• 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!

Assassination Drones are OK or morally questionable?

Are spy/assassinatin drones morally acceptable?

  • Total voters
    75
  • Poll closed .
Ikari said:
And that means we cannot comment? That means we cannot understand? We cannot infer?
Click to expand...

No, it means that you shouldn't make technical claims when you have no way of knowing whether or not you are correct. For example, the claim that drones simply "kill everything in the area" or that drones do not have the ability to mitigate strikes to reduce collateral damage, or the claim that Special Forces are some kind of Magical Don't Hurt Anyone But Bad Guys Button that can be pressed for any scenario. All of these are not only unrealistic ideas, they are in fact the opposite of reality. The reason I bring this up is that I have pointed this out several times in this thread and people keep saying this crap as though it were true because they read it on some blog by an equally uninformed person on Huffpo et. al.. :lol:

What's stupid is when people demand that personal experience be had in order to form coherent argument.
Click to expand...

No. What's stupid is making a claim about a weapons platform when you have no idea what the capabilities of that weapons platform are or are not.

I may not know the intricate and specific details of each and every drone plane, but I am more than capable of viewing the outcome and commenting on the use and morality of use.
Click to expand...

If you want to talk about collateral damage, that's fine. I will point out that the Laws of Armed Conflict allow for the death of noncombatants when they are proportional to the military advantage gained, we can discuss Just War Theory, and all that. But when people come in here and tell me about mass-murdering drones and non-collateral-damage producing ground troops, I'm going to call them on their BS.

Regardless this is still my government and my military.
Click to expand...

Exactly. And if I were to tell you that you did not have the right to comment on it, you would call me on that line of crap as quickly as I have called others on their lines of crap above.
 
cpwill said:
Quite the contrary - morally acceptable means that the gain is greater than the loss. For example, if terrorists hijack another set of planes and set them towards another set of towers, and we are looking at another potential 4,000 dead, then the proper response is to shoot those planes down and accept the loss of 400 lives over 4,000 lives. That's the morally acceptable thing to do. The morally unacceptable thing to do would be to turn to the families of those 4,000 and explain that their relatives died because life did not offer you the perfect solution you wanted.

The Real World differs from your ivory tower and make-believe situations where terrorists realize that its' wrong to wear civilian clothes and use human shields and so they stop doing so. That's why Obama campaigned against, and then kept and expanded the Bush anti-terror infrastructure.

As for accuracy, these systems are fully accurate, which is why you are avoiding that question by trying to turn it instead into a discussion on collateral damage. You made an ignorant comment, and now are backtracking. Which is fine - you can't be blamed for not knowing what you didn't know you didn't know.
Click to expand...

I don't accept your definition of morality to start with. The ends don't always justify the means, not to mention we're not likely ahead on this.

And I live not in an Ivory Tower, but small town America. Conservatives used to speak of having values. I wish more still did.
 
cpwill said:
:doh a drone shooting a hellfire is about as surgical as you get, boo. There is literally nothing less damaging in the US arsenal with the capability to reach those distances. It is an itty-bitty little bomb - I've talked to guys in-country watching in frustrated disbelief as the missile strikes the front end of the vehicle and the dude get's out of the back and takes off running. The idea that our drones are laying waste to city blocks or somehow creating mass casualty events is one that I am surprised to find is apparently popular, but remains devoid of connection to what we are actually doing.

And yes, nothing absent laying nuclear waste to the entire planet will completely stop the enemy. That is neither an argument for doing nothing nor an argument for nuclear warfare.
Click to expand...

If it cannot hit the bad guy and not the civilian, it is not surgical enough. Do try to address what I'm actually saying.
 
Boo Radley said:
If it cannot hit the bad guy and not the civilian, it is not surgical enough. Do try to address what I'm actually saying.
Click to expand...

I'll give you a practical example - if a police officer is pursuing a bank robber and shoots at him, wounding or killing him but also wounding or killing a civilian in the process, that officer, in most jurisdictions, will be charged with careless use of a firearm and potentially manslaughter. Good done does not excuse harm created in the process.
 
CanadaJohn said:
I'll give you a practical example - if a police officer is pursuing a bank robber and shoots at him, wounding or killing him but also wounding or killing a civilian in the process, that officer, in most jurisdictions, will be charged with careless use of a firearm and potentially manslaughter. Good done does not excuse harm created in the process.
Click to expand...

I believe hat is what I'm saying.
 
Boo Radley said:
I don't accept your definition of morality to start with. The ends don't always justify the means, not to mention we're not likely ahead on this.
Click to expand...

You don't accept my definition of morality? :lol: I haven't even provided one.

But tell us, boo. In the situation described - you can kill 400 noncombatants or watch 4,000 die; which option do you choose? Because that is the kind of decision that get's made in the real world, where the world does not present perfect options just because one bangs ones' sippy cup and demands them. So which do you do, Boo. Shoot down the airliners, or explain to the families of the 4,000 that you could have saved innocent lives, but chose to let them die because you thought that was the more moral option?
 
Boo Radley said:
If it cannot hit the bad guy and not the civilian, it is not surgical enough
Click to expand...

It is difficult for me to express in words how idiotically unrealistic this standard is. Suffice to say, there are darn good reasons why the Laws of Armed Conflict explicitly reject this standard - not least because merely attempting it would simply cause the enemy to immediately use human shields in every scenario, allowing them to commit mass-murder at will. More innocents will suffer if anyone is ever dumb enough to commit to this kind of pie-in-the-sky, which the authors of the Geneva Accords wisely realized. This scenario would mean that US forces cannot engage the enemy ever since we are never able to ascertain with full certainty that no non-combatants would be harmed, given that collateral damage estimation is unable to take transients into account. Under the scenario you have drawn up the United States would no longer be able to employ any kinetic weapon system in its' arsenal. We would be reduced to fighting the enemy with leaflets and hugs.


But I will await your response to how to choose between the deaths of a few innocents and the deaths of more innocents. And when you loftily claim that Oh-it's-not-really-like-that, I'm going to call BS, because I have been in those situations.
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
You don't accept my definition of morality? :lol: I haven't even provided one.

But tell us, boo. In the situation described - you can kill 400 noncombatants or watch 4,000 die; which option do you choose? Because that is the kind of decision that get's made in the real world, where the world does not present perfect options just because one bangs ones' sippy cup and demands them. So which do you do, Boo. Shoot down the airliners, or explain to the families of the 4,000 that you could have saved innocent lives, but chose to let them die because you thought that was the more moral option?
Click to expand...

Your definition: morally acceptable means that the gain is greater than the loss.

To be acceptable morally, it must first be moral, by definition.

Also, the choice you present above is a false choice. It's part of makes discussion difficult. We are not, have not, and likely never will have to make choice. Not in the real situations we face. We could have stopped 9/11 not by killing 4,000 non combatants, by by merely letting the CIA and the FBI talk to each other. That was all that was required.
 
cpwill said:
It is difficult for me to express in words how idiotically unrealistic this standard is. Suffice to say, there are darn good reasons why the Laws of Armed Conflict explicitly reject this standard - not least because merely attempting it would simply cause the enemy to immediately use human shields in every scenario, allowing them to commit mass-murder at will. More innocents will suffer if anyone is ever dumb enough to commit to this kind of pie-in-the-sky, which the authors of the Geneva Accords wisely realized. This scenario would mean that US forces cannot engage the enemy ever since we are never able to ascertain with full certainty that no non-combatants would be harmed, given that collateral damage estimation is unable to take transients into account. Under the scenario you have drawn up the United States would no longer be able to employ any kinetic weapon system in its' arsenal. We would be reduced to fighting the enemy with leaflets and hugs.


But I will await your response to how to choose between the deaths of a few innocents and the deaths of more innocents. And when you loftily claim that Oh-it's-not-really-like-that, I'm going to call BS, because I have been in those situations.
Click to expand...

Again, you base your belief on a false premise: that what we're doing is 1) necessary and 2) actually saves more lives than it costs. Neither is true.
 
Boo Radley said:
Again, you base your belief on a false premise: that what we're doing is 1) necessary and 2) actually saves more lives than it costs. Neither is true.
Click to expand...

On the contrary, it is quite easy to demonstrate both of those within the Joint Targeting Cycle and Target Folder Production processes. But you would't know that because (again) you are pontificating on stuff about which you have no idea.
 
Boo Radley said:
Your definition: morally acceptable means that the gain is greater than the loss.
Click to expand...

That is not a definition of "morality". That is the Law of Armed Conflict's Guidance With Regards to Collateral Damage Produced by Military Operations.

Also, the choice you present above is a false choice.
Click to expand...

No it's not. In fact, that exact guidance was given, though too late. Nor did I ask retroactively about 9/11, I asked IF THAT HAPPENS AGAIN, what is the "moral" decision. Tell us Boo - which is more moral - to kill 400 through action? Or to kill 4,000 through inaction?


I have been involved in similar situations, where the decision is made to take action that will probably kill non-combatants in order to save many more non-combatants. When a guy driving a car-bomb puts some civilians inside, and drives that VBIED at a crowd; you don't have time to beg him pretty-please to step out of the car so that you can get off a single, well-aimed, "surgical" shot. Instead you light up the car, and kill all those inside, but save the crowd. 3 non-combatants dead, 20-30 ish non-combatants saved. Then you clean up the pieces of the kids inside and you throw up and you hate yourself and you hate the enemy more, and you drink as much alcohol as you can pour down your throat once you get back to the states. You think this **** doesn't happen? You think that it doesn't happen all the ****ing time? Who the hell do you think we are fighting - Mary ****ing Poppins? What a pretty ****ing world you must live in. No, we are fighting rat evil bastards and assholes who don't think twice about throwing up non-combatants as human shields if they think it will increase their odds of operational success or organizational long term survival. Thank goodness as left wing and hairbrained as he is, even Obama isn't that much of an idiot - which is precisely why he kept the anti-terror infrastructure in place after campaigning against much of it.





But let's be clear: is it your argument that reality does not present US forces or decision makers with situations where no matter what they choose, non-combatants will die?
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
On the contrary, it is quite easy to demonstrate both of those within the Joint Targeting Cycle and Target Folder Production processes. But you would't know that because (again) you are pontificating on stuff about which you have no idea.
Click to expand...

Do not confuse your willingness to accept something with absolute knowledge.
 
cpwill said:
That is not a definition of "morality". That is the Law of Armed Conflict's Guidance With Regards to Collateral Damage Produced by Military Operations.



No it's not. In fact, that exact guidance was given, though too late. Nor did I ask retroactively about 9/11, I asked IF THAT HAPPENS AGAIN, what is the "moral" decision. Tell us Boo - which is more moral - to kill 400 through action? Or to kill 4,000 through inaction?


I have been involved in similar situations, where the decision is made to take action that will probably kill non-combatants in order to save many more non-combatants. When a guy driving a car-bomb puts some civilians inside, and drives that VBIED at a crowd; you don't have time to beg him pretty-please to step out of the car so that you can get off a single, well-aimed, "surgical" shot. Instead you light up the car, and kill all those inside, but save the crowd. 3 non-combatants dead, 20-30 ish non-combatants saved. Then you clean up the pieces of the kids inside and you throw up and you hate yourself and you hate the enemy more, and you drink as much alcohol as you can pour down your throat once you get back to the states. You think this **** doesn't happen? You think that it doesn't happen all the ****ing time? Who the hell do you think we are fighting - Mary ****ing Poppins? What a pretty ****ing world you must live in. No, we are fighting rat evil bastards and assholes who don't think twice about throwing up non-combatants as human shields if they think it will increase their odds of operational success or organizational long term survival. Thank goodness as left wing and hairbrained as he is, even Obama isn't that much of an idiot - which is precisely why he kept the anti-terror infrastructure in place after campaigning against much of it.





But let's be clear: is it your argument that reality does not present US forces or decision makers with situations where no matter what they choose, non-combatants will die?
Click to expand...


Definition? No, but it speaks to the definition and leads us to your definition. And your reference to the Law of Armed Conflict's Guidance doesn't apply here. We are at we with no country.

Nor is your hyperbole on point. We speak to drone attacks at a place we really shouldn't be at and to whether our attacks save lives from terrorism. There s little to nothing backing your claims that it does.
 
Boo Radley said:
Definition? No, but it speaks to the definition and leads us to your definition. And your reference to the Law of Armed Conflict's Guidance doesn't apply here. We are at we with no country.
Click to expand...

Which, fortunately, does not stop the Laws of Armed Conflict from having jurisdiction as regards collateral damage. But, again, you don't know that, because you don't know what you are talking about in this thread.

Nor is your hyperbole on point. We speak to drone attacks at a place we really shouldn't be at and to whether our attacks save lives from terrorism. There s little to nothing backing your claims that it does.
Click to expand...

You are refusing to answer the question.

Is it your argument that reality does not present US forces or decision makers with situations where no matter what they choose, non-combatants will die?
 
Boo Radley said:
Do not confuse your willingness to accept something with absolute knowledge.
Click to expand...

You realize you are talking to someone who has seen this happen? Who has done this?




Tell you what; I won't try to lecture you on how to be a community college english professor, and you don't try to lecture me on the specifics of the joint targeting cycle, alright?
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
Which, fortunately, does not stop the Laws of Armed Conflict from having jurisdiction as regards collateral damage. But, again, you don't know that, because you don't know what you are talking about in this thread.



You are refusing to answer the question.

Is it your argument that reality does not present US forces or decision makers with situations where no matter what they choose, non-combatants will die?
Click to expand...


Only an idiot deals in absolutes. I always speak in the context of what we're discussing, drone strikes when not at war with a country. So, no, I'm not refusing to answer the question, I'm refusing to move the goal posts.
 
Boo Radley said:
Only an idiot deals in absolutes. I always speak in the context of what we're discussing, drone strikes when not at war with a country. So, no, I'm not refusing to answer the question, I'm refusing to move the goal posts.
Click to expand...

The only one in this argument who has suggested an absolute is yourself - you have argued the absolutist position that a single non-combatant death caused by US forces makes that action wrong or immoral. Now it seems you are backtracking and dodging. However, that gives you an opening.

So then is it your argument that reality DOES, in fact, present US Forces or Decision Makers with decisions where no matter what they choose, non-combatants will die?

You need to answer the question about whether or not these situations exist, and if the Answer is "No", then you need to answer:

So is it your argument that the enemy does NOT use human shields?

and if the answer is "Yes", then you need to answer:

So when faced with a situation where non-comatants will die regardless of the action taken, is it the moral decision to take the action that will net reduce the number of deaths?
 
cpwill said:
You realize you are talking to someone who has seen this happen? Who has done this?




Tell you what; I won't try to lecture you on how to be a community college english professor, and you don't try to lecture me on the specifics of the joint targeting cycle, alright?
Click to expand...

In the actual context of our conversation, no I'm not.
 
cpwill said:
The only one in this argument who has suggested an absolute is yourself - you have argued the absolutist position that a single non-combatant death caused by US forces makes that action wrong or immoral. Now it seems you are backtracking and dodging. However, that gives you an opening.

So then is it your argument that reality DOES, in fact, present US Forces or Decision Makers with decisions where no matter what they choose, non-combatants will die?

You need to answer the question about whether or not these situations exist, and if the Answer is "No", then you need to answer:

So is it your argument that the enemy does NOT use human shields?

and if the answer is "Yes", then you need to answer:

So when faced with a situation where non-comatants will die regardless of the action taken, is it the moral decision to take the action that will net reduce the number of deaths?
Click to expand...

That is not what I've argued. Not remotely. I've argued that drone strikes, as we are running now, on civilian populations where we are at war with no country, in that context are immoral because they get more than the criminals they are after. You've tried to switch the argument to something else.
 
Boo Radley said:
That is not what I've argued. Not remotely. I've argued that drone strikes, as we are running now, on civilian populations where we are at war with no country, in that context are immoral because they get more than the criminals they are after. You've tried to switch the argument to something else.
Click to expand...

types%20of%20deaths%201-15-2013.jpg


The Year of the Drone | NewAmerica.net

and

The Long War Journal - Charts on US Strikes in Pakistan
 
Boo Radley said:
That is not what I've argued. Not remotely. I've argued that drone strikes, as we are running now, on civilian populations where we are at war with no country, in that context are immoral because they get more than the criminals they are after. You've tried to switch the argument to something else.
Click to expand...

You have argued that if a single non-combatant dies then the strike is immoral, without qualification. You continue to dodge and avoid these questions, likely because answering them would force you to expose either yourself or your original argument as foolish.


But hey, prove me wrong :) :



So then is it your argument that reality DOES, in fact, present US Forces or Decision Makers with decisions where no matter what they choose, non-combatants will die?

You need to answer the question about whether or not these situations exist, and if the Answer is "No", then you need to answer:

So is it your argument that the enemy does NOT use human shields?

and if the answer is "Yes", then you need to answer:

So when faced with a situation where non-comatants will die regardless of the action taken, is it the moral decision to take the action that will net reduce the number of deaths?
 
I am fine with the use of drones, HOWEVER, I believe US citizens should not be targeted by them. US citizens should be protected by due process. If the government suspects a citizen is a terrorist then they must be brought through the justice system.

I am also wary over the collateral damage they have caused.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom