how much force is too much. "to bomb or not to bomb that is the question"

[Epidemic]

What is too much force when taking out a terrorist when are the risks too high.

A team comes upon Osama Bin Laden in a house full or innocents does you wait for a day when his guard is down and arrest him when no one is at risk, or does your sniper risk an errant bullet hitting a kid or do you drop a 2000 lb bomb and not risk your men?

If you said it is anything more aggressive than wait for the no risk day how many innocents is too many to risk. What is an acceptable number of people to risk killing to get him?

Can you use a 100 megaton hydrogen bomb when you know he is in the city somewhere, or can you merely risk a few 10's of people?

Is there a calculation that one can use?

(Past victims of his actions + Risk of losing him + Expected future victims of his crimes) /(Projected military casualties and innocent in frontal assault)

(Past victims of his actions + Risk of losing him + Expected future victims of his crimes) /(Projected Police and innocent casualties in an arrest scenario)

(Past victims of his actions + Risk of losing him + Expected future victims of his crimes) /(Projected military and innocent casualties in an modern air raid)


What is the calculation you use to analyze the right and wrong of action against a murdering terrorist?

[Epidemic]

No takers? Did I word it poorly?

[aldtech]

Wait him out so that he can be captured alive.

ALD

[mad1]

Do you have control of the surrounding area? This changes the tatics that can be emplyed to either capture or kill him.

No control, Take him out as soon as possible with the minimum damage to others.

Control, First you have backup troops cutting off access from the area. Next you have helicopters waiting a short distance away.Attempt a sniper shot when he is leaving the building. If this is unsuccessful deply the troops to surround the area. If this is not working call in the helicopters to complete the mission.

I have no formula for determining how many casualties, one casualty is too much. But the idea of letting him go to kill more innocent people would weigh heavily on my decision on when to act.

[SeanC]

That's always a problem. How do you decide whether to put civilians at increased risk from acting or waiting and risk loosing him.

[Epidemic]

Well in this pakistani situation we did not have control of him so that is out.


But does anyone have an answer to the formula for taking out a terrorist murder bent on continued murders?

[MTAtech]

Apart from the academic exercise, the problem is similar to fighting ants by taking out each indvidual ant instead of addressing the nest.

As I said in another thread, instead of arguing about whether it was ok to launch a missile attack to kill one al Qaeda leader, we must look at the big terrorism picture.

Saudi Arabia is supposedly an ally but is loaded with extremists that are funding terrorism and al Qaeda. Seymour Hersh reports in a New Yorker article, that some members of the royal family itself bankroll Osama bin Laden. So, we go around killing this al Qaeda individual and that al Qaeda individual, while leaving the source untouched.

Although official US policy is fight terrorism, we do very little to pressure Saudi Arabia because connected oilmen do business with them. Those oilmen don't want to jeopordize their financial interests, so, the U.S. looks the other way when it comes to Saudi Arabia. It's no coincidence that U.S. reports about funding of 9/11 and Saudi Arabian sources were redacted. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in565782.shtml

I find it unsettling that James R. Bath, George W. Bush's buddy in the Texas Air National Guard, worked as a business agent for Salem bin Laden (Ossama's brother) and that the bin Laden family and the Bush family had financial ties through the Carlyle Group into 2001.

Meanwhile, five years after the 'dead-or-alive' proclamation, bin laden is a low priority.

[Epidemic]

Well that is all well and good but Bin laden family has ties to many families and businesses. they are a legitimate notable business concern in the world. I also agree that more should probably be done to pressure the saudi government. However what is the alternative to the saudi government. Anarchy of a cia coupe yeah the middle east needs more unrest, perhaps this is where the honey approach is best (personally I do not know) But weakening saudi arabia would not appear to be in our best interests to me.

So sanctions may not be a good idea, a war is virtually out of the question, so I guess we can only ask nicely for help right now.


That aside the big picture of this thread is, when is it ok to risk or know full well there will be collateral damage.

and how does one calculate acceptable collateral damage vs benefit?

[Warthog]

Quote:

Originally Posted by aldtech

Wait him out so that he can be captured alive.

ALD

lol....I'm gonna start calling you people genie lamp committee....rub the magic lamp and *poof*, your wishes are granted.

Things aren't that simple, guy.

Ever raided a house? Urban, close quarters battle? No? Try blasting into a house or a compound, full of guys with automatic weapons. Right. Now, how IN THE HELL, can you guarantee to capture some guy alive? "Drop your weapon!"...lmao. This isn't the LAPD. Granted, no one is going to shoot an unarmed man, but c'mon...you're in an area where everyone is armed. Oh, and one more thing - the building he's in? Yeah, it's surrounded by an unfriendly town. You say, "How do you know it's unfriendly?". And I say: How do you know it's not unfriendly? Everyone is an enemy until proven otherwise. In CQB, you handcuff/flexcuff everyone until you figure out who is good/bad. Including the ones who appear dead (how do you know?). Safety and security for your team is paramount.

Next I'll be hearing, "Well, instead of capturing him, we'll parachute in a team of 'commandos', land on the rooftop and then slit his throught with a knife - that'll teach 'em".

g'yuk!

Unless you have experience in these matters, throwing out whacky, overly simplistic ideas is only good for a laugh.

As far as the actual topic at hand goes, one cannot put down hardfast "rules" to go by for war. Situations . While it's fun to discuss, I suppose, I personally have zero experience as a General or commander of any sort, in charge of operations.........They went by the intel they had and someone made the command decision, deciding the target was valuable enough to take the risk and bomb the area, maybe knowing or maybe not knowing the consequences of the bomb. Prospective civilian casualities may have been at an "acceptable" 2 or 3, who knows. No one knows. I think some believe they bombed the place knowing children would die, etc. etc. Ok, maybe they did - I don't know either. Odds are, they didn't though....You say, "WTF do you think a bomb is going to do to a building?". And I say, "I'm not sure exactly, I don't have extensive explosives and bomb damage assessment training, do you?".

So yeah, it's fun to bash Bush and the War on Terror from a backseat driving point of view, but in reality, one can only wager an opinion, nothing more, from the limited facts presented by the wonderous, always 100% accurate American news media.

Isn't this fun!

Warthog

[johnnycombat]

In a counter-guerrilla action (which I think is the best way of looking at the war against the global jihad) you need to evaluate any action in terms of number of terrorist killed versus terrorist created. This is because in most guerilla actions the guerillas win by not losing, if they can sustain the fight they can win (Phase one in Mao’s guerilla war). Any action which causes collateral damage is likely to increases the number of terrorist and their sympathizers. If an action kills more terrorist than it creates then it moves us closer to our objectives, if not it moves us the other way. Obviously this is an over simplification since there are an infinite number of points between us and them, but I am not trying to write a book here. Now if we take or original scenario of UBL in a house we have the added complication of a true high value target not just another foot solider so we would need to take in to account the number of people he could inspire alive, dead, as prisoner, or naked with a bag over his head with some redneck girl pointing at his crotch.

So bombing a house full of kids and making UBL a martyr would create some terrorist but it would it would show UBL to be vulnerable and it would silence a major voice of the global jihad (don’t think it would end anything UBL didn’t start it his death won’t end it) so there would most likely be a net gain, I say go for it. A hydrogen bomb taking out a large city would probably create thousands of terrorist and millions of sympathizers there by having more of a negative effect than a positive one so I would recommend against it.


Of course none of this takes into account moral dimensions but I’ll leave that to the preachers and philosophers.