5 ms·

What is the alternative, ask them not to tell? If you had to make the decision in the moment how would you weigh compromising the chance to prevent thousands o

What is the alternative, ask them not to tell? If you had to make the decision in the moment how would you weigh compromising the chance to prevent thousands or millions of deaths for advanced warning of nuclear or other attack using your ability to install that monitoring equipment now or in future, versus the lives of potentially hostile people who show up in your mission area? You have to live with the moral cost, and human conflict means these choices have to be made.

mlhpdx 1y ago
False dichotomy. There were many other options available.
- keepamovin 1y ago
  Such as?
  - sussmannbaka 1y ago
    Not becoming a murderer for hire in the first place, for one.
chubot 1y ago
What happens if you just abort the mission? Probably nothing, and certainly doing nothing is less likely to provoke war and further escalation than murdering civilians, hoping no one notices, and then having a front page NY Times article published about it later If North Korean spies murdered fisherman off the coast of California on a failed mission, you bet there would be blowback If they were simply noticed, the US govt might be able to and be incentivized to downplay it. Similar to downplaying whatever drones were flying over NJ
- keepamovin 1y ago
  That's one way to assess it. Can you take the cost if your presence is detected? Maybe nothing happens. How likely is nothing? And if your presence finds it ways to the authorities, what's the cost? Likely, NK will patch what might be your best chance at advance warning. As fishing is dangerous and many never return, their plausibly 'accidental' deaths provide cover to keep the secrecy and your future access intact. Now the story leaks out from inside - what are the consequences? I don't know.
  - impossiblefork 1y ago
    It doesn't matter if you can take the cost. It's forbidden to kill civilians. You can only kill non-civilians, and there's nothing allowing you to hide the bodies of civilians or interfere with their burial rites.
    - keepamovin 1y ago
      Specialist missions normally have custom RoE not always mirroring those in conventional theatre, but nevertheless appropriate for the mission specifics.
      - justacrow 1y ago
        I don't think it's so much about the Rules of Engagement but more about "Don't indiscriminately murder people"
        keepamovin 1y ago
        Indiscriminate would be nuclear weapons on cities. This mission’s ultimate goal was to prevent NK doing that. If you could stop NK doing that, would you pull the trigger? Would you make a targeted kill of a person who compromised that mission by discovering it?
        iamevn 1y ago
        No? I don't think this is the trap you think it is.
        keepamovin 1y ago
        Maybe it's not, but that's the point: trying to understand what it is from the point of view of people who did it.
      - impossiblefork 1y ago
        Yes, but this it's clearly forbidden to make civilians object of attack, and it doesn't matter whether you risk discovery or whatever. Surely the RoE should be at least as restrictive as IHL. I think it might be legal to hide the body, but if you do so you must do something to ensure that it can be recovered, either informing the enemy afterwards or some other measure to that effect.
keoneflick 1y ago
> What is the alternative, ask them not to tell? The moment the seals fired the rifles the mission was over, a complete failure. So the obvious alternative was to abort without killing everyone. The vaunted seals can't escape from a fishing boat? Nothing was accomplished by this mission other than killing a bunch of fishermen. For shame.
impossiblefork 1y ago
The alternative is not murdering anybody and leaving. You don't have a right to kill civilians and being discovered can never be a justification for doing so. You can only kill actual combatants.
lifeformed 1y ago
> versus the lives of potentially hostile people who show up in your mission area? So what? Then you fight the people proven to be hostile or run away. At no point is executing innocents an option that should be on the table in that situation. If things go wrong and escalate to a life threatening situation for you, then that's one the risks YOU consented to. It's not a risk that civilians are responsible for. Maybe you get killed, or there is political fallout, but both of those situations are a better outcome than killing civilians.
lifeformed 1y ago
If I break into your home to steal something, and accidentally wake you up, is the only reasonable option for me to shoot you?
- Ferret7446 1y ago
  That's a surprisingly fitting analogy, because you don't know if the person you're robbing keeps a gun under their pillow, and you may only have a second to find out.
  - lifeformed 1y ago
    Yes, killing them is the "correct" answer if the only thing that motivates you is self-preservation, but it is the worst answer if you consider pesky inconveniences like morality, legality, and basic humanity and decency.
  - jacquesm 1y ago
    You're not a thief. You're a murderer. Because it is only a matter of time before that situation occurs.

mlhpdx 1y ago

False dichotomy. There were many other options available.

keepamovin 1y ago
Such as?
- sussmannbaka 1y ago
  Not becoming a murderer for hire in the first place, for one.

chubot 1y ago

What happens if you just abort the mission? Probably nothing, and certainly doing nothing is less likely to provoke war and further escalation than murdering civilians, hoping no one notices, and then having a front page NY Times article published about it later If North Korean spies murdered fisherman off the coast of California on a failed mission, you bet there would be blowback If they were simply noticed, the US govt might be able to and be incentivized to downplay it. Similar to downplaying whatever drones were flying over NJ

keepamovin 1y ago
That's one way to assess it. Can you take the cost if your presence is detected? Maybe nothing happens. How likely is nothing? And if your presence finds it ways to the authorities, what's the cost? Likely, NK will patch what might be your best chance at advance warning. As fishing is dangerous and many never return, their plausibly 'accidental' deaths provide cover to keep the secrecy and your future access intact. Now the story leaks out from inside - what are the consequences? I don't know.
- impossiblefork 1y ago
  It doesn't matter if you can take the cost. It's forbidden to kill civilians. You can only kill non-civilians, and there's nothing allowing you to hide the bodies of civilians or interfere with their burial rites.
  - keepamovin 1y ago
    Specialist missions normally have custom RoE not always mirroring those in conventional theatre, but nevertheless appropriate for the mission specifics.
    - justacrow 1y ago
      I don't think it's so much about the Rules of Engagement but more about "Don't indiscriminately murder people"
      - keepamovin 1y ago
        Indiscriminate would be nuclear weapons on cities. This mission’s ultimate goal was to prevent NK doing that. If you could stop NK doing that, would you pull the trigger? Would you make a targeted kill of a person who compromised that mission by discovering it?
        iamevn 1y ago
        No? I don't think this is the trap you think it is.
        keepamovin 1y ago
        Maybe it's not, but that's the point: trying to understand what it is from the point of view of people who did it.
    - impossiblefork 1y ago
      Yes, but this it's clearly forbidden to make civilians object of attack, and it doesn't matter whether you risk discovery or whatever. Surely the RoE should be at least as restrictive as IHL. I think it might be legal to hide the body, but if you do so you must do something to ensure that it can be recovered, either informing the enemy afterwards or some other measure to that effect.

keoneflick 1y ago

> What is the alternative, ask them not to tell? The moment the seals fired the rifles the mission was over, a complete failure. So the obvious alternative was to abort without killing everyone. The vaunted seals can't escape from a fishing boat? Nothing was accomplished by this mission other than killing a bunch of fishermen. For shame.

impossiblefork 1y ago

The alternative is not murdering anybody and leaving. You don't have a right to kill civilians and being discovered can never be a justification for doing so. You can only kill actual combatants.

lifeformed 1y ago

> versus the lives of potentially hostile people who show up in your mission area? So what? Then you fight the people proven to be hostile or run away. At no point is executing innocents an option that should be on the table in that situation. If things go wrong and escalate to a life threatening situation for you, then that's one the risks YOU consented to. It's not a risk that civilians are responsible for. Maybe you get killed, or there is political fallout, but both of those situations are a better outcome than killing civilians.

lifeformed 1y ago

If I break into your home to steal something, and accidentally wake you up, is the only reasonable option for me to shoot you?

Ferret7446 1y ago
That's a surprisingly fitting analogy, because you don't know if the person you're robbing keeps a gun under their pillow, and you may only have a second to find out.
- lifeformed 1y ago
  Yes, killing them is the "correct" answer if the only thing that motivates you is self-preservation, but it is the worst answer if you consider pesky inconveniences like morality, legality, and basic humanity and decency.
- jacquesm 1y ago
  You're not a thief. You're a murderer. Because it is only a matter of time before that situation occurs.