- Joined
- Jun 23, 2014
- Messages
- 13,029
- Reaction score
- 6,995
- Location
- Near Atlanta Georgia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
You go ahead and take the shot and the reason is that by allowing them to get away you would be guilty of far more murders than one little girl, maybe dozens of girls. It is harsh but one must weight the results of the two choices and do what is best for the most people.My wife and I rented a fairly new movie over the weekend...
"eye in the sky" starring Helen Mirren & Aaron Paul
Even though i liked the movie, i wanted this thread to discuss the gist of the movie, not the movie itself
My wife and I talked about the implication for 45 minutes after the film was over, and we still werent seeing eye to eye as it is
Here is the basic synopsis of the film and the question i want to pose to the board
You have a drone targeting a building, wherein sits the # 2, 4, and 5 most wanted people on the continent of Africa for war crimes and terrorists acts committed against the US, England and other assorted countries. In the building are also two suicide bombers who are at this moment being fitted with suicide vests that will kill innocent men, women, and children of some unknown number at some unknown place in the very near future.
There is a problem though. Calculations of the blast mean that you will also kill an 11 year old girl who is selling bread for her family just feet away from the building where all of this is going on unbeknownst to her. Just a lovely little girl who has never harmed anyone....
If you wait, the terrorists and bombers get away.....
If you pull the trigger, you murder a little girl....
What say you.....do the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the ONE?
You go ahead and take the shot and the reason is that by allowing them to get away you would be guilty of far more murders than one little girl, maybe dozens of girls. It is harsh but one must weight the results of the two choices and do what is best for the most people.
My wife and I rented a fairly new movie over the weekend...
"eye in the sky" starring Helen Mirren & Aaron Paul
Even though i liked the movie, i wanted this thread to discuss the gist of the movie, not the movie itself
My wife and I talked about the implication for 45 minutes after the film was over, and we still werent seeing eye to eye as it is
Here is the basic synopsis of the film and the question i want to pose to the board
You have a drone targeting a building, wherein sits the # 2, 4, and 5 most wanted people on the continent of Africa for war crimes and terrorists acts committed against the US, England and other assorted countries. In the building are also two suicide bombers who are at this moment being fitted with suicide vests that will kill innocent men, women, and children of some unknown number at some unknown place in the very near future.
There is a problem though. Calculations of the blast mean that you will also kill an 11 year old girl who is selling bread for her family just feet away from the building where all of this is going on unbeknownst to her. Just a lovely little girl who has never harmed anyone....
If you wait, the terrorists and bombers get away.....
If you pull the trigger, you murder a little girl....
What say you.....do the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the ONE?
that was and is my position as well
but my wife reminded me of a line from the movie.....
" the terrorists have to kill numerous people to lose the pc war; we just have to kill one innocent, and it is lost"
how many retribution strikes because somehow we killed innocents along with our actual targets in these wars?
As a soldier one has to do what is best, never really cared about the PR wars, that is left those that manipulate the truth.that was and is my position as well
but my wife reminded me of a line from the movie.....
" the terrorists have to kill numerous people to lose the pc war; we just have to kill one innocent, and it is lost"
how many retribution strikes because somehow we killed innocents along with our actual targets in these wars?
My wife and I rented a fairly new movie over the weekend...
"eye in the sky" starring Helen Mirren & Aaron Paul
Even though i liked the movie, i wanted this thread to discuss the gist of the movie, not the movie itself
My wife and I talked about the implication for 45 minutes after the film was over, and we still werent seeing eye to eye as it is
Here is the basic synopsis of the film and the question i want to pose to the board
You have a drone targeting a building, wherein sits the # 2, 4, and 5 most wanted people on the continent of Africa for war crimes and terrorists acts committed against the US, England and other assorted countries. In the building are also two suicide bombers who are at this moment being fitted with suicide vests that will kill innocent men, women, and children of some unknown number at some unknown place in the very near future.
There is a problem though. Calculations of the blast mean that you will also kill an 11 year old girl who is selling bread for her family just feet away from the building where all of this is going on unbeknownst to her. Just a lovely little girl who has never harmed anyone....
If you wait, the terrorists and bombers get away.....
If you pull the trigger, you murder a little girl....
What say you.....do the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the ONE?
That is the Fat Man Paradox. It gained fame, because it turned out to depend on how the experiment was structured which of two contradictory solutions the majority chose.
well in the movie i can tell you there were military people and politicians
and most of the politicians didnt want to make the decision....they wanted to pass the buck to their superiors
the drama was whether or not the shot would be taken....and who would finally give the ok to proceed, or would they proceed at all?
it was fascinating look at the way today's wars are played out in rooms far from the action....
and it definitely made you think....gotta love that about a movie
My wife and I rented a fairly new movie over the weekend...
"eye in the sky" starring Helen Mirren & Aaron Paul
Even though i liked the movie, i wanted this thread to discuss the gist of the movie, not the movie itself
My wife and I talked about the implication for 45 minutes after the film was over, and we still werent seeing eye to eye as it is
Here is the basic synopsis of the film and the question i want to pose to the board
You have a drone targeting a building, wherein sits the # 2, 4, and 5 most wanted people on the continent of Africa for war crimes and terrorists acts committed against the US, England and other assorted countries. In the building are also two suicide bombers who are at this moment being fitted with suicide vests that will kill innocent men, women, and children of some unknown number at some unknown place in the very near future.
There is a problem though. Calculations of the blast mean that you will also kill an 11 year old girl who is selling bread for her family just feet away from the building where all of this is going on unbeknownst to her. Just a lovely little girl who has never harmed anyone....
If you wait, the terrorists and bombers get away.....
If you pull the trigger, you murder a little girl....
What say you.....do the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the ONE?
Actually, the pilot is usually restricted to flight and navigation duties. A second cockpit officer manages the on-board weapons.this is the second movie i have seen where drone pilots are somewhat center stage lately
Saw "Good Kill" just a few months back
And now this one.....
it seems that these pilots are having a much harder time than the pilots who actually were in country, in combat dropping their bombs or firing their missiles
killing people from 10k miles away may be easier in some ways, but much much harder in others
that was and is my position as well
but my wife reminded me of a line from the movie.....
" the terrorists have to kill numerous people to lose the pc war; we just have to kill one innocent, and it is lost"
how many retribution strikes because somehow we killed innocents along with our actual targets in these wars?
SPOILER alert need. Good movie that everyone might want to see.
The answer is no, you have snipers take them out. They had plenty of time to arrange this, but politics got in the way. The goal should be to use such strikes as a last resort, not a first.
SPOILER alert need. Good movie that everyone might want to see.
The answer is no, you have snipers take them out. They had plenty of time to arrange this, but politics got in the way. The goal should be to use such strikes as a last resort, not a first.
this is the second movie i have seen where drone pilots are somewhat center stage lately
Saw "Good Kill" just a few months back
And now this one.....
it seems that these pilots are having a much harder time than the pilots who actually were in country, in combat dropping their bombs or firing their missiles
killing people from 10k miles away may be easier in some ways, but much much harder in others
My wife and I rented a fairly new movie over the weekend...
"eye in the sky" starring Helen Mirren & Aaron Paul
Even though i liked the movie, i wanted this thread to discuss the gist of the movie, not the movie itself
My wife and I talked about the implication for 45 minutes after the film was over, and we still werent seeing eye to eye as it is
Here is the basic synopsis of the film and the question i want to pose to the board
You have a drone targeting a building, wherein sits the # 2, 4, and 5 most wanted people on the continent of Africa for war crimes and terrorists acts committed against the US, England and other assorted countries. In the building are also two suicide bombers who are at this moment being fitted with suicide vests that will kill innocent men, women, and children of some unknown number at some unknown place in the very near future.
There is a problem though. Calculations of the blast mean that you will also kill an 11 year old girl who is selling bread for her family just feet away from the building where all of this is going on unbeknownst to her. Just a lovely little girl who has never harmed anyone....
If you wait, the terrorists and bombers get away.....
If you pull the trigger, you murder a little girl....
What say you.....do the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the ONE?
You do it. It sucks, it seriously sucks, but you do it.My wife and I rented a fairly new movie over the weekend...
"eye in the sky" starring Helen Mirren & Aaron Paul
Even though i liked the movie, i wanted this thread to discuss the gist of the movie, not the movie itself
My wife and I talked about the implication for 45 minutes after the film was over, and we still werent seeing eye to eye as it is
Here is the basic synopsis of the film and the question i want to pose to the board
You have a drone targeting a building, wherein sits the # 2, 4, and 5 most wanted people on the continent of Africa for war crimes and terrorists acts committed against the US, England and other assorted countries. In the building are also two suicide bombers who are at this moment being fitted with suicide vests that will kill innocent men, women, and children of some unknown number at some unknown place in the very near future.
There is a problem though. Calculations of the blast mean that you will also kill an 11 year old girl who is selling bread for her family just feet away from the building where all of this is going on unbeknownst to her. Just a lovely little girl who has never harmed anyone....
If you wait, the terrorists and bombers get away.....
If you pull the trigger, you murder a little girl....
What say you.....do the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the ONE?
Inserting snipers often introduces more risk, not less. Especially given time. Especially given Africa, where even getting a Drone on station is time-exhaustive.
My wife and I rented a fairly new movie over the weekend...
"eye in the sky" starring Helen Mirren & Aaron Paul
Even though i liked the movie, i wanted this thread to discuss the gist of the movie, not the movie itself
My wife and I talked about the implication for 45 minutes after the film was over, and we still werent seeing eye to eye as it is
Here is the basic synopsis of the film and the question i want to pose to the board
You have a drone targeting a building, wherein sits the # 2, 4, and 5 most wanted people on the continent of Africa for war crimes and terrorists acts committed against the US, England and other assorted countries. In the building are also two suicide bombers who are at this moment being fitted with suicide vests that will kill innocent men, women, and children of some unknown number at some unknown place in the very near future.
There is a problem though. Calculations of the blast mean that you will also kill an 11 year old girl who is selling bread for her family just feet away from the building where all of this is going on unbeknownst to her. Just a lovely little girl who has never harmed anyone....
If you wait, the terrorists and bombers get away.....
If you pull the trigger, you murder a little girl....
What say you.....do the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the ONE?
There is no simple answer to this, and anyone who says there is, really don't understand anything...
Btw, if you liked that movie I highly recommend unthinkable. with Samuel L Jackson....far more many many lines of gray and though decisions....
Diving Mullah
It was just one possible solution. They should not have begun the operation without a team nearby on the ground who could act on the intelligence being gathered. Much like using a drone bomb to execute the Dallas gunman, they resorted to maximum force when measured force was available.
Its not the terrorist response that would cause damage...its the news agencies back home that would run millions of stories about the girl, freeze framed and centered as the cost of war, and the expression of our lack of humanity that would cause others to lose the will to fight. Its crazy that people in this country can ignore an entire village of people murdered at the hands of ISIS, with men being forced to watch as the women and girls are raped and then have their throats cut and little children are literally having their heads bashed in with rocks before the final execution of the men...but one image of a little girl before and after a drone strike would spark protests an outrage.I think you mean PR war, but that's not the problem. One anonymous girl is very unlikely to inspire mass terrorism. The problem is that once those kinds of calculations become accepted routine, the innocent lives become nothing more than numbers. They probably have to become nothing more than numbers, to preserve the killers' sanity. Like Marilyn Manson said, the death of one is a tragedy, death of a million is just a statistic. And that's the kind of thing which led, for example, to up to a million civilians killed by economic sanctions to punish Saddam Hussein; and that sort of thing does inspire mass terrorism.
Theres a bit of a myth to that soldiers coming home as hot messes thing. Its a projected perception, but not necessarily the reality. We find we have at least as many suicides and soldiers suffering PTSD symptoms in thsoe that never even deployed. Most of those that come back and are diagnosed didnt see combat. Of those that did, the bigger complaint is usually of loss of a battle buddy more so than the action or act of war. Survivors guilt is huge.I could not be responsible for knowingly killing an 11-year-old child. That's why we train our soldiers so thoroughly to obey orders. And that's why so many come home a hot mess.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?