5 ms·

If you are against any use of force which could have collateral damage, then you are effectively against any use of force. That's a principled stand, but not ac

• noir_lord 10y ago
  No, I'm against any use of force that isn't clearly self defence. (Very Very hypothetically) Russia annexes half of western Europe and starts massing troops on the border and deploying landing craft then you can open fire. It's not very realistic purely because of the way the world currently works, as Von Clausewitz said "War is the continuation of diplomacy by other means" and it shouldn't be.
• rl3 10y ago
  There's a difference between being against any use of force that could have collateral damage, and firing anti-tank missiles into populated areas. The former is tragic, the latter is sheer stupidity. Fortunately weaponized lasers are coming. Those should succeed in reducing collateral damage almost entirely. All that needs fixing after that is the often-faulty intelligence, and weeding out gung-ho idiot drone operators.
• oarsinsync 10y ago
  > the human rights group Reprieve has confirmed this reality vividly, finding that, in Pakistan, in attempts to take out 41 men, American drones actually killed an estimated 1,147 people (while not all of the 41 targeted figures even died). In other words, this hasn’t proved to be a war on terror, but a war of terror If that is true, then it's not "could have", it's "almost definitely will".