RoccoR
Gold Member
ogibillm, et al,
This may be absolutely correct in what it says. But just as valid --- it is not necessary ethically wrong or improperly executed.
Let's look at a much smaller --- thumbnail scenario.
• A trio of BAD GUYs are holding .22 calibre hand-guns.
• The trio of BAD GUYs are firing (from in front of a crowd of people who provide criminal material support) towards unarmed mixed crowd of noncombatant GOOD GUYs; men, women, children.
• The Allied Powers issue warning for the unarmed BAD GUYs to move away.
• A Allied Powers approach with a superior automatic weapons equipped with laser targeting sites.
• The Allied Powers open fire on the BAD GUYSs who are firing and announcing that they will continue firing, to save the lives of GOOD GUYs.
• Allied Powers fire kills all three armed threat BAD GUYs.
• Allied Powers kill and wound several unarmed BAD GUYs that were warned by intentionally stayed behind the firing BAD GUYs.
• These unarmed casualties are those that provide material support to armed elements; and advocate the continuation of conflict.
OUTCOME:
• No GOOD GUYs are killed or injured.
* All three BAD GUYs are killed; and several unarmed BAD GUYs were killed or injured.
That is a huge difference in terms of actual causality ratios. Some confuse this with proportionality.
Rule 14. Launching an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated, is prohibited.
The question is, what is considered a direct military advantage?
Any avoidable allied casualty is worth more than a casualty of the opposing force. As GEN Patton once said;
"Don't be a fool and die for your country. Let the other son-of-a-bitch die for his."
If you the Allied Powers can kill 5:1, that is good. But 10:1 is better.
The military advantage is to secure, protect and defend the civilian population from being killed or injured by unscrupulous Jihadist, Fedayeen, Insurgents, Terrorist, Resistance Fighter, etc, that believe that they have some special right to perpetuate the conflict. Zero allied casualties, and the maximization of enemy casualities, is the optimum military advantage.
Most Respectfully,
R
This may be absolutely correct in what it says. But just as valid --- it is not necessary ethically wrong or improperly executed.
(COMMENT)
Let's look at a much smaller --- thumbnail scenario.
• A trio of BAD GUYs are holding .22 calibre hand-guns.
• The trio of BAD GUYs are firing (from in front of a crowd of people who provide criminal material support) towards unarmed mixed crowd of noncombatant GOOD GUYs; men, women, children.
• The Allied Powers issue warning for the unarmed BAD GUYs to move away.
• A Allied Powers approach with a superior automatic weapons equipped with laser targeting sites.
• The Allied Powers open fire on the BAD GUYSs who are firing and announcing that they will continue firing, to save the lives of GOOD GUYs.
• Allied Powers fire kills all three armed threat BAD GUYs.
• Allied Powers kill and wound several unarmed BAD GUYs that were warned by intentionally stayed behind the firing BAD GUYs.
• These unarmed casualties are those that provide material support to armed elements; and advocate the continuation of conflict.
OUTCOME:
• No GOOD GUYs are killed or injured.
* All three BAD GUYs are killed; and several unarmed BAD GUYs were killed or injured.
That is a huge difference in terms of actual causality ratios. Some confuse this with proportionality.
Rule 14. Launching an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated, is prohibited.
The question is, what is considered a direct military advantage?
Any avoidable allied casualty is worth more than a casualty of the opposing force. As GEN Patton once said;
"Don't be a fool and die for your country. Let the other son-of-a-bitch die for his."
If you the Allied Powers can kill 5:1, that is good. But 10:1 is better.
The military advantage is to secure, protect and defend the civilian population from being killed or injured by unscrupulous Jihadist, Fedayeen, Insurgents, Terrorist, Resistance Fighter, etc, that believe that they have some special right to perpetuate the conflict. Zero allied casualties, and the maximization of enemy casualities, is the optimum military advantage.
Most Respectfully,
R
