QA：如果接到命令，美国军队会朝自己的国民开枪吗?
Would the American military fire on its own citizens if ordered to?
译文简介
网友：当然会！有一种幻想认为，美国军方在某种程度上不会被用作镇压的工具，你们是好莱坞电影看太多了，读了太多汤姆克兰西(Tom Clancy)的作品，还是浏览了太多右翼博客？你们了解真实的美国历史吗？
正文翻译
图
评论翻译
很赞 ( 3 )
收藏
Of course. There is a fantasy that the American military is somehow immune to being used as a tool of repression. Comes from watching too much Hollywood, reading too much Tom Clancy, perusing too many right wing blogs, and not checking out enough actual US history.
News flash: the US military has seldom hesitated to shoot or otherwise use violence against US civilians when ordered to do so. Last major instance I know of was the Kent State Massacre
, gunning down protesting students in an Ohio university campus.
Kent State wasn’t an exception. Until FDR pushed through the National Labor Relations Act, the US Army and the National Guard of various states were frequently used in major labor disputes to back the bosses and as a blunt instrument for strike breaking and unx busting.
From the Reconstruction period through the Great Depression, the military was deployed regularly and in significant numbers. Because military personnel were mostly used on the side of the industrialists, many citizens saw them as tools of oppression. - A History of the Labor Movement & the Military
E.g.; the Ludlow Massacre
, when the Colorado National Guard opened fire on an encampment of striking coal miners, killing over two dozen people, including women and children, before destroying the encampment
The Pullman Strike
, when 12,000 men from the US Army were sent in to break the strike. 30 strikers were shot dead in the process, and about another 60 injured.
Or US cavalry, supported by tanks and led by George Patton under orders from Douglas MacArthur (whose aide at the time was Dwight Eisenhower - all in all, an inglorious day in the careers of some of America’s greatest soldiers), charging at the protesters of the Bonus Army
in Washington, DC, and burning out their shacks. 50+ protesters and their family members were injured, some of whom later died.
Or the Lawrence Textile Strike in Massachusetts, 1912
当然会！
有一种幻想认为，美国军方在某种程度上不会被用作镇压的工具，你们是好莱坞电影看太多了，读了太多汤姆克兰西(Tom Clancy)的作品，还是浏览了太多右翼博客？你们了解真实的美国历史吗？
美国士兵如果接到命令，对美国平民开枪或以其他方式使用暴力，一点儿都不会犹豫。
我所知道的最后一个重大事件是肯特州立大学大屠杀（ Kent State Massacre），在俄亥俄州的一所大学校园里，抗议的学生被枪杀。
肯特州立大学不是唯一的例外，在罗斯福推动通过国家劳资关系法案之前，美国陆军和各州国民警卫队经常在各种重大劳资冲突中被用来支持资方，用作镇压民众罢工的暴力工具。
从重建时期到大萧条时期，军队定期部署，数量可观。由于军事人员大多站在资方一边，许多公民把他们视为压迫的工具。
——劳工运动和军队的历史（《 A History of the Labor Movement & the Military》）。
例如，在勒德洛屠杀（Ludlow Massacre）中，科罗拉多州国民警卫队向罢工煤矿工人的营地开火，造成包括妇女和儿童在内的20多人死亡，并随后摧毁了营地。
铂尔曼罢工（Pullman Strike）中，12,000名美国士兵被派去镇压罢工，最终导致了30名工人在事件中被杀，另有60人受伤。
1932年，美国骑兵团在坦克的掩护下，由道格拉斯·麦克阿瑟（Douglas MacArthur ，当时艾森豪威尔还是他的助手）下令，乔治·巴顿（George Patton）指挥，进攻并镇压那些当时只是要求国家予以一点生活补贴的一战老兵，军队纵火焚烧了他们的棚屋，50多名抗议者和他们的家人在冲突中受伤，其中一些人后来死亡。
或者，在道格拉斯·麦克阿瑟(当时麦克阿瑟的助手是德怀特·艾森豪威尔——总而言之，对于一些美国最伟大的军人来说，这是一个不光彩的日子) 的命令下，由乔治·巴顿率领的美国骑兵，在坦克的支持下，向军役补贴军团（译注：1932年夏1.2万名参加过第一次世界大战的老兵聚集华盛顿对政府要求国家予以生活补贴，被称为 Bonus Army）的抗议者发起进攻，并烧毁了他们的棚屋，50多名抗议者及其家人受伤，其中一些人后来死亡。
或者1912年的马萨诸塞州劳伦斯纺织工人罢工（Lawrence Textile Strike）。
An argument could be made that the US military today, an all volunteer professional force, would be even more likely to obey orders to fire on civilians than the mass draftee military of yesteryear. An all volunteer professional military is more insulated from civilians; its membership is self sexting and less of a representative cross section of the country by class, education, and political leaning; and its ranks contain a higher percentage of careerists who are more invested in and have greater institutional loyalty to the military than a draftee counting the days until he can return to civilian life.
You’d think people who buy into this fantasy that the US military won’t light up US civilians hadn’t ever been or known young men, and so can’t imagine how easy it is to manipulate them, or what temptations and fantasies go through the minds of 18 year olds with the power of life and death a trigger squeeze away. Between group think, peer pressure, the ease of indoctrinating young people with little prior life experience at an age when their minds are still malleable, and the government’s ability to come up with justifications for firing on civilians, those who refuse to fire will be the rare exceptions to the rule.
Personal experience anecdote: in the 1990s I was in the Virginia Army National Guard, and we were supposed to get deployed to Virginia Beach or Newark to back up the local police over some civil disturbances. The officers and NCOs were all serious and mature about it, as you’d expect. But among the majority of the rest of us, E-4s and lower, mostly 18 to 22 year olds? We were eagerly looking forward to, and openly discussing, the opportunity to shoot up looters and rioters. Looking back at it, it wasn’t malice, and there was nothing aberrant about us: we were just an average group of young men. It’s just that that’s how groups of young men frequently think when given weapons and an opportunity to use them.
And the National Guard is at the most civilian-y end of the US military establishment. Yet, a significant portion of us were looking forward to the opportunity to shoot other civilians.
As it turned out, we didn’t end up getting deployed after all. Many of us were disappointed.
So yes. I would say that if the US military is ordered to fire on US civilians, there will be no shortage of trigger pullers.
我没有一一例举出所有的事件，但尤其是在20世纪60年代，国民警卫队被频频召集，派遣去各个州处理骚乱。
有一种观点认为，今天的美国军队，一支全由志愿者组成的专业部队，会比过去大规模征兵所构成的部队更有可能服从向平民开枪的命令。
一支完全由志愿者组成的专业军队，与平民的隔绝程度更高：它的成员是自我选择的，而不是由阶级、教育和政治倾向来代表整个国家，而且军队中有更高比例的野心家，他们信奉武力，对军队也更忠诚，而不是过去数着日子等着回归平民生活的小老百姓。
而且那些幻想美国士兵不会对平民开枪的人，太不了解年轻人，你无法想象他们是有多么容易被人操控，一个18岁的孩子在生死关头，会经历怎样的诱惑和幻想，集体的思维、周边士兵和长官的压力，在他们还缺乏对生命的认知，以及思想还可塑的年纪，政府总是能找到各种各样让他们开枪的理由，那些拒绝开火的人只会是罕见例外。
说说我自己的亲身经历吧，上世纪90年代，我还在弗吉尼亚陆军国民警卫队服役，我们本应被部署到弗吉尼亚海滩或纽瓦克，以支持当地警方镇压一些国内骚乱。
正如你所预料的那样，军官们和士官们显然对此轻车熟路，但我们这些E-4及以下兵阶，主要是18至22岁的年轻士兵呢？
我们同样热切地期待，并公开讨论，怎样可以逮到机会射杀那些抢劫犯和暴乱者。
回过头来看，这并不是恶意，我们也不是荒谬不可理喻，我们只是一群普通的年轻人——当一群年轻人得到武器并可以合法开枪，他们都会这样想。
国民警卫队是美国军队中最平民化的部门，然而，我们中有很大一部分人期待着有机会向其他平民开枪，结果，我们最终并没有被部署，当时我周围很多士兵反而都感到失望。
是的，我想说的是，如果美国军方被命令向平民开火，就不会缺少扣动扳机的人。
or other legal prohibition such as having “sworn an oath to defend the Constitution”. I think most people don’t understand the Posse Comitatus, and don’t realize how big an exception is carved into it, or they might need more familiarization with the US Constitution because it is precisely through constitutional processes that the US military could be used on US soil in cases of domestic unrest at the President’s discretion. So the “oath” to the US Constitution, rather than being one that gets members of the military out of being used on US soil against US civilians, is instead an oath that obligates them to be so used, and utilize violence on US soil against US civilians if called upon to do so.
For purposes of the scenario presented by this question, the Posse Comitatus is meaningless, as it contains a huuuuuuuuge carve out exception that enables any US President to bypass it if he deems it necessary. I refer to the President’s inherent constitutional powers to put down insurrections and rebellions - something Congress went and spelled out in the 1807 Insurrection Act.
Under the Insurrection Act, the President can, whenever he deems it necessary, call out the military to put down rebellions, insurrections, and lawlessness, whenever he judges that the local authorities are unable (or unwilling) to tackle the unrest.
Amendments to the Insurrection Act in 2007 gave the President even more powers to use it at his discretion. He doesn’t need Congress’s permission - he just has to notify it, and keep it upxed every 14 days.
The Insurrection Act is a law that was duly enacted by Congress, signed by the President, has been the law of the land for over 200 years, and throughout all that time has not been struck down by the United States Supreme Court. Rather, it and related statutes giving the President the power to use the US military on US soil against US civilians have been deemed constitutional by the federal judiciary. So using the US military against US civilians is, literally, “constitutional”. Indeed, given the longevity of the Insurrection Act and its predecessors, such utilization of the military is as “constitutional” as it gets. So it would be extraordinarily ironic for members of the US military to claim that their oath to the US Constitution would trump orders to fire on US civilians, considering that it is that very Constitution that demands that they open fire when ordered. E.g.; The Constitution of the United States of America - Power to Suppress Rebellions and Insurrections
+ Annotation 42 - Article I - FindLaw
+ War and Treaty Powers of the U. S. Constitution
+ War Powers Under the Constitution of the United States
+ Usurpation of Power
+ The War Power
It should be noted that the country’s first President and Commander in Chief, George Washington, rode out at the head of the US Army to suppress tax protests and insurrection by US civilians on US soil during the Whiskey Rebellion.
So in light of all that, refusal to deploy on US soil against US civilians and open fire on same when so ordered by the US President would actually be a violation of the oath by military members to defend the US Constitution. At least the actual, real life, US Constitution, not whatever imaginary Constitution such military personnel might have thought they were swearing an oath to. Just because something is uncomfortable, morally questionable, or even flat out wrong, doesn’t automatically make it “unconstitutional”.
Members of the military ordered to fire on US civilians won’t have the crutch that it’s illegal: both the US Constitution and US statutory law allow the President to utilize the military on US soil if he thinks it is warranted. That a President doesn’t isn’t because it would be illegal/ unconstitutional, but because it would be highly controversial and unpopular, amounting to political suicide.
编辑：似乎有很多人反对美国军队在接到命令后不会向平民开火的说法，其中一个反复出现的论点是《警卫团法案》（Posse Comitatus Act）或其他法律禁令，如 "宣誓捍卫宪法"，我想大多数人都不了解警卫团法案，没有意识到其中有多大的例外，或者他们可能需要更熟悉美国宪法，因为正是通过宪法程序，在国内动乱的情况下，总统可以调动美国军队并在美国本土使用，因此，对美国宪法的 "宣誓"，与其说是让军队成员免于在美国本土对美国平民使用暴力，不如说是让他们有义务被使用，并在接到命令时合法的在美国本土对美国平民使用暴力。
就这个问题所提出的情况而言，警卫团法案是没有意义的，因为它包含一个巨大的例外，使任何美国总统在他认为必要时都能绕过它。
我指的是总统固有的平定叛乱和反叛的宪法权力——这是国会1807年《叛乱法》中明确规定的。
根据《叛乱法》，只要总统认为有必要，只要他判断地方当局不能（或不愿意）解决动乱，就可以征召军队来镇压叛乱、暴动和违法行为。
2007年的叛乱法修正案赋予了总统更多的自由裁量权力，总统不需要国会的许可，他只需要通知国会，每14天汇报一次情况。
叛乱法是一部由国会正式颁布、由总统签署的法律，200多年来一直是国家的法律，而且在这期间一直没有被美国最高法院推翻，相反，联邦司法机构认为，该法案和相关法规赋予总统在美国领土上使用美国军队对付美国平民的权力是符合宪法的，因此，使用美国军队对付美国平民，严格意义上来说，是“符合宪法的”。
事实上，鉴于叛乱法及其前身的长期存在，这种对军队的利用是 "符合宪法 "的，因此，如果美国军队的成员声称他们对美国宪法的宣誓胜过向美国平民开火的命令，那是非常讽刺的，因为正是这部宪法要求他们在接到命令时开火。
《美利坚合众国宪法》：
镇压叛乱和暴乱的权力
+ 注释42 - 第一条
+ 美国宪法的战争和条约权力
+ 美国宪法规定的战争权力
+ 篡夺权力
+ 战争权力
值得注意的是，美国第一任总统和总司令乔治华盛顿在“威士忌暴乱”期间，曾率领美国骑兵队镇压美国本土的税收抗议和美国平民的叛乱，有鉴于此，当美国总统下令时，拒绝在美国本土对美国平民进行部署和开火，实际上是违反了军人捍卫美国宪法的誓言，至少是实际的、现实生活中的美国宪法，而不是这些军事人员可能认为他们在宣誓的什么假想的宪法，仅仅因为一些事情是令人不舒服的，道德上有问题的，甚至是完全错误的，并不代表其 "违宪"。
Yes. As part of the Hurricane Katrina emergencies, our unit was in the process of being mobilized to go into New Orleans. Our brief wasn’t to deliver humanitarian aid, treat illness or injury, or pass out MREs. The FRAGO we received was that we were going to go looking for a fight with anyone that wanted to shoot at people doing those things and bring the pain—that is, kill or capture anyone threatening lives or property. For reasons above my rank and pay grade, they decided to send the 82nd Airborne’s Ready Brigade instead even though we were in Louisiana at the time.
The Posse Comitatus Act isn’t a magic shield that protects you from Active US Military personnel if you decide to be a shithead. Even before 9/11 there have been legal clauses and exceptions in federal law permitting the use of US military resources in domestic affairs. Eisenhower used them to deploy Active Army troops to protect school desegregation.
Being a US citizen means just that—you live here, and you’re entitled to certain protections and participatory rights. I was never taught that the right to do anything you feel like was among those. If you steal, attack others, or damage property during a State of Emergency, you will get your head kicked in and arrested, and if you push the Rules of Engagement, you will be shot.
While I understand the purpose of the Posse Comitatus Act as an impediment to bringing military force into political conflicts over domestic affairs and believe it is a very sensible law, you use the tools you have to use to get the job done.
If you have a city tearing itself apart and your police force of cowardly, corrupt shitheels goes to pieces, sometimes you need to bring out the sledgehammer and squash that cockroach.
会。
会应对卡特里娜飓风造成的紧急情况，我们的部队在被动员进入新奥尔良，我们的任务不是提供人道主义援助，治疗伤患，或分发物资，我们收到的命令是，我们将去寻找一场战斗，向任何引起骚乱的人开枪，也就是说，杀死或抓获任何威胁生命或财产的人，由于超出我军衔和薪资等级的原因，他们决定派遣第82空降旅代替，尽管当时我们就在路易斯安那州。
如果你决定做一个混蛋，警卫团法案并不是什么一个魔法盾牌，可以保护你不受美国现役军人的伤害。甚至在9/11之前，联邦法律中就有允许在国内事务中使用美国军事资源的法律条款和例外情况，艾森豪威尔就曾这些条款部署现役军队，以保护学校废除种族隔离。
成为美国公民仅仅意味着：你生活在这里，你有权享受某些保护和参与权，但我从来没有被教导过，做任何你想做的事的权利也在其中——如果你在紧急状态期间偷窃、攻击他人或破坏财产，你会被踢爆脑袋并被逮捕，如果你违反交战规则，你会被枪毙。
虽然我理解警卫团法案的目的是阻止军队介入国内事务的政治冲突，并且相信这是一项非常明智的法律，但是你不得不使用你必须使用的工具来完成这项工作。
如果一个城市四分五裂，而你的警察队伍又懦弱、腐败，有时候你就必须拿出大锤，砸死那些蟑螂。
They didn’t seem to have any problem with it during the Civil War.
They will unquestionably fire on American citizens if said citizens are firing on, or even threatening, them with firearms. If you shoot at American soldiers, you’re dog meat.
在内战期间，他们似乎对此没有任何异议。
如果有美国公民持枪向他们开火，甚至威胁他们，他们毫无疑问会开火，如果你向美国士兵开枪，你就是一堆烂肉。
They have in the past. Witness the actions of Dugout Doug MacArthur when he lead the 12th Infantry Regiment and the 3rd Cavalry Regiment (Including George Patton) against the Bonus Marchers in July of 1932.
Would they do the same today? Quite likely.
过去有过这种情况。
参见麦克阿瑟1932年7月命第12步兵团和第3骑兵团（包括乔治巴顿）对津贴游行者的行动。
他们今天也会这样做吗？
很有可能。
It totally depends on circumstances. If a leader out-of-nowhere ordered subordinates to fire on docile civilians, modern American military would not fire. As others have argued, every person in the military knows they are REQUIRED to disobey an unlawful order. Under normal circumstances a soldier will not fire on docile civilians.
Now go the other way. Say, within a week of 9/11 attacks. Every LEO and military member is totally on their toes. Armed NG soldiers are at civilian airports. A scuffle breaks out in a boarding area and somebody screams and points at another civilian, “ He’s got a bomb!” The soldier would likely fire on that civilian.
We can play any number of scenarios where a soldier would or would not follow an order to fire on civilians. We can make them full of racial overtones, etc. All are games of “jus’ seeposin’”.
The fact is that circumstances matter far more than training and orders and laws. A soldier who perceives an immanent deadly threat will likely shoot. A soldier who does not is unlikely to fire. Hell, it’s a fairly well documented phenomenon that even in a battle full of righteous shooting many soldiers won’t shoot to kill. Training has improved that proportionality and increased lethality but it is not 100%. American soldiers are not automata.
这完全取决于是什么样的情况。
如果一个不知道从哪里来的领导人命令下属向温顺的平民开火，现代美国军队就不会开火，正如其他人所争论的那样，军队中的每个人都知道他们必须违抗非法的命令，正常情况下，士兵不会向温顺的平民开火。
现在换个角度看，比方说，在9/11袭击的一周内，军人完全处于紧张状态，武装的国民警卫队士兵进驻民用机场，在登机区爆发了一场混战，有人尖叫着指着另一个平民说："他有炸弹！" 士兵很可能会向那个平民开火。
我们可以演绎任何数量的场景，在这些场景中，士兵会或不会听从命令向平民开火，我们可以让其充满种族色彩，等等，事实是，具体的情况远比训练、命令和法律更重要，一个士兵如果察觉到即将发生的致命威胁，很可能会开枪，一个没有察觉的士兵则不太可能开枪。
该死的是，即使在一场充满正义感的战斗中，许多士兵也不会开枪杀人，这是一个相当有据可查的现象，训练改善了这种比例关系，提高了杀伤力，但不是100%，美国士兵不是自动人偶。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
The truth is given the right circumstances they almost assuredly would fire on civilians. What’s missing from the question and a lot of the more popular answers is what those circumstances are or how unlikely they are to come to pass. Most of the examples being given are from a bygone era and many are not good examples of the current military climate.
You’ll notice there’s almost no recent cases involving the US military firing on US citizens and even Kent State which was 45 years ago is a bad example since it was the national guard and not the “real” military. In the age of the 24 hour news cycle and virtually every person carrying a video camera it’s much harder for anyone to whitewash an “incident” between the military and the government.
Obviously if an angry mob was pursuing some level of violence against a deployed military unit the unit might respond with violence even if no order was given, but that’s simply the reality of the human condition. If you throw rocks at people with guns sometimes one of them will respond with deadly force no matter what orders were given.
The question implies some degree of controlled violence initiated by a military officer by ordering his men to fire based upon orders received from the chain of command. This is pretty unlikely to ever happen. It’s not what happened at Kent State and the US military putting down a strike or protest of some sort is not really that plausible anymore. Additionally the officers in the chain of command are VERY UNLIKELY to follow these orders. Times have changed and there’s a higher level of scrutiny and accountability on US military officers than pretty much at any time in the history of mankind.
Most of the incidents being presented in this thread are either ancient and not apropos to 2016 or else are being presented as the US military being used as a deliberate force of oppression when all of these incidents happened in a time of far less scrutiny, no video evidence and most were not the result of orders from the chain of command but in response to violence from the crowd. The students at Kent State were breaking the law and assaulting both police and the national guardsmen with rocks for several days before the “massacre”. It’s certainly a tragedy that anyone had to lose their life but my level of compassion for anyone participating in arson and throwing rocks at armed troops is minimal.
事实是，如果情况允许，他们几乎肯定会向平民开火。
这个问题和许多高赞答案都忽略了一点，那就是究竟是些什么样的情况，或者说这些情况发生的可能性有多小，大多数被举出的例子都来自过去的时代，许多例子都不符合当前军事环境。
你会注意到，最近几乎没有美国军队向美国公民开枪的案例，甚至45年前的“肯特州立大学大屠杀”也是一个不好的例子，因为那是国民警卫队，而不是“真正的”军队。
在24小时新闻不断的时代，几乎每个人都有摄像头，任何人都很难粉饰军方和政府造成的“事件”。
显然，如果一群愤怒的暴徒对部署中的军事单位进行某种程度的暴力袭击，即使没有下达命令，部队也可能以暴力回应，但这就是人类的现实状况，如果你拿着枪向人扔石头，有时候不管下达什么命令，他们中的一个都会以致命的暴力回应。
这个问题某种程度上指的是有控制的暴力行为，是军官根据指挥系统的命令命令其部下开火引起的，这种情况几乎不可能发生，在肯特州立大学发生的事情已经不再可能发生了，美国军方发动某种形式的袭击或抗议也不再那么可信了。
此外，指挥系统中的军官们不大可能遵守这些命令，时代已经变了，美国军官的审查和问责比历史上任何时候都要严格。
很多答主呈现的大多数事件要么是过去的事件的，要么是美国军方被用作蓄意的压迫力量，而所有这些事件发生的时候远没有那么详细，没有视频证据，而且大多数事件不是指挥系统下令的结果，而是对人群暴力的回应。
肯特州立大学的学生在”大屠杀”之前的几天里违反了法律，用石块攻击警察和国民警卫队，军队被迫开枪，这无疑是一个悲剧，但我对任何参与纵火和向武装部队投掷石块的人并不那么同情。
It’s happened briefly like when the Army was called in for the massive, multi-day riot in Detroit in 1967 (thousands of buildings burned by rioters, hundreds killed by rioters, armored vehicles in the city streets.)
Previous riots and labor strikes drew both regular Army resources and National Guard many times from the 1830’s forward (in New York City it was a monthly riot in the decades before the Civil War (see Bruce Chadwick’s new NYPD history) not to mention the enormous 1863 Draft Riots with thousands of buildings burned and 300+ dead.)
The Texas Army National Guard was sent in by the Governor and Texas Railroad Commission into the major Texas oilfields in the 1930’s to briefly seize control and reorganize them (lots of competitors tapping others’ oil) primarily to get oil prices there (West Texas Intermediate Crude oil price benchmark comes out of that) on a profitable basis which is odd indeed, see Robert Bryce’s book “Cronies.”
Firing on American Indian villages was always harder on most of the soldiers than generally recognized and usually by distant or local civilian orders rather than their commanders.
Of course the American Civil War 1860–1865, the Mormon War of 1856–7, battling Tories in 1775–1783 involved shooting at American civilians as well as armed units in active (defensive) combat. Protecting freed slaves from their angry neighbors and the KKK/night riders in the South often included some shooting from 1850’s Kansas-Missouri to 1960’s Civil Rights Movement and integration.
Firing on the Army veterans and families camped outside DC for the Bonus March during the Depression during the poorly conceived effort to disperse them, burning their shelters, came down from the President.
It’s not as uncommon as we think but very distasteful to the soldiers, the risk is who’s at the top of their chain of command, President for regular military units and Governors for state national guard units, both of which have often made ill-considered reactions to sudden situations.
这种情况曾短暂发生过，比如1967年底特律发生的一场持续多天的大规模骚乱(数千栋建筑物被暴徒烧毁，数百人被暴徒杀害，装甲车出现在城市街道上) ，军队被召集起来以镇压骚乱。
从19世纪30年代开始，暴乱和劳工罢工多次引来正规军和国民警卫队（纽约在内战前的几十年里，每月都有暴乱，见布鲁斯-查德威克的新纽约警察局史），更不用说1863年那场规模庞大的征兵骚乱，数千座建筑物被烧毁，300多人死亡）。
20世纪30年代，德克萨斯州州长和德克萨斯铁路委员会派遣德克萨斯陆军国民警卫队进入德克萨斯州的主要油田，以便短暂地控制和重组它们（很多竞争者在开采别人的石油），主要是为了在有利可图的基础上提高那里的石油价格 ( 西得克萨斯中质原油价格基准来自于此) ，这确实很奇怪，参见 Robert Bryce 的书《 Cronies 》。
向美国印第安人村庄开火对大多数士兵来说总是比一般人认为的更困难，而且命令通常来自远方或当地的平民而不是他们的指挥官。
当然，1860年至1865年的美国内战，1856年至1857年的摩门教战争，在1775年至1783年间与保守党交战，都涉及到向美国平民和武装部队开枪，军队进行了主动(防御性) 作战，从1850年的堪萨斯州-密苏里州到1960年的民权运动和一体化，为保护被解放的奴隶不受愤怒的邻居和南方的三K党/夜间骑手的伤害，也出现了一些开火的情况。
在大萧条时期，向驻扎在华盛顿特区外参加“酬恤金进军抗议”的退伍军人和家庭开火的计划很糟糕，为了驱散他们，烧毁了他们的庇护所，命令是总统直接下达的。
事实并不像我们想象的那样不常见，但对士兵来说非常讨厌，风险在于谁是他们指挥系统的最高层，对正规军来说是总统，对州国民警卫队来说是州长，这两个单位经常对突发情况作出考虑不周的反应。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处