> It is meant to be simple, understandable by ignorant lay people and kings alike. There is a reason this is the very first precept, and by dismissing it and condoning the use of violence I think you are making a grave mistake, ...

Again wrong understanding. The Four Noble Truths and the Noble Eightfold Path give you a framework for those who want to embrace Buddhism totally. As already pointed out that is not the objective of a warrior and hence total adherence to them is irrelevant. As regards the "Bodhisattva Captain" story you have misunderstood it. From the article;

“The Bodhisattva reflected thus: ‘If I do not kill him, he will commit a deed that will send him to Avici hell for many kalpas. If I kill him, I will fall into hell for only one hundred thousand years. I shall save him from immeasurable suffering.’”(Upayakauśalya Sutra, Tatz, 1994, pp. 51–53)

Moved not by anger or fear but by great compassion, he took up a knife and slew the would-be murderer. Because his act arose entirely from selfless love, free from hatred and self-interest, he incurred no karmic fault. Indeed, the sutra states he accumulated immeasurable merit, for he spared five hundred lives and prevented one soul from falling into the lowest hells.

“If, motivated by great compassion and skill in means, a Bodhisattva kills a person who is about to commit a great crime, the karmic consequence is not defilement but merit. The Bodhisattva takes on the suffering himself to spare the other being from far greater suffering.”(Upayakauśalya Sutra, ch. 17; Tatz, 1994, p. 52)

In the Buddha’s teaching, karma is determined not from the act itself but from the context of intention. Actions rooted in greed, hatred, or delusion perpetuate suffering; those born of compassion and wisdom plant seeds of liberation. Thus, it is the mind’s purity, not the hand’s movement, that determines the moral weight of a deed.

> Even if bandits should rip you apart limb by limb you should not have an ounce of anger or ill will towards them. How a soldier can perform his duties "egolessly" is another question, hate and dehumanization of the enemy is instilled into soldiers from the very beginning of their training...

You are mixing up various ideas and confusing yourself. Violence exists in nature, but it is inimical to society and mankind as a whole flourishing. Therefore it must be contained at a societal level. But an individual might forego all violence and be willing to sacrifice himself for his beliefs following Buddhist (or other philosophical) tenets. Others in society may not choose to do this since survival is the one constant drive in all living beings. We select some people and train them as warriors so that they can control/unleash/manage violence as needed by society. The key here is not to have them engage in "unbridled" violence but always have some guardrails borrowed from various philosophical schools. This is what training is all about viz. Overarching Goal/Egolessness/Discipline and Execution. This is why the emphasis on doing "one's duty"(i.e. Dharma) is central here viz. a monk/householder/trader/warrior all have different duties in society but may use common concepts and techniques from anywhere. In the case of a warrior since "egoless action" is so very difficult there are karmic consequences but that is something he knows and accepts. The "Bodhisattva captain" story also points to it and calls it "skillful means" i.e. using wisdom and deep compassion to choose the most helpful action in a difficult moment, even if that action breaks normal rules, to prevent greater harm.

> I never said they are trying to be, I pointed out the flaw in your comment that philosophically a nuclear sub sailor and a monk can not and should not be compared.

I said "i think of them as sharing a lot of the characteristics" which does not mean sharing "all characteristics". Everything has been explained in detail above.