Morality test.

[dh_epic]

Here is the most hypothetical of hypothetical situations:

Imagine there is a town in a neighboring country. The country is basically peaceful. The town is small enough to be crime free. It could just as easily be a small town in your country, except that it is outside your borders.

Imagine there is a group of 12 evil terrorists who constantly recruit and regroup and hide throughout the world. Once every ten years, they manage to put together a plot that kills 3000 people in one of your major cities. They do this every ten years, reliably, and in total secrecy.

This is the year of an anticipated terrorist attack from this group. You have no intelligence to suggest exactly when and where their next attack will be. But you have two extremely reliable pieces of intelligence:

• One is the location of their next hiding place, which they will use immediately after the terrorist attack.
  
• Two is their CURRENT location, as of right now. They are moving through a network of underground tunnels. They are currently located underneath the small town, but will only be there for another 10 minutes.

You must act fast if you want to prevent their next attack.

The only chance you have to eradicate the terrorists is a fleet of bombers that you can scramble in 5 minutes. The bombs are effective enough to destroy the underground tunnels, but they would also obliterate the small town. There is not enough time for anything else. Even a warning to the town would send a signal to the terrorists and allow them to get away.

If they get away, there is a strong chance you won't hear about them again until they succeed in their attack. In which case, 3000 of your citizens will be dead. (On the bright side, though, you will be able to nail every last one of them right afterwards.)

So.

How big would the town have to be before you say "I can't morally kill that many innocent foreigners in order to save 3000 lives in my country"? How big would the town have to be before you say "we'll just wait until after the attack, and nail them then?"

 

[dh_epic]

Just curious. It's a question of how much you value human life, and it's forcing you to make the difficult decision to destroy life in order to save life.

(Read the scenario. Don't just answer the poll. It's important to understand the situation.)

 

[Shadylookin]

I would probably not bomb it, unless they were harboring the terrorists or if i was currently at war if the other country.

 

[Irish Caesar]

I wouldn't bomb a neighboring peaceful country. The after-effects would be disastrous for my country's dealings with the world for years to come.

 

[dh_epic]

Absolutely. These are things you need to take into account.

We're not just talking about the morality of killing X number of foreigners to save 3000 of your own... but the long term impact of your decision.

 

[Leatherneck]

How about blocking the tunnel off with rock and/or cement at your end and when the attacker were in the tunnel block off the other end. That tactic offered are very limited in there scope and far more options could apply. However based on the options above I'd need more imformation. Are the innocent civilian in my camp or theirs? If in my camp I'd take means to protect them, if they are in the enemies camp I'd treat them as such, no one is without opinion.

 

[emzie]

I wouldn't bomb the neighbouring village, period. At best, it'd be an act of war which would probably result in more than 3k people dying on both sides of the boarder.

 

[Cuchullain]

I wouldn't bomb the town, but I'd make sure my agents were in their next hiding place, waiting for them when they got there. Justice would be swift, and without mercy.

 

[dh_epic]

How about blocking the tunnel off with rock and/or cement at your end and when the attacker were in the tunnel block off the other end. That tactic offered are very limited in there scope and far more options could apply.

For the sake of this argument, I have set it up in such a way that an effort to block them or evacuate the city or 'have your cake and eat it too' would take too long. If you want to kill the terrorists, you need to strike the main target now. Blocking all the escape routes would take too long. Blocking a single escape route would cause them to just as well find another route to their destination.

However based on the options above I'd need more imformation. Are the innocent civilian in my camp or theirs? If in my camp I'd take means to protect them, if they are in the enemies camp I'd treat them as such, no one is without opinion.

This is kind of an odd question... but let's say they are in neither 'camp'. They don't care about your country enough to attack it, but they don't care about your country enough to defend it.

 

[Elrohir]

If it was uninhabited, I would. I certainly would not if there was a significant amount of people there. If there were, say, 5 people, then I might take that as an acceptable risk, and accept the diplomatic fallout that would follow. But if it was a village of 1000 or more, then there's no way.

 

[dh_epic]

I wouldn't bomb the town, but I'd make sure my agents were in their next hiding place, waiting for them when they got there. Justice would be swift, and without mercy.

Definitely can't argue against this. The scenario is set up that you would definitely know where they plan to hide after they attack. What you do from there is up to your imagination.

 

[Evil Tyrant]

How strong is the neighboring country compared to mine?

 

[Red Stranger]

Either decision you make at least 3000 would die. I think the consequence of knowing about a possible attack and not doing anything about it is worse than acting on it. Besides, if those underground people don't do their part in irradicating terrorists, they might as well be accomplices.

 

[dh_epic]

How strong is the neighboring country compared to mine?

Good question.

Let's say they're weak enough that you wouldn't have to worry about them invading. But they're strong enough that you couldn't successfully invade them, and they could put up a dangerous fight if they had good reason to.

However, relations with that country are not hostile, and diplomacy is possible.

 

[emzie]

Either decision you make at least 3000 would die. I think the consequence of knowing about a possible attack and not doing anything about it is worse than acting on it.

That seems logically fair, but you're forgetting the political fallout for your actions.

Besides, if those underground people don't do their part in irradicating terrorists, they might as well be accomplices.

Yeah, I'm totally an accomplice to my neighbour murding his wife because we lived on the same street. If these terrorists are moving through the tunnels and will be gone in 10 minutes, I would assume they don't consider this village home.

 

[Evil Tyrant]

Good question.

Let's say they're weak enough that you wouldn't have to worry about them invading. But they're strong enough that you couldn't successfully invade them, and they could put up a dangerous fight if they had good reason to.

However, relations with that country are not hostile, and diplomacy is possible.

I'm sorry to keep asking questions like this, but do they have any resources that an embargo against us could damage our economy if I bomb the town? If yes, then I will take the lumps and deal with the terrorists afterwards, if not, I bomb the town regardless of size.

 

[Arcadian83]

First, do no harm.

I would not forcively trade innocent foreign lives for the lives of my innocent countrymen.

Looks like some people around going to die almost no matter what, so may as well not do the damage myself. Doing so would make me little better than the terrorists.

 

[Sidhe]

I wouldn't bomb a neighboring peaceful country. The after-effects would be disastrous for my country's dealings with the world for years to come.

Yeah aint that the truth, Osamah sites the bombing of Libya, a country with which the US was at peace as a primary reason for his hatred of the US. I don't agree with the guy let me make this clear, he does set this up as a terrorist act, a sneak attack that killed at least 100 civillians, self defense my arse, it's not wise to attack people out of wartime situations, you may well reap a whirlwind no one could forsee.

OP: morally speaking this is not an issue, you don't bomb innocent people to oblivion because ten people are there, you use other means as mentioned above.

 

[Till]

I probably wouldn't bomb the town, if it was inhibited.
In general, i view killing innocents to achieve one's goals as the mark of the enemy.

 

[ybbor]

wow this is a good thread. Reading everything has made me second myself so many times.

@DH: it seems to me the country you're setting up is kinda like a slightly stronger Canada to the US in terms of its military and political position?

One thing people seem to be forgetting is that you're not only preventing this terrorist attack, but the next 3 or 4+ terror attacks these people will commit, not to mention any more their followers will be inspired to commit through their leadership. And avenging the deaths of all previous terrorist attacks.