in the airforce...

I don't understand what accusation he's afraid of. Is he afraid of being accused of committing a war crime?

Desertion is quitting the military without leave.

"Dereliction of duty" perhaps?

For not killing when he was supposed to do so.

i put "disobeying orders"

vinny -he's not hitting the targets on purpose
the dictionary makes it sound like it might be possible to use "desertion"

Insubordination?

desertion refers to actually running away from the service.

I think what you need is "dereliction of duty"

If the pilot leaves the airbase in the middle of the night, removes his uniform, and goes into hiding at his brother's house, that is desertion. He has deserted the Air Force.

If the pilot refuses an order, such as refusing to drop the bombs when specifically told to, that is insubordination. If the pilot's superior office said "drop the bombs on the city" and the pilot said "I refuse to do that," the pilot would be guilty of insubordination. Treating a superior officer disrespectfully could also be considered insubordination.

The US Uniform Code of Military Justice says
> (3) Dereliction in the performance of duties.
>(a) That the accused had certain duties;
>(b) That the accused knew or reasonably should have known of the duties; and
>(c) That the accused was (willfully) (through neglect or culpable inefficiency) derelict in the performance of those duties.

An easy example is the guard who falls asleep while on duty. For the pilot, he or she knows that his/her duties include dropping bombs on military targets. The pilot deliberately does not perform those duties, but rather drops the bombs elsewhere. That is dereliction of duty.

In the real world, the pilot would probably be accused of both insubordination and dereliction of duty.

if a pilote dropped his bombs purposefully just left of his targets, might he say "I was afraid of being accused of desertion." or what exactly would be the word here?
In the real world, the pilot would probably be accused of both insubordination and dereliction of duty.

In my understanding in wartime this is actually a way more common occurence than it may seem at first sight. So I think the person would just get the latter.
It's not like he flew off and dropped them over a field or something. He well dropped it approximately where he was supposed to, over a town, say, just he makes sure not to hit houses but the streets instead (that is the example i am writing on) so it can seem like he just missed the target.

Edited by: mathilda

I think you have too high an opinion of the accuracy of bombs and bombers, mathilda. (Leaving aside smart bombs, which would themselves require a different kind of scenario.)

Nutrax, if I'm reading your quotation right, then the "(willfully) (through neglect or culpable inefficiency)" in (c) refer to two possible charges. If "willfully" applies, I imagine the defendant would be subject to a more serious charge (willful dereliction of duty?) than if only "neglect or culpable inefficiency" applied. They can't both apply to the same case. The first would apply to mathilda's hypothetical.

And you don't have to sneak away to desert. If you are absent with leave, but don't return timely, you are absent without leave. If you are AWOL long enough, you become a deserter. I don't know the limit.

One site I read quickly while trying to find the UCMJ said that "ineptitude" is a defense against a charge of dereliction of duty. If that pilot could show that he had never been properly trained on how to use the bomb sight (World War II) or GPS and computer (these days), then the pilot could claim he was not derelict in his duties, just incompetent. In other words, his inefficiency was not willful. If he did not turn on the GPS before a mission, that could be "culpable inefficiency." There is no excuse for being that inefficient.

On the other hand, if it can be shown that the pilot deliberately and willfully entered the coordinates for the town dump instead of the munitions factory, then he doesn't have much defense.

The guard who falls asleep at his post because he was ordered to work 36 consecutive hours has not met the "willfully" test. The guy who was up all night drinking with his buddies does--he should have known that an all night binge increases your chances of falling asleep at the wrong time. The guy who was too lazy to oil the widget machine is guilty of willful neglect.

Oh, here, try this (Manual for Courts Martial, 2005)
>(c) Derelict. A person is derelict in the performance of duties when that person willfully or negligently fails to perform that person’s duties or when that person performs them in a culpably inefficient manner . "Willfully” means intentionally . It refers to the doing of an act knowingly and purposely, specifically intending the natural and probable consequences of the act. “Negligently” means an act or omission of a person who is under a duty to use due care which exhibits a lack of that degree of care which a reasonably prudent person would have exercised under the same or similar circumstances. “Culpable inefficiency” is inefficiency for which there is no reasonable or just excuse.
>(d) Ineptitude. A person is not derelict in the performance of duties if the failure to perform those duties is caused by ineptitude rather than by willfulness, negligence, or culpable inefficiency, and may not be charged under this article, or otherwise punished. For example, a recruit who has tried earnestly during rifle training and throughout record firing is not derelict in the performance of duties if the recruit fails to qualify with the weapon.

Edited to be meticulous. It is, of course, CourtS Martial in this case

Edited again because the stupid asterisks didn't work to bold the S
Edited one more time because I found a more up-to-date Courts Martial manual

Edited by: nutraxfornerves