it's hard enough to answer.
maybe it's wise to give training to the people about secret code. for example when there are terorists around them, give a code that sign to get out from the area.
so innocent people don't have to die to save the world.
Topic: Risking 1 or 100 ? (Read 421 times)
Dont you think its alittle like how people look down on hunting but they shop in the deli for meat?
Think they are constantly figuring out if the outcomes are worth it. Dying in a war to gain control of a hill. Some one weighed the odds and lives in the balance, its just we do not need to make those choices. So we are sheltered from making life changing outcomes.
Think they are constantly figuring out if the outcomes are worth it. Dying in a war to gain control of a hill. Some one weighed the odds and lives in the balance, its just we do not need to make those choices. So we are sheltered from making life changing outcomes.
Think its clear that the target is always worth taking out. You see this in the middle east all the time with the drone attacks. Because it is not your/our people dying we do not cry out. If the target is important I kill those people as well.
Would you destroy all life on earth to stamp out terrorism? If not, then even you must have a line. Do you have a number for us? How many innocents should die to maybe prevent the death of other innocents? This is why I say it's best to have an armed population. Let the people defend themselves.
Believe the number breaks down to optics. If you coul disrupt say ISIS once and for all, I would kill 2k ish innocent people to achieve this.
Sadly human lives are not all equal when we break it down. I could come up with numbers for all kinds of situations, but in the heat of the moment my numbers would most likely go up. I know I am in a minority in killing to stop a problem.
Interesting take. You might be in the minority with your position but I don't believe there is a right or wrong answer.
Think its clear that the target is always worth taking out. You see this in the middle east all the time with the drone attacks. Because it is not your/our people dying we do not cry out. If the target is important I kill those people as well.
Would you destroy all life on earth to stamp out terrorism? If not, then even you must have a line. Do you have a number for us? How many innocents should die to maybe prevent the death of other innocents? This is why I say it's best to have an armed population. Let the people defend themselves.
Believe the number breaks down to optics. If you coul disrupt say ISIS once and for all, I would kill 2k ish innocent people to achieve this.
Sadly human lives are not all equal when we break it down. I could come up with numbers for all kinds of situations, but in the heat of the moment my numbers would most likely go up. I know I am in a minority in killing to stop a problem.
You should teach the intended victims to become hard targets and give them weapons to defend themselves. Terrorists would not have such an easy task.
The intended victims should be taught the importance of meekness so they do not turn into terrorists themselves once they've been given weapons.
Perhaps some weapons use and safety training would be in order but do you think you can teach people to be meek?
Think its clear that the target is always worth taking out. You see this in the middle east all the time with the drone attacks. Because it is not your/our people dying we do not cry out. If the target is important I kill those people as well.
Would you destroy all life on earth to stamp out terrorism? If not, then even you must have a line. Do you have a number for us? How many innocents should die to maybe prevent the death of other innocents? This is why I say it's best to have an armed population. Let the people defend themselves.
Think its clear that the target is always worth taking out. You see this in the middle east all the time with the drone attacks. Because it is not your/our people dying we do not cry out. If the target is important I kill those people as well.
You should teach the intended victims to become hard targets and give them weapons to defend themselves. Terrorists would not have such an easy task.
The intended victims should be taught the importance of meekness so they do not turn into terrorists themselves once they've been given weapons.
It's a tricky question, psichological. I think that every day innocent people are sacrified for some "greater good". And nobody actually cares about it.
It's good question and its a tough question to answer, the answer lies in the point of view of the decision maker, but for me i will take less casualties, i will still attacking the terrorist, its better 1 innocent rather than hundred of innocents, but this is just my theory, when happened to reality maybe i will make a different decision
Hi sir this sequence that you are picturing here in your thread is just what happening with the tv series 24hrs if you still remember or watch jack bauer this is the situation that he had in every sequel of that tv series, putting it in the real world it is hard to decide even it is just one life that you needed to sacrifice it would be an everyday memory for you taking the life of one single person.
You should teach the intended victims to become hard targets and give them weapons to defend themselves. Terrorists would not have such an easy task.
Just watched Eye in the Sky movie
I'm bet spy intelligence like CIA ever done the drone attack and risking innocent people.
Let see the case : if you're as the decision maker to attack terrorist hideout whenever there are many civilian wondering the house. ( you have limited time before they spread out )
Let say if you're attack the hideout, you can prevent terrorist attack that may save a hundred casualities or you decide to not attack, you 're just risking for a few casualities but terrorist will spread out and start their attack !
Is there any wise solution for leaving lesser casuality ?
I'm bet spy intelligence like CIA ever done the drone attack and risking innocent people.
Let see the case : if you're as the decision maker to attack terrorist hideout whenever there are many civilian wondering the house. ( you have limited time before they spread out )
Let say if you're attack the hideout, you can prevent terrorist attack that may save a hundred casualities or you decide to not attack, you 're just risking for a few casualities but terrorist will spread out and start their attack !
Is there any wise solution for leaving lesser casuality ?
Jump to: