Do you pull the trigger on the drone strike?

[cpwill]

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.

Good idea. Surprise attacks always work best when you announce them publicly beforehand.

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. Herd the innocents away.

Magic! Send in John Cena and Pierce Brosnan!

 

[cabse5]

Good idea. Surprise attacks always work best when you announce them publicly beforehand.



Magic! Send in John Cena and Pierce Brosnan!

The area would've been monitored for quite some time. There will be time and, in all likelihood, the opportunity to place friendly individuals in the area if for no other reason to provide current, ground-level intelligence. Have your cake and eat it to....

 

[jonny5]

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.

Actually, no they didnt. In both cases they posed POSSIBLE threats. In one case, the method of delivery vector intentionally harmed bystanders. In the other, it intentionally caused cruel and unusual punishment on a suspect.

 

[jonny5]

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.



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

You are missing the point. Droning causes reaction to drones. They know we assess collateral damage therefore they increase the formula.

 

[cpwill]

Actually, no they didnt. In both cases they posed POSSIBLE threats.

No. In both cases they posed real threats, which is why they were going to be killed before they continued to kill others. The only difference here is how they were killed. In each case, they are being killed in such a manner as to limit their ability to bring death to others to the minimum possible, which is exactly the correct solution.

 

[cpwill]

You are missing the point. Droning causes reaction to drones. They know we assess collateral damage therefore they increase the formula.

Droning causes reactions to drones.

You do realize that the vast majority of drones are sensor platforms?


If ever the get an inkling of how they can effectively use human shields, I agree, that is what they will do. Which is why we keep those formula's and the specific rules for applying them in specific places and circumstances classified. In that scenario, however, the resulting deaths are not on us, but on them.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

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.

let the trolley go on it's course , if i I divert it to hit the fat man I am guilty of manslaughter, if I let the trolley hit the first five the brakeman is guilty of manslaughter, see the fat man paradox is not a paradox when applying my legal interests

 

[cpwill]

The area would've been monitored for quite some time.

:shrug: Maybe. It depends entirely on the target. When we killed AMZ, for example, we found the location, realized that he'd be gone by the time we got troops there despite them being pre-staged and ready to go, and so we bombed him. And that was precisely the correct decision. And it took an immense dedication of resources even to get to that.

There will be time and, in all likelihood, the opportunity to place friendly individuals in the area if for no other reason to provide current, ground-level intelligence.

:shrug: again, with a few notable exceptions, that is not correct.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

The area would've been monitored for quite some time. There will be time and, in all likelihood, the opportunity to place friendly individuals in the area if for no other reason to provide current, ground-level intelligence. Have your cake and eat it to....

yeah and once they reveal themselves to pull the 9 y/o girl away they are useless for any future intel gathering as their cover is blown.

in WW2 some countries had school children working in the war machine, we still bombed their factories.

 

[Casper]

I don't make excuses for terrorists or hold others responsible for their repulsive actions. The only ones responsible for the deaths of those that follow in the hypothetical situation decribed here are the ones responsible for the planning and carrying out the acts. That would be the terrorists.

Correct, and it is They that put that child within the kill zone they drag around with them knowingly. Thing is if you could not do what is required to save the many instead of the one then you should never be put into that situation and I pray you never have to. Thing is that is why there are men and women that serve in such capacities and can do the proper thing to save the many, they do not take it lightly nor do they want to kill the innocent, but it is they Job to protect the larger number and thankfully we have among us those that can. Thanks for sharing your opinion. This has been an interesting thread, makes people Think.

 

[joG]

let the trolley go on it's course , if i I divert it to hit the fat man I am guilty of manslaughter, if I let the trolley hit the first five the brakeman is guilty of manslaughter, see the fat man paradox is not a paradox when applying my legal interests

Especially when a new player is found to take the wrap.

 

[gdgyva]

Correct, and it is They that put that child within the kill zone they drag around with them knowingly. Thing is if you could not do what is required to save the many instead of the one then you should never be put into that situation and I pray you never have to. Thing is that is why there are men and women that serve in such capacities and can do the proper thing to save the many, they do not take it lightly nor do they want to kill the innocent, but it is they Job to protect the larger number and thankfully we have among us those that can. Thanks for sharing your opinion. This has been an interesting thread, makes people Think.

making people think was my desire

the responses have exceeded my expectations, and there are a lot of good posts in the thread

and i appreciate that everyone has kept very civil also

 

[Diving Mullah]

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.

We are not ISIS to kill like ISIS or Acting like ISIS means we have lost what makes us US and that means ISIS has won. These decisions need to be tough and there has to be a political kick back and it must be a huge cost for such decisions. Otherwise the leadership is nothing more than dictators working in dark and from the public eye.

I personally want to US to declare formal declaration of War and full news coverage.

War is horrible we must not forget that, and we must covey its bloody, horrible features to the public. Otherwise if you sanitize the war into the exurbs of 10 minutes daily mention in the news, we will forget who and why we send our solider to fight for and to die for.

Pejman

 

[humbolt]

All the more reason not to drone them.

Well, it takes time and support to get people where you need them. In this situation there doesn't seem to be any time, and therefore there can't be any of the people you need where you would need them. In that situation, I'd drone 'em too. I would prefer another solution. I would prefer a lot of things, but I don't get to dictate everything, so...

 

[humbolt]

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.



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

I didn't say that. I'm in complete agreement that if the drone is the only method available, do it.

 

[VanceMack]

We are not ISIS to kill like ISIS or Acting like ISIS means we have lost what makes us US and that means ISIS has won. These decisions need to be tough and there has to be a political kick back and it must be a huge cost for such decisions. Otherwise the leadership is nothing more than dictators working in dark and from the public eye.

I personally want to US to declare formal declaration of War and full news coverage.

War is horrible we must not forget that, and we must covey its bloody, horrible features to the public. Otherwise if you sanitize the war into the exurbs of 10 minutes daily mention in the news, we will forget who and why we send our solider to fight for and to die for.

Pejman

I have no problem covering war. I have no problem showing war. BOTH SIDES of war. When you have a media that focuses only on the side that you consider an atrocity you tend to lose the will to fight. So you bet...people should open their eyes and they should see the horrors that are ongoing on a day to day basis. See why you fight. See who and what you are fighting.

 

[cpwill]

I didn't say that. I'm in complete agreement that if the drone is the only method available, do it.

There are lots of methods still available. We could have, for example, dropped a 2,000 pound bomb onto the building the guy was in, or killed him by flooding the city with chemical weapons. We could have sent in police officers and hoped that no more got shot. We could have given him a pass and just asked him to please wrap up the shooting by the next morning. Those are methods available. They just aren't the best method available.

 

[cabse5]

yeah and once they reveal themselves to pull the 9 y/o girl away they are useless for any future intel gathering as their cover is blown.

in WW2 some countries had school children working in the war machine, we still bombed their factories.

Will there be further drone strikes of the facility if a drone strike occurs? Will the bad guys set up shop in a building built on the rubble of the drone strike in question? Will the US use the same guys on the ground for a next strike?

Who knows what or who is inside a suspected facility if no one can get inside to verify?

 

[jonny5]

No. In both cases they posed real threats, which is why they were going to be killed before they continued to kill others. The only difference here is how they were killed. In each case, they are being killed in such a manner as to limit their ability to bring death to others to the minimum possible, which is exactly the correct solution.

K, were just going in circles.

 

[jonny5]

Droning causes reactions to drones.

You do realize that the vast majority of drones are sensor platforms?


If ever the get an inkling of how they can effectively use human shields, I agree, that is what they will do. Which is why we keep those formula's and the specific rules for applying them in specific places and circumstances classified. In that scenario, however, the resulting deaths are not on us, but on them.

The total sum of attack drones are attack drones.

 

[jonny5]

Well, it takes time and support to get people where you need them. In this situation there doesn't seem to be any time, and therefore there can't be any of the people you need where you would need them. In that situation, I'd drone 'em too. I would prefer another solution. I would prefer a lot of things, but I don't get to dictate everything, so...

Its a movie. They specifically used an unlikely situation. In reality they probably wouldnt have even had a armed drone as it was a capture mission. The drone was just there to watch. They only changed to kill when they saw the suicide vests.

 

[jonny5]

There are lots of methods still available. We could have, for example, dropped a 2,000 pound bomb onto the building the guy was in, or killed him by flooding the city with chemical weapons. We could have sent in police officers and hoped that no more got shot. We could have given him a pass and just asked him to please wrap up the shooting by the next morning. Those are methods available. They just aren't the best method available.

Thats subjective. The cops act based on societies rules of engagment, and we dont generally support cops using explosives to execute suspects.

 

[cpwill]

Thats subjective

So you think that there isn't an actual difference between killing someone with a bullet, or killing them with a robot carrying a bomb, or killing them with an aerial dropped bomb, or killing them by flooding a city with poison gas? It's all "subjective"?

No, there are intents and guidelines. Reducing casualties is a worthy goal, especially reducing civilian/non-combatant casualties. Ending ongoing threats to civilians and police officers is a worthy goal, especially doing so in a way that places as few of them at risk as possible.

The cops act based on societies rules of engagment, and we dont generally support cops using explosives to execute suspects.

Sure. Because generally those individuals haven't just killed multiple people, and are about to try to kill more.

When they do, however, we support police killing those individuals.

 

[cpwill]

The total sum of attack drones are attack drones.

:lol: So no, you didn't.

What percentage, would you say, of Hellfire-capable Drone missions involve kinetic strikes?

 

[humbolt]

Its a movie. They specifically used an unlikely situation. In reality they probably wouldnt have even had a armed drone as it was a capture mission. The drone was just there to watch. They only changed to kill when they saw the suicide vests.

I'm going to have to watch this movie. I'm just an armchair quarterback.