1/3 of people killed in Drone Attacks are Civilians

[Cephius]

I don't know enough about North Korea to talk about it.

Alright, so, apply a similar hypothetical in Pakistan. Say the terrorists in that area somehow got ahold of an old soviet nuclear bomb. Is it then okay to send our troops in there, use predators, etc? Or do you maintain that we can't go in? I'm just curious at what point do unacceptable civilian casualties become acceptable, if ever.

[Kuya]

If Al-Qaida had a nuke all bets would be off lol. Why would you even ask that?

[Kuya]

Well, all bets would be off for Pakistan, if Al-Qaida had a nuke in Pakistan. The US wouldn't have to worry about a direct attack on them. One of their bases in Afghanistan however, might be a different story. Not that this isn't extremely hypothetical however, no non State actor can alocate the resources and time to produce viable nuclear weapons. It just doesn't happen without a lot of money, people, time, and it is easily detectable. And no nation would sell a nuke to an insurgent force they can't control. The resources to launch one are also an issue.

Although, again, i don't really know where you're going with this hypothetical.

[archibaldcrane]

I think the idea was if, say, a Pakistani nuke was being transported and Al Qaida militants intercepted the shipment.

[Ikith]

Would rather have killed the fucker rather than take the risk and have our troops go in there and get blown the fuck up.

[Cephius]

Well, all bets would be off for Pakistan, if Al-Qaida had a nuke in Pakistan. The US wouldn't have to worry about a direct attack on them. One of their bases in Afghanistan however, might be a different story. Not that this isn't extremely hypothetical however, no non State actor can alocate the resources and time to produce viable nuclear weapons. It just doesn't happen without a lot of money, people, time, and it is easily detectable. And no nation would sell a nuke to an insurgent force they can't control. The resources to launch one are also an issue.

Although, again, i don't really know where you're going with this hypothetical.

Again I'm just curious where your "breaking point" (for lack of a better term) is concerning airstrikes and civilian deaths. Meaning when does it become acceptable?

Obviously having nuclear capability is an extreme situation. But still, no doubt the people we are targeting now have the intent, and if they were given the red button would no doubt push it. So obviously intent isn't enough for you. So what kind of equipment or threat would they need before you deemed it necessary to attack them?

[Kuya]

When is an airstrike justifiable? I don't know. I am neither a military strategist nor am i interested in developing an epistemological guidebook on when morally reprehensible behaviour is jusfitiable.

As always, one would expect that an airstrike would be used as a last resort to an issue that poses a direct threat, i would say civilians in the home country, but others would include valuable assets. In this specific case, diplomacy was thrown aside because the US government at the time felt it had the military power to quickly and decisively crush Al-Qaida and do away with the Taliban whom were a thorn on the side of the US backed allies in Afghanistan at the time.

Like i said, i am not interested in a universal theory that dictates when airstrikes are wrong. I only know and care that in this specific case it is ridiculous.

[Khajit]

This whole al quaeda nuking pakistan thing cant even apply in RL simply because they already HAD the chance to make a nuclear attack and decided not to possibly because causing a nuclear meltdown is a pretty serious thing. I'm referring to the fact that one of the targets for the sept 11 planes was a nuclear power plant but it was removed from the list of possible targets fairly early due to the fact that you dont fuck with nuclear power when you cant control it.
If hitting an American nuclear plant was too evil/mean for them to do then why would they consider it ok to nuke afganistan to get at america?


The reason North Korea is actually considered a threat to the region has more to do with the fact that Kim Jong Il is actually crazy enough to go through with an attack when no other country would even consider hinting at such a thing.(other than israel)

[archibaldcrane]

I'm referring to the fact that one of the targets for the sept 11 planes was a nuclear power plant but it was removed from the list of possible targets fairly early due to the fact that you dont fuck with nuclear power when you cant control it.
If hitting an American nuclear plant was too evil/mean for them to do then why would they consider it ok to nuke afganistan to get at america?

Sauce plz.

[Rhinox]

Ticking time bombs make for great TV but horrible hypotheticals

[Khajit]

Sauce plz.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Point_Energy_Center
A plane crash wouldnt have actually caused a meltdown supposedly but i doubt they were nuclear physicists who knew that. Hitting said nuclear plant would have probably caused much more panic in new york as well even though the towers held more symbolism and people.

[Kuya]

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/as...835654228.html

They're trying something similar to negotiations, but it's modeled more after what they did in Iraq with insurgents. They are hoping the same thing works in Afghanistan as it did in Iraq, however the biggest reason that Iraq 'stabilized' was the civil war and subsequent religious (i would say) cleansing.

For his part Karzai, said that a plan to reintegrate low-to mid-level Taliban fighters into society by encouraging them to abandon the Taliban with jobs and money.

The plan, which could also see the government negotiate with the Taliban's top echelon, will be crafted at a peace conference next month, he said.

Karzai has already extended the government's offer to members of the Taliban who renounce ties to al-Qaeda and agree to embrace the Afghan constitution.