Flame — HabitableZone

Flame » in reply to A seven year old responds

You're right, as far as it goes.
Tom Brosz — (archived)

It would be spectacular if we could specifically target only bad guys using snipers, secret Special Forces groups, ninja assassins, Terminator robots, Arrakeen hunter-seeker needles, or the like.

Unfortunately, in the real world, this kind of thing isn't always available. In fact, it's rarely available. Access is an issue, time to reach targets is an issue, and the support requirements are an issue. You don't need to set up massive and vulnerable supply lines for a missile or an air attack.

Military authorities also have to trade off danger to our own troops against collateral damage. As I have pointed out many times before, the "personal approach" to battle, troops on the scene with snipers and local fire, is the method that has the most discrimination, but it costs American lives. We are already bending over backwards, and taking many casualties, precisely to avoid the "bomb the place to rubble" scenario. What more do you want?

Maybe someday drones and robots will go in and do the dirty work, one-on-one. I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for this.

That one has to accept collateral damage does not mean that this is something that anyone is enthusiastic about. The word "accept" has a real meaning. There are many undesirable parts of life that are unavoidable, yet must be accepted.

If your original post was not trying to blur the moral difference between terrorism and collateral damage, I must have misread it.

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (92 posts)