can change but they are very intricate in their raids and plan them for months or even years. It is not logical to suggest they would put their faith in a dog if they believed that dog was a volatile and unpredictable asset. The dog was not just any dog, he was highly trained, intelligent and well versed in the situation he was about to enter.
2.) It is not only important to have defenses that are low-tech or even attack dogs in a hostile situation, it is imperative to carry out important missions. Much of the fancy tech we have will go dark in a wartime scenario. That is not to say we shouldn't have them, they provide the threat that we can out-gun any other country on Earth. However, wars are not won in incredible battles or won by using overwhelming weapons, they are won in small hard fought street corners. They are won in buildings and small fortified positions. To win those you need dogs and low-tech equipment because they are reliable and allow people to make quick decisions based on the situation on hand. Canines are an amazing asset in our military because they are very reliable and mission-oriented.I agree with Bradford that the military made a deliberate choice to use canines.
3.) Big dogs off leash usually don’t scare me. If the dog is calm I know I have nothing to worry about. However, if the dog seems aggressive I make sure that I don’t look scared or worried because the dog would think I look vulnerable if I looked scared and it would chase me. First and foremost I would try not to aggravate the dog.
4.) If my dog was trained to attack anyone I did not welcome I would attempt to train it. However, I would make sure that it was trained to attack burglars or thieves if they infiltrate my home.
1) I believe that although military dogs seem to be a huge asset to militaries, it would inhumane for them to die. Although they are out in the line of combat, there is no way that they are able to choose whether they want to or not. They are trained to sniff out bombs, landmines, and snipers. I agree with Jemma, dogs cannot understand what people say and although they are trained to understand orders, that does not mean they won't attack the wrong person.
ReplyDelete2) They are necessary to military use because they can do much more than current technology. While all the drones and machines being added into our military seems efficient, dogs have been used for a longer amount of time. We understand what they can and can’t do. Dogs have abilities that no drone could do and the military would never have used them if they hadn’t been key.
3) I’m normally not scared by big-dogs of their leash. I can only hope that if they weren’t trained well and were dangerous, that their owners would have gone somewhere else. I myself do not have a dog but my grandparents, my great aunt and uncle, all live in Ireland. They have a (what used to be) hunting dog named Shiloh, and I’ve never been scared of him. He never hurt anyone and I’m used to him going crazy when we walk around the woods because he sees a squirrel and a rabbit.
4) If my dog tried to attack anyone who I had not welcomed, I would try to retain him. I wouldn’t want my dog to be attacking people and get in the habit of doing so. I agree with others that I would probably retrain my dog; I wouldn’t want it putting it’s and other’s lives in danger.
1. How do you feel about military dogs being trained to take down or even kill someone?
ReplyDeleteI think that it’s completely fine for dogs to fights enemies to keep people in the military alive, but I believe this to a certain extent. If dogs are simply chasing opponents or attacking when needed to then it is okay for them to help out with the military’s job. As Bradford mentioned, I think the extent is if humans upgrade to training these dogs to directly kill other people. This is because, for one, it is usually up to the troops to do the killing and second of all, these actions are like sending dogs into a death trap were humans obviously have more effective weapons agest a dog.
2. Are military dogs necessary in the military with all the new technology available to the U.S?
Technology and dogs are two completely different ways of defense. Technology has certain benefits in battle such as communication and weapons. Dogs can be used for weapons but in a different way. Dogs are human-like weapons, with brains, loyalty, and sacrifice towards their team.
3. Do big dogs off-leash scare you and why?
When I was younger I used to be terrified of dogs, big or small. As I grew up the fear started to fade, and now I like dogs. I’ve been chased by dogs off-leash multiple times and all sizes used to scare me. Now that I like dogs, I don’t mind being chased by the ones that are playful, but if they are mad and not trained then I would be scared.
4. What would you do if your dog had been trained to attack anyone who you did not welcome (If you do not have one... IMAGINE)?
There are such things as guard dogs that do attack unwelcomed guess, so I would be okay with a dog like that. If a dog is trained to do something like guarding, then it usually listens to it’s given commands. If a dog is just vicious then I would probably get is trained or put down.