Do you pull the trigger on the drone strike?

[gdgyva]

The OP question was would you pull the trigger. My answer is no and that's not going to change. My inaction will lead to no deaths in a hypothetical situation such as this.

so the suicide bombers in the building are just putting on the vests to go to a picnic?

and dont forget, you the 3 of the top ten terrorists in africa in the same room. People who you know have led attacks against many many innocents.

so do you think your inaction will still lead to no deaths?

and how do you come to that conclusion?

 

[cpwill]

The OP question was would you pull the trigger. My answer is no and that's not going to change. My inaction will lead to no deaths in a hypothetical situation such as this.

That is unfortunately incorrect. Not only will your inaction lead to deaths in this scenario, but if your decision-making becomes known, it will lead to even more deaths.

No, it's common humanity. We're talking about knowingly targeting civilians here. An 11 year old girl minding her own business, selling flowers outside, is not a sympathetic human shield.

No, it's war. If you teach the enemy that they can successfully complete their mission to target civilian populaces by using human shields, then that is what they are going to do. They don't share your desire to protect the lives of 11 year old flower girls.

 

[PoS]

I would not pull the trigger. Its collateral damage like that which fuels terrorist recruitment. We've been drone striking terrorists for decades yet they are simply replaced by new ones. That is not the answer.

 

[gdgyva]

i am glad this thread is leading to great discussions

as i put in the OP, my wife and i disagreed on whether or not the shot should be taken for 45 minutes after the film was over

do i ever want us to target civilians? of course not....no person with any humanity would want that 11 year old dead

the question became for us, is her life worth more than dozens, maybe hundreds of other men, women, and children these people would kill with the suicide vests, and more terrorist acts

i just hope that our leaders look at ALL sides of the equation before they decide whether or not to launch that missile

 

[Grand Mal]

i am glad this thread is leading to great discussions

as i put in the OP, my wife and i disagreed on whether or not the shot should be taken for 45 minutes after the film was over

do i ever want us to target civilians? of course not....no person with any humanity would want that 11 year old dead

the question became for us, is her life worth more than dozens, maybe hundreds of other men, women, and children these people would kill with the suicide vests, and more terrorist acts

i just hope that our leaders look at ALL sides of the equation before they decide whether or not to launch that missile

I don't say, "Don't take the shot." I'm saying let's be honest about why she dies. She dies so we can take out the terrorists with no risk to ourselves. That's what drones are for.

 

[gdgyva]

Its a movie. I expanded that to a possible real situation. In which they could have chosen to prepare better. Dont put yourself in such situations where you leave yourself no options.

somehow i dont think terrorists give us a lot of time to prepare

they seem to live like roaches....pop out when its dark, do their business, and then straight back into hiding

not like they setup bases where they could be carpet bombed or assaulted by ground

that is the gist of the problem....limited time when they find them

 

[Serenity]

No, it's war. If you teach the enemy that they can successfully complete their mission to target civilian populaces by using human shields, then that is what they are going to do. They don't share your desire to protect the lives of 11 year old flower girls.

No they don't share my desire to protect the lives of 11 year old flower girls like I do and I'm not the least bit concerned that I'm not anything like them.

You pull the trigger if you think that's the right thing to do. I'm not going to spend all night repeating myself, I wouldn't do it.

 

[Serenity]

i am glad this thread is leading to great discussions

It's an interesting discussion yes.

I've been a critical care paramedic for 9 years. I don't take lives, I save them. I still wouldn't pull the trigger. There's so many other possibilities. Use snipers, wait until the girl moves and then take them out or take them out when they leave the building. Don't just go the easy option and disregard a kids life. Exhaust all possibilities.

 

[VanceMack]

Just switched to my mobile before bed so I can't like your post, but you're right. And while many would say (or find, if they came to it) that they couldn't themselves push the button, I think very few folk would say the terrorists should be left alive to kill dozens, to spare the one girl. But it is not and should never be allowed to become an easy or routine decision. What do you think about the idea of ensuring that no-one is required (or allowed) to make it more than once?

Believe it or not I am probably one of the most socially liberal people on this site (we all have very different opinions on what 'help' means). I consider myself a Kennedy Democrat. I have worked in some of of the ugliest situations with some of the ugliest people imaginable and had to deal with **** that sometimes you have to be able to just sit down and lock your door and stare of into space for a while over. Then...you go back to work.

Point...I dont think there ought to be a one and done criteria. I think people can dissociate themselves well enough to do the job whenever and however needed and still maintain their humanity...and then go home and not take any of it with you. If you think about it in the terms of pilots, those people flew many many missions and just did their job. We all just did our job.

 

[humbolt]

At multiple moving targets, through walls? That's impressive.

It is. It has been done with multiple shooters No. I never have. After my time and beyond my ability.

Additionally, inserting a team isn't as simple as "they go in, they take the shot". Inserting a team means that you take the risk of getting into a running gun battle, losing the team, losing the mission, etc.


They do. They simply aren't always the best option.



Yup. And they are often in denied terrain.

No argument from me. I'm making a lot of assumptions about the environment that would work to my advantage. I suppose I'm going to have to watch this thing just to see the actual conditions the movie portrays.

 

[Serenity]

Believe it or not I am probably one of the most socially liberal people on this site (we all have very different opinions on what 'help' means). I consider myself a Kennedy Democrat. I have worked in some of of the ugliest situations with some of the ugliest people imaginable and had to deal with **** that sometimes you have to be able to just sit down and lock your door and stare of into space for a while over. Then...you go back to work.

Point...I dont think there ought to be a one and done criteria. I think people can dissociate themselves well enough to do the job whenever and however needed and still maintain their humanity...and then go home and not take any of it with you. If you think about it in the terms of pilots, those people flew many many missions and just did their job. We all just did our job.

/Respect Vance.

I can actually relate to much of that. See my sig.

 

[Winchester]

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?

Just a twist on the hypothetical for people to answer... or not.

Say the terrorist cell is in America and the little girl is obviously an American and she would be the only American to die. Would this change anybody's answer?

 

[humbolt]

Believe it or not I am probably one of the most socially liberal people on this site (we all have very different opinions on what 'help' means). I consider myself a Kennedy Democrat. I have worked in some of of the ugliest situations with some of the ugliest people imaginable and had to deal with **** that sometimes you have to be able to just sit down and lock your door and stare of into space for a while over. Then...you go back to work.

Point...I dont think there ought to be a one and done criteria. I think people can dissociate themselves well enough to do the job whenever and however needed and still maintain their humanity...and then go home and not take any of it with you. If you think about it in the terms of pilots, those people flew many many missions and just did their job. We all just did our job.

The important thing to understand here is that we didn't put the girl in that situation. The bad guys did. We accept responsibility for the outcome. The bad guys don't care. If they knew they were being targeted, they'd put more little girls out there and hold their families hostage to assure compliance.

 

[VanceMack]

The important thing to understand here is that we didn't put the girl in that situation. The bad guys did. We accept responsibility for the outcome. The bad guys don't care. If they knew they were being targeted, they'd put more little girls out there and hold their families hostage to assure compliance.

This is the part of me that switches sides. We live lives of very different perspective. We have the luxury of being concerned with trivialities so yes, even one life can matter to us. But then...we flip out if we see someone juggling cats.

But when it comes to war and really all areas of the government, we have to find a way to maintain humanity while blowin **** up. Thats the gig.

 

[gdgyva]

Just a twist on the hypothetical for people to answer... or not.

Say the terrorist cell is in America and the little girl is obviously an American and she would be the only American to die. Would this change anybody's answer?

i dont think the same problems they encountered in the movie would exist....

i cant think of anywhere in the USA where we couldnt get ground troops, and other associated assault troops to go

in the movie...there were no choices...you will have to see it to understand why

it was drone, or nothing

here i dont think we would ever face such a choice....and so my answer has to be NO

 

[cpwill]

No they don't share my desire to protect the lives of 11 year old flower girls like I do and I'm not the least bit concerned that I'm not anything like them.

You are mistaking my meaning. I'm not saying that you are or should be anything like them - I am saying that you are teaching them that victimizing 11 year old flower girls is a good idea. You are positively reinforcing that behavior.

 

[cpwill]

It's an interesting discussion yes.

I've been a critical care paramedic for 9 years. I don't take lives, I save them. I still wouldn't pull the trigger. There's so many other possibilities. Use snipers, wait until the girl moves and then take them out or take them out when they leave the building. Don't just go the easy option and disregard a kids life. Exhaust all possibilities.

This isn't the "easy" option - in many ways, this is a relatively better option than what you often get. Nor are your proposed alternatives likely to achieve the effects needed or even be plausible. When someone leaves a building (mitigated) they typically go into a street (unmitigated). All you've done then is increase civilian casualties. Ground forces (statistically) produce greater civilian casualties than drone strikes.

There's a reason that people whose job it is to kill other people don't take Hippocratic Oaths - accepting civilian casualties is part of any conflict. We go to lengths to minimize them, but not to the point of causing more civilian casualties or mission failure.


Example: when I was in Iraq, the Jihadists picked up on the fact that Americans really liked kids. So they started putting them into suicide vests and suicide vehicle borne IED's, figuring that we would be unwilling to shoot them, and so they would be able to drive/run into a crowd and detonate.

Shoot up a car with kids in it? Or let that car take out a crowd of 40 people? We shot the cars. Life doesn't guarantee you "good" options, nor does it always afford you the luxury of time.

In the Laws of Armed Conflict (Often referred to as the Geneva Conventions), those who militarize a non-combatant / civilian / civilian position are responsible for resulting loss of property or life to it. We weren't the ones morally responsible for the deaths of those kids - the assholes who strapped them into cars, into vests, and told them to go throw fake grenades at US troops were. But I very much understand how Golda Meir felt.

 

[cpwill]

The important thing to understand here is that we didn't put the girl in that situation. The bad guys did. We accept responsibility for the outcome. The bad guys don't care. If they knew they were being targeted, they'd put more little girls out there and hold their families hostage to assure compliance.

That is exactly correct. :-/

 

[jonny5]

That's....


....an amazingly restrictive and ill-advised policy position.



Have you ever run a collections deck, done a CDE call with a mitigated PGM, or supported planning for the insertion of reconnaissance forces?


In many instances, inserting teams on the ground creates more risk, to your forces, to the mission, and to local nationals. It sets up a whole chain of requirements from support to the insertion to support for sustainment to support for withdrawal for contingency planning. It can also reduce the likelihood of mission success by increasing exposure to red and green force collection. In contrast, the CER for a mitigated AGM-114 is itty bitty.



On the contrary - both instances are examples of utilizing the minimum force necessary to ensure the reduction in the risk to others' lives.

On the contrary, they arent. In fact in the drone strike, they specifically increased the risk of others lives. Known risk vs unknown risk. Same with the the dallas gunman. They guess that he could hurt someone, and rather than using procedures they have used for decades, for which they have trained, they made up something on the spot and blew him up. Thats excessive force.

 

[jonny5]

i dont think the same problems they encountered in the movie would exist....

i cant think of anywhere in the USA where we couldnt get ground troops, and other associated assault troops to go

in the movie...there were no choices...you will have to see it to understand why

it was drone, or nothing

here i dont think we would ever face such a choice....and so my answer has to be NO

Again, its a movie. They INVENTED the situation.

 

[jonny5]

The important thing to understand here is that we didn't put the girl in that situation. The bad guys did. We accept responsibility for the outcome. The bad guys don't care. If they knew they were being targeted, they'd put more little girls out there and hold their families hostage to assure compliance.

All the more reason not to drone them.

 

[jonny5]

Just a twist on the hypothetical for people to answer... or not.

Say the terrorist cell is in America and the little girl is obviously an American and she would be the only American to die. Would this change anybody's answer?

Definetly. We have laws which prohibit the govt from taking your life without due process.

 

[cpwill]

On the contrary, they arent. In fact in the drone strike, they specifically increased the risk of others lives. Known risk vs unknown risk. Same with the the dallas gunman. They guess that he could hurt someone, and rather than using procedures they have used for decades, for which they have trained, they made up something on the spot and blew him up. Thats excessive force.

Actually, yes they did. Threat = Intent + Capability. In both cases, the targets posed threats because they had both the capability and the intent. In both cases, the use of a non-human delivery vector simply reduces the risk to others.

 

[cabse5]

There has to be a friendly person(s) on the ground near the potential blast. Get that person to herd innocent(s) away from the blast area.

Can the person(s) on the ground neutralize the small number of bad guys in the area or are there an exorbitant number of bad guys or a plenitude of bad guy equipment bent on terrorism? Yes? Blow it up and accept the collateral damage. No? Take out the bad individuals and bad equipment (the US already has the intel to neutralize). Herd the innocents away.

 

[cpwill]

Definetly. We have laws which prohibit the govt from taking your life without due process.

Sure. Until you pose an active risk to the lives of others, in which case your own is forfeit. If you shoot at us, or try to shoot at us, we will shoot you right back.

The important thing to understand here is that we didn't put the girl in that situation. The bad guys did. We accept responsibility for the outcome. The bad guys don't care. If they knew they were being targeted, they'd put more little girls out there and hold their families hostage to assure compliance.

All the more reason not to drone them.

You are missing the point. Not droning them because they use human shields causes them to use more human shields.