A targeting officer who decides where a missle should be delivered doesn't have perfect information about the target, but tries to act responsibly based on his training and the information he does have.No one is talking about "perfect information". The discussion is about sending a cruise missle against a building with children in it.
His objective isn't to deliver a missile into an area containing children.I doubt that many people get up in the morning and say to themselves "today, my objective will be to NOT kill any children".
What part of "high explosives" do you not understand?
The blew up a stadium here, recently. They used high explosives. It was in an urban area.
Do you know how much EFFORT and PLANNING they put into making sure that no one was around?
His objective is to see that a target is destroyed.And the demolition company's objective was to see that the stadium was destroyed.
But they managed to do so WITHOUT loss of life or injury to children.
I'm sure that, if at all possible, a targeting officer will not pick a target if he had information that children were present.Read the speeches. They're talking about sending missiles into a CITY.
If, however, the enemy has intentionally placed civilians in a high-value military target, one that must be destroyed for the success of the mission, then the military would have little choice.Nice attempt at side-stepping the issue. No one had YET brought up human shields. But you just had to in an attempt to justify your position.
No. No human shields. No children tied to tanks.
I'm talking about putting a cruise missle into downtown Baghdad where we KNOW there are innocent civilians.
Want to try to stay on topic?
How do you handle the real-world case in which military targets and civilians and civilian infrastructure are co-mingled?Duh!!! Isn't that the topic under discussion? Did you manage to MISS that?
The US wants to invade Iraq.
The US is talking about sending HUNDREDS of cruise missiles into Baghdad.
There WILL be children killed.
So nice of you to join the conversation. Maybe you could read some of the thread?