• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do you pull the trigger on the drone strike?

gdgyva said:
see the movie

ground action was NOT available

i dont want to say anything more than that here
Click to expand...

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.
 
jonny5 said:
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
Click to expand...

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.

Much like using a drone bomb to execute the Dallas gunman, they resorted to maximum force when measured force was available.
Click to expand...

On the contrary - both instances are examples of utilizing the minimum force necessary to ensure the reduction in the risk to others' lives.
 
Last edited:
jonny5 said:
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.
Click to expand...

This was my thought as well. The right guys with the right equipment in the right place can wreak havoc without the collateral damage.
 
jonny5 said:
Its a movie. I expanded that to a possible real situation.
Click to expand...

That's a fairly real restriction. The ability to move ground forces around isn't as unrestricted as you are picturing.


Dont put yourself in such situations where you leave yourself no options.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the enemy gets a vote on that.
 
VanceMack said:
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.
Click to expand...

It's the working parties, man.... the ****ing working parties.....


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.
Click to expand...

Truth. :(
 
No, I would not. Then again that shouldn't surprise anyone as I'm consistent with my views in that I don't support the deliberate targeting of any civilians or non combatants.

Key factor being here is that you know in advance the action will result in the death of a young girl.
 
Serenity said:
No, I would not. Then again that shouldn't surprise anyone as I'm consistent with my views in that I don't support the deliberate targeting of any civilians or non combatants.
Click to expand...

:( Sadly, all this does is teach enemy forces the critical importance of always using appropriately sympathetic human shields, and allows them to end the lives of many more non-combatants.
 
VanceMack said:
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.
Click to expand...

Is the desire to fight such a precious thing to you? The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria would not exist in anything even approaching its current form if not for the eagerness with which our countries charged headlong into illegal invasion of a country on the opposite site of the world. Since the thread is about the mathematics of military actions, the consequences of that invasion have probably caused more deaths than Saddam Hussein would have in a century. There should be protests and outrage at our killing of innocent victims, whenever and wherever it is not absolutely and utterly clear that the actions saved many more lives than were taken: Not some gung-ho 'justification' that at least we're not as bad as ISIS.
 
gdgyva said:
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?
Click to expand...

That was the choice facing Truman with the Atom Bomb strikes. Hundreds of thousands dead to save hundreds of thousands.

Myself, since drones (and bombs) are detached from your person, it would be easier to send in the drone than to pull the trigger or push the button in a death sentence.
 
Mithrae said:
Is the desire to fight such a precious thing to you? The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria would not exist in anything even approaching its current form if not for the eagerness with which our countries charged headlong into illegal invasion of a country on the opposite site of the world. Since the thread is about the mathematics of military actions, the consequences of that invasion have probably caused more deaths than Saddam Hussein would have in a century. There should be protests and outrage at our killing of innocent victims, whenever and wherever it is not absolutely and utterly clear that the actions saved many more lives than were taken: Not some gung-ho 'justification' that at least we're not as bad as ISIS.
Click to expand...
The
'desire to fight'? No. Been there several times. Got the t-shirt. Did it for both Presidents Bush. Did it for Clinton. I have no desire to fight. I also am not the type that sits back and watches while someone beats their wife or kid in public. I have a hard time sitting back and watching genocide. Hell...I might even be more at ease with it if the genocidal ****s killing innocent women and children 'over there' didnt express the intent and desire to do it over here. But I do understand reality. The comparison wasnt an invitation to rush to war but an indictment of the ****heads that will sit here and ignore deaths by the thousands and **** themselves over the one.
 
gdgyva said:
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?
Click to expand...

You (lie and?) claim that you used a small charge designed to take out only the small area (room?) occupied by the terrorists but the terrorists must have had large amounts of explosives which, much to your surprise, created a much larger explosion. ;)
 
VanceMack said:
The
'desire to fight'? No. Been there several times. Got the t-shirt. Did it for both Presidents Bush. Did it for Clinton. I have no desire to fight. I also am not the type that sits back and watches while someone beats their wife or kid in public. I have a hard time sitting back and watching genocide. Hell...I might even be more at ease with it if the genocidal ****s killing innocent women and children 'over there' didnt express the intent and desire to do it over here. But I do understand reality. The comparison wasnt an invitation to rush to war but an indictment of the ****heads that will sit here and ignore deaths by the thousands and **** themselves over the one.
Click to expand...

Starheads? That's a bit harsh. Everyone does that, including you and I. Thousands of people suffer preventable deaths due to lax gun regulations in the US. Thousands of people die from illnesses caused or exacerbated by second-hand smoke. Tens of thousands of people die from lifelong obesity begun from junk food marketing to kids, while elsewhere in the world hundreds of thousands of people die from malnutrition caused largely by high food prices due to feeding cows instead of people to sate our appetite for meat.

Until it's right up in your face - that picture of a little girl on the 6 o'clock news, having a son or daughter killed by a schoolmate with their daddy's gun or the like - it's very difficult to care about the world's ills in anything but an abstract sense, if that, and impossible to really care about them all. And that more than anything is the biggest and best reason why media reporting on foreign affairs - the actions of foreign powers, and especially the actions of organisations over which we have some power and responsibility - is not something to fear or despise for diminishing the desire to fight, but to cherish as a reminder to our conscience.
 
Mithrae said:
Starheads? That's a bit harsh. Everyone does that, including you and I. Thousands of people suffer preventable deaths due to lax gun regulations in the US. Thousands of people die from illnesses caused or exacerbated by second-hand smoke. Tens of thousands of people die from lifelong obesity begun from junk food marketing to kids, while elsewhere in the world hundreds of thousands of people die from malnutrition caused largely by high food prices due to feeding cows instead of people to sate our appetite for meat.

Until it's right up in your face - that picture of a little girl on the 6 o'clock news, having a son or daughter killed by a schoolmate with their daddy's gun or the like - it's very difficult to care about the world's ills in anything but an abstract sense, if that, and impossible to really care about them all. And that more than anything is the biggest and best reason why media reporting on foreign affairs - the actions of foreign powers, and especially the actions of organisations over which we have some power and responsibility - is not something to fear or despise for diminishing the desire to fight, but to cherish as a reminder to our conscience.
Click to expand...
The picture of a little girl in the situation described is tragic. Every once in a while even soldiers have to stop...catch their breath, shed a few manly tears...heck maybe even have a breakdown. Then they take a few deep breaths strap their helmet on tighter, and carry on. The fight is bigger than one little girl...yes...even a tragic figure. Reality is why governments dont base decisions on feelings and emotions.
 
cpwill said:
:( Sadly, all this does is teach enemy forces the critical importance of always using appropriately sympathetic human shields, and allows them to end the lives of many more non-combatants.
Click to expand...

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.
 
cpwill said:
That's a fairly real restriction. The ability to move ground forces around isn't as unrestricted as you are picturing.
Click to expand...

True, but in this case it's a movie most of us haven't seen with conditions of which we aren't aware. The ethical question surrounds collateral damage. I would prefer to take an 800 - 1,000 yard shot at a discrete target. Yes, getting there requires significant support. I have to also confess that shooters want to shoot.

Yeah, the enemy gets a vote on that.
Click to expand...

They do.
 
Serenity said:
No, I would not. Then again that shouldn't surprise anyone as I'm consistent with my views in that I don't support the deliberate targeting of any civilians or non combatants.

Key factor being here is that you know in advance the action will result in the death of a young girl.
Click to expand...

And you inaction will lead to the death of possible hundreds or even thousands of innocent civilians. Civilians die in wars, no way around that, the hard part is doing what it is right for the safety of the many, and why it takes strong men and women to fight wars.
 
humbolt said:
True, but in this case it's a movie most of us haven't seen with conditions of which we aren't aware. The ethical question surrounds collateral damage. I would prefer to take an 800 - 1,000 yard shot at a discrete target. Yes, getting there requires significant support. I have to also confess that shooters want to shoot.



They do.
Click to expand...

Not always feasible, the scenario provided does not give you that option, so which is it push the button or not?
 
VanceMack said:
The picture of a little girl in the situation described is tragic. Every once in a while even soldiers have to stop...catch their breath, shed a few manly tears...heck maybe even have a breakdown. Then they take a few deep breaths strap their helmet on tighter, and carry on. The fight is bigger than one little girl...yes...even a tragic figure. Reality is why governments dont base decisions on feelings and emotions.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Casper said:
And you inaction will lead to the death of possible hundreds or even thousands of innocent civilians. Civilians die in wars, no way around that, the hard part is doing what it is right for the safety of the many, and why it takes strong men and women to fight wars.
Click to expand...

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.
 
jonny5 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Similar to what I was thinking. In the scenario outlined the choice isn't whether to kill the girl for the sake of killing the terrorists, the choice is whether to kill the girl for the sake of taking out the terrorists with no risk to yourself. I don't say the shot shouldn't be taken but let's be honest- she dies so we stay safe.
 
Serenity said:
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.
Click to expand...

Then you did not read the scenario, there are two bombers getting set to run their mission and a house full of leaders that continue to plan and carry out more killings, in your case the deaths of those that follow would be partly your responsibility.
 
humbolt said:
True, but in this case it's a movie most of us haven't seen with conditions of which we aren't aware. The ethical question surrounds collateral damage. I would prefer to take an 800 - 1,000 yard shot at a discrete target.
Click to expand...

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

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.

Yes, getting there requires significant support. I have to also confess that shooters want to shoot.
Click to expand...

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

They do.
Click to expand...

Yup. And they are often in denied terrain.
 
Casper said:
Then you did not read the scenario, there are two bombers getting set to run their mission and a house full of leaders that continue to plan and carry out more killings, in your case the deaths of those that follow would be partly your responsibility.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom