Bara_no_Hime said:
Edit: I'm kinda amused by all the answers of "because they're well trained officers". A lack of emotion isn't good training - it's being a robot. Just ask the Borg.
Actually, good training is
supposed to make you act like a robot. A well trained infantryman shouldn't need to think about how to fire a rifle, a well trained NCO shouldn't need to carefully consider how to deal with an ambush etc. Training, when done properly, makes such responses as automatic as possible because in a mortal crisis you can't
trust yourself to be logical and rational otherwise. For example, while it might not seem rational, your best chance of surviving an ambush is to assault your way through it - that is, turn your entire element towards the enemy and go on the immediate offensive with all the firepower you can muster. From an individual perspective, that's a
remarkably stupid idea because it has them advancing towards even greater danger with every pace thus the personal survival response has to be overridden.
Thus, if considering the idea of a well trained group of military personnel, a lack of emotion
during a crisis for which they were trained is both desirable and
expected. After the crisis is done (or appears to be done), an emotional response would be expected as the combination of the physiological response to the crisis as well as the exact events of said crisis
ought to overwhelm anyone's emotional barriers.
I mean, if someone starts shooting at you and you have to shoot back and the events lead to wounds and death in close quarters around you and
you don't want to cry when you're done, then you've got a god like control over your emotions
or you have some sort of crippling mental illness.