4 ms·

It's very easy to consider modern precision weapons like cruise missiles ethical: The alternative is carpet bombing, including all the civilians nearby. Mass

It's very easy to consider modern precision weapons like cruise missiles ethical: The alternative is carpet bombing, including all the civilians nearby. Mass use of precision guided weapons is meant to avoid excess casualties. How is that not ethical? I'm guessing this relies on a naive convenience position like "we should never have war" - ironically a position that can only be held when you already have peace, freedom, and a strong and effective military.

FpUser 6y ago
>"ironically a position that can only be held when you already have peace, freedom, and a strong and effective military" The exact conditions that the US had when it attacked Iraq killing boatload of their population directly and indirectly in a process.
- giancarlostoro 6y ago
  The precursor peace was mentioned. Are you saying Sadam had some sort of peace treaty with us?
  - FpUser 6y ago
    You mean not having a piece treaty is a just grounds for war? This is really grasping at straws.
    - giancarlostoro 6y ago
      You are over simplifying Iraq and Afghanistan. Also misunderstanding the last point: effective military. If someone breaks the peace (9/11) you have to shut it down. We dont have all the secret intel the military had all along, some of it prior to 9/11 easily. Its easy to make assumptions without all the facts but it doesnt fix anything. How many of us would of acted differently if we had the top secret intel the same army had at the time? Theres no way of currently knowing but it wouldnt surprise me if history would not be altered by much.
      - FpUser 6y ago
        I did not say anything about Afhanistan. As for Iraq - the reasons were officially stated and they were false as far as I can remember. It is not me oversimplifying, it is you trying to approve murder of hundreds of thousands people.
maxbond 6y ago
> The alternative is carpet bombing, including all the civilians nearby. I would say this mode of thinking is the real problem; the alternative to war is different war. There is a peace-shaped hole in your view of what is possible in the world. With regard to the "precision" of munitions, I've found this talk illuminating. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpiZTvlWx2g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpiZTvlWx2g The precision of munitions is not the problem. I'm sure the hellfire missiles fired from predator drones are as precise as a very good team of engineers could manage. I'm sure the intelligence that was acted on was as precise as the spies and analysts could manage. They are still killing an unknowable number of civilians and writing them off by a sort of guilt by association - you had the audacity to be standing in the vicinity of someone who was in contact with people we don't like, so that makes you an enemy combatant.

FpUser 6y ago

>"ironically a position that can only be held when you already have peace, freedom, and a strong and effective military" The exact conditions that the US had when it attacked Iraq killing boatload of their population directly and indirectly in a process.

giancarlostoro 6y ago
The precursor peace was mentioned. Are you saying Sadam had some sort of peace treaty with us?
- FpUser 6y ago
  You mean not having a piece treaty is a just grounds for war? This is really grasping at straws.
  - giancarlostoro 6y ago
    You are over simplifying Iraq and Afghanistan. Also misunderstanding the last point: effective military. If someone breaks the peace (9/11) you have to shut it down. We dont have all the secret intel the military had all along, some of it prior to 9/11 easily. Its easy to make assumptions without all the facts but it doesnt fix anything. How many of us would of acted differently if we had the top secret intel the same army had at the time? Theres no way of currently knowing but it wouldnt surprise me if history would not be altered by much.
    - FpUser 6y ago
      I did not say anything about Afhanistan. As for Iraq - the reasons were officially stated and they were false as far as I can remember. It is not me oversimplifying, it is you trying to approve murder of hundreds of thousands people.

maxbond 6y ago

> The alternative is carpet bombing, including all the civilians nearby. I would say this mode of thinking is the real problem; the alternative to war is different war. There is a peace-shaped hole in your view of what is possible in the world. With regard to the "precision" of munitions, I've found this talk illuminating. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpiZTvlWx2g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpiZTvlWx2g The precision of munitions is not the problem. I'm sure the hellfire missiles fired from predator drones are as precise as a very good team of engineers could manage. I'm sure the intelligence that was acted on was as precise as the spies and analysts could manage. They are still killing an unknowable number of civilians and writing them off by a sort of guilt by association - you had the audacity to be standing in the vicinity of someone who was in contact with people we don't like, so that makes you an enemy combatant.