Le concept de dangerosité renvoie à l’éventualité incertaine d’une menace, en impliquant la potentielle matérialisation d’un danger pouvant s’exprimer selon de multiples modalités, dont le dénominateur commun s’articule autour d’une dimension de violence. Décomposer la dangerosité en ses principaux déterminants était un exercice préalable à une tentative de compréhension d’une dangerosité appliquée au milieu militaire. Ses particularités d’expression tiennent à la dimension de contraintes que le milieu militaire implique, mais également à ses spécificités, organisées autour de deux coordonnées essentielles, celle tenant à la question des armes, dont la disponibilité apparaît au fondement de l’exercice de la fonction de militaire, et celle liée à la question du groupe au sein duquel évolue le sujet, dont les interrelations modulent et parfois conditionnent l’émergence d’une dangerosité potentielle.

This work consists in a study of the links between the concept of dangerousness and military environment so as to clarify predominant factors, which have an influence on the expression of a potential dangerousness in a hierarchical and well-organized setting.

The concept of dangerousness refers to the uncertain eventuality of a threat, by implying potential realization of a danger, which can express himself according to multiple modalities, the common denominator of which articulates around a dimension of violence. The explicitation of the diverse notions, which are frequently associated with it in a partial semantic stepping, was a preliminary exercise necessary for the study of this complex phenomenon, by distinguishing what is of the register of the subject, its environment and the present situation. From these preliminary data, our study of the dangerousness was limited to that of a dangerousness applied to a given environment, the military environment, going from theoretical general points to a more restricted expression of the dangerousness. This transition finds its relevance in the absence of specificity a priori of the military population in comparison with the general population, where only the function here comes to particularize the subject. Peculiarities of expression of the dangerousness due to the dimension of constraints that the military environment implies, but also because of specificities organized around two essential coordinates, that liking the question of the weapons the availability of which appears to the foundation of the exercise of the function of serviceman and that bound to the question of the group within, which evolves the subject the interrelations of which modulate and sometimes condition the emergence of a potential dangerousness. Thus was described a particular dangerous collective phenomenon, the panic, whose emergence can deeply disorganize the group by representing a serious danger for its timelessness. The importance of the figure of the chief was emphasized by creating the unity of the group and giving sense to action; his lapse especially during time of war can be the source of important failures in the collective working leading to severe damages.

Dangerousness seems to be connected with army for intrinsic reasons, as the use of weapons, which is correlative to its missions and the interrelations between a subject and a group whose disorganization can induce grave consequences. Military constraints due to its strict rules and discipline can participate to an appearance of dangerousness in particular during operational situations, whereas training and preparation enable to reduce the dangerousness, which is involved in these extreme conditions.