Bomblet, actually: it's a submuntion, carried in large numbers in a container (which is itself normally bomb-shaped), called a cluster bomb.
May or may not be explosive, but usually is.
WTF?
Where did that price come from for a normal bomb?
The Ethical Warrior
- Thread starter S.A.M.
- Start date
May or may not be explosive, but usually is.
Where did that price come from for a normal bomb?
You don't take it apart, SAM. You merely spin yours to counteract the spin of theirs.
If someone walks up to you with a gun and demands your wallet are you going to say no?
Nope. But I'll make sure I get bigger guns to go after him and recover what I can.
Revenge is a dish best served cold, and all that jazz.
Ah no forgive, no forget and all that jazz?
Seems like the kid agrees with you.
Challenger78
Valued Senior Member
Did you go to Iraq then ?
The difference is that large bombs are usually dropped in order to destroy large strategic targets. Even if non-combatants are killed in the process, the practice can be considered ethical if the action was in pursuit of a legitimate threat.
People that attack a non-combatant deliberately one-on-one are less ethical because they know who will be killed, and they know they cannot be considered a threat.
People that attack a non-combatant deliberately one-on-one are less ethical because they know who will be killed, and they know they cannot be considered a threat.
Forgiveness I can do, but I don't think forgetting the past is generally a good idea.
To discover how ethical bombs are? Or to discover how unethical insurgency is?
Wasn't necessary.
So is it ethical to kill children who will grow up to occupy your lands and be a strategic legitimate threat to your nationhood?
It depends on the circumstances, which you always like to ignore. If children happen to be killed in pursuit of a legitimate threat, it is a tragedy, but not unethical, as long as they are not the targets, and all practical precautions were taken to avoid civilian casualties.
If children are simply taken out and shot because you think they will grow up to be a threat to you, that is murder, and highly unethical.
If children are simply taken out and shot because you think they will grow up to be a threat to you, that is murder, and highly unethical.
That is a tricky one, probably not, but it could depend on how dangerous the terrorist is, if the terrorist is known to be in the process of a terrorist attack that could likely kill more people than the number of children present (biological or nuclear attack), and wether it is practical to send special forces in to get them.
That is unethical, since no one knows what a child will grow up to be. This is a modern notion, as warriors in the past (both western, Islamic, Asian, etc...) did consider children to be a future threat. That why they sometimes (like the Babylonians) wiped out the entire population, man, woman, and child, as well as salting their fields and destroying religious artifacts.
Not really. Israel has many Arab families. They set up a political system where a simply majority does not necessarily rule, you have to align with other parties to form a government, and this practically prevents Arab parties from gaining significant power.
As long as they are a minority.
So by the premise of the thread, what if the situation is looked at from the other end?
Is it ethical to kill Jewish children to get to a majority where you can gain significant power?
What is the "ethical" way to deal with this legitimate threat?
Challenger78
Valued Senior Member
the nature of the modern age.
This can be considered ethical where the offending country is engaging in total war with you. When there is an industrial city, with all it's workers is actively building armaments to use to eliminate your country, and you cannot effectively eliminate that threat without risking many of your own warriors, you just have to vaporize them. This is a very rare situation.