Quote:
Originally Posted by Cali Coug
Really? What is the difference between an unmanned drone with bombs and missiles and a tactical nuclear weapon? That really needs to be spelled out for you?
The drones have precision bombs which are designed to inflict as little collateral damage as possible while still eliminating their target. Tactical nuclear weapons are the opposite of that. They have a blast radius that is generally much larger than what is necessary for the completion of a mission, resulting in many deaths of non-targets, as well as the spread of radiation afterward. In short, other than the fact that both can kill people, they have almost nothing in common.
What is your point anyways? How did you even get onto this issue in a thread about torture (which you have already agreed you despise)?
|
Ultimately we are talking about killing another human being, regardless of the method. How can you moralize one method is preferred over the other when they would achieve the same result? I'm really interested in understanding the idea that for many it is OK to condone killing Bin laden using conventional military means but it is not OK to use torture to glean information to find and kill said individual. It's a fascinating incongruence.
Honestly, I am appaled by the idea of torture, yet I willfully give my full support to the military to hunt down and kill Bin Laden (as do you and Mike based upon the history of discussions here). The more I think about it I have to ask what is the difference? Is there a difference? This has lead me to the conclusion that the moment one engages in differentiation, one becomes what one wants to despise in the opening comments of this thread.
In other words, mike, you and myself are no different than Bybee, we just prefer not to use the exact same methods, but our methods are no less heinous.