More Ethics

[Aldaric]

Would you condone bombing an enemy city during wartime?
Here is my opinion:
If bombing the city would significantly shorten or end the war, then I would say yes. Obviously, innocents would die, but if the war didn't end as quickly then more innocent people would die. Even when you send in foot soldiers, innocents are at risk. So in theory I would say, "Yes. Bomb it.," but bombing a city usually doesn't end the war. In fact, it can anger people to the degree of terrorism. It would just incite more anger, thus more war and more dead innocents. So I am going to say No.

[SlappyMcGee]

Depends what you are at war about. WW2? Fucking Nazis! Cold war? Meh.

[otters~1]

Yaaaaaaaaaawn.

[SlappyMcGee]

Yaaaaaaaaaawn.

Boy yawns at Vonnegut, boy gets his ass BEAT.

[T3chno]

Vietnam?

North Korea?

[Aldaric]

The war in Iraq.

[otters]

The war in Iraq.

Iraq is getting really hard. We should probably pull out of the country before the disastrous climax of this whole thing.

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

Under no circumstances is bombing non-combatants acceptable.

The war in Iraq.

Iraq is getting really hard. We should probably pull out of the country before the disastrous climax of this whole thing.

Expensive consequences we'll regret, etc.

[jinxed_07]

The war in Iraq.

v_v
We are at war with the religious nuts in Iraq, not Iraq itself. I would only condone bombing a countries city to shorten a war if we were at war with that country itself. Period.

[Mute Monk]

Civilians aren't shooting at you. Therefore, you don't shoot at them. Same goes for dropping bombs. If an army/navy/air force is any good at all, they won't need to drop bombs on civilian targets, because destroying the military ones will suffice.

And the only reason the U.S. has pretty much lost the war in Iraq is because they suck at guerrilla warfare. No really, they do. It's the same reason why NATO is sucking in Afghanistan.

[SlappyMcGee]

Civilians aren't shooting at you. Therefore, you don't shoot at them. Same goes for dropping bombs. If an army/navy/air force is any good at all, they won't need to drop bombs on civilian targets, because destroying the military ones will suffice.

And the only reason the U.S. has pretty much lost the war in Iraq is because they suck at guerrilla warfare. No really, they do. It's the same reason why NATO is sucking in Afghanistan.

Yeah, but you should see them at Gorilla warfare.

[Skyling]

I'm opposed to warfare in general, so no. But if our beloved city is in very imminent danger of a bomb attack from the hostiles, then yes, it would probably be a good idea.

[otters~1]

Yaaaaaaaaaawn.

Boy yawns at Vonnegut, boy gets his ass BEAT.

Boy yawns at thread, while pointing out Vonnegut's general superiority. Other boy jumps in, misconstrues and insults first boy. Boy on boy action ensues, and nobody likes that.

[SlappyMcGee]

Yaaaaaaaaaawn.

Boy yawns at Vonnegut, boy gets his ass BEAT.

Boy yawns at thread, while pointing out Vonnegut's general superiority. Other boy jumps in, misconstrues and insults first boy. Boy on boy action ensues, and nobody likes that.

No, no, I understood you. I was being playful. Do you honestly think that anybody could dislike Vonnegut? :P

[otters~1]

No, no, I understood you. I was being playful. Do you honestly think that anybody could dislike Vonnegut? :P

Well, yeah, since he goes on in his autobiography about how they banned Cat's Cradle in schools all over the country and burned it ceremonially in Montana.

That said, nobody intelligent could.

[SlappyMcGee]

No, no, I understood you. I was being playful. Do you honestly think that anybody could dislike Vonnegut? :P

Well, yeah, since he goes on in his autobiography about how they banned Cat's Cradle in schools all over the country and burned it ceremonially in Montana.

That said, nobody intelligent could.

No, no, he was just being playful! They burned and, err... banned the book in praise!

[Aldaric]

Lets say the key leaders of all the terrorist groups met in an apartment building. Would you bomb that building if it ended terrorism? or Would you not bomb it because a few innocents would die. (Assuming bombing is the only option because there was no other way to capture kill the terrorists)

[SlappyMcGee]

Lets say the key leaders of all the terrorist groups met in an apartment building. Would you bomb that building if it ended terrorism? or Would you not bomb it because a few innocents would die. (Assuming bombing is the only option because there was no other way to capture kill the terrorists)

Errrm. Why does this situation exist? Can't we just use nets?

[lord_day]

[T3chno]

Stop leeching you noob

bomb lord_day for this outrageous action

[otters]

Do you honestly think that anybody could dislike Vonnegut? :P

I've sort of been wary of that man ever since I read one of his more depressing short stories.

[SlappyMcGee]

That said, nobody intelligent could.

[scythe]

Under no circumstances is bombing non-combatants acceptable.

What about soldiers who would rather not serve, but were drafted?

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

Under no circumstances is bombing non-combatants acceptable.

What about soldiers who would rather not serve, but were drafted?

What about them? The question is not about them.

But if you want an answer all the same, of course I'd say the ideal victory comes without spilling a drop of blood, but when it comes right down to it, I don't care about the motivations of the other guy's dudes for shooting at my dudes -- they're shooting my dudes! I certainly believe in shooting back at dudes who are shooting at mine, regardless of how bad they feel that they're doing it. C'est la guerre.

[jinxed_07]

Lets say the key leaders of all the terrorist groups met in an apartment building. Would you bomb that building if it ended terrorism? or Would you not bomb it because a few innocents would die. (Assuming bombing is the only option because there was no other way to capture kill the terrorists)

I'm sure that we could arrest/take them out with spec. ops... and I already said I wouldn't use bombs at the cost of innocents unless we are at war with a country.

"Yes. Bomb it.," but bombing a city usually doesn't end the war.

As far as I can recall, we have only 'bombed' a city (or two) in one war, and both of those were in the same country, for the same war. Which instance are you using when you say that 'bombing a city usually doesn't end the war?