Pakistan: US drone strikes kill 15

[Dave_B]

“Two US drone missile attacks have killed at least 15 people in the Pakistani tribal region bordering Afghanistan, officials say.”

bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13938461

"Pakistan publicly criticises drone attacks, saying they fuel support for militants. But observers say the authorities privately condone the strikes.

The American military does not routinely confirm drone operations, but analysts say the US is the only force capable of deploying such aircraft in the region."

Does this constitue a just defense of a nation in the Catechism? thanks

{edit: meant to say, does this constiute a “just war” or does this meet the condition of defense of a nation, according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church}

 

[Monte_RCMS]

A number of “entities” [states and non-states] have made declarations of war against the United States.

That said, are we limited to our choice of tactics, weapons and strategies?

Is deploying a sniper acceptable?

Or a drone with high resolution cameras and backed up with satellite reconnaissance and voice prints and precision guided missiles?

Or are we limited to the “gunfight at the OK corral” battle tactic … us against them, standing up in full view?

If the enemy uses asymmetric warfare, are we limited to standing up in full view?

Or can we employ our own version of asymmetric warfare?

Are we restricted to “rules of engagement”? … in which we can only shoot an enemy while he is in the exact act of shooting at us at that moment? So that if he puts his gun down to reload or take a drink of water, we have to wait until he picks up his gun and reaims at us?

Or do we have to wait until he actually fires at us … then and only can can we shoot him? And if he shoots us and then runs away … we cannot shoot him while he is running. We can only shoot him in the front and while he is shooting at us and with direct authorization from the commander-in-chief for each shot we fire?

If the enemy deploys a flotilla of ships are we limited to standing there with our mouths open? Or can we pull the drain plugs on the ships? Or we limited to catapulting bean bags at them?

If the enemy uses cyber warfare, what is the best way for us to respond?

What if they don’t have any targets worth a cyber attack?

By the way, other countries DO have drones.

 

[Dave_B]

A number of “entities” [states and non-states] have made declarations of war against the United States.
That said, are we limited to our choice of tactics, weapons and strategies?
Is deploying a sniper acceptable?
Or a drone with high resolution cameras and backed up with satellite reconnaissance and voice prints and precision guided missiles?

Hi, I take it from the above you agree with the use of drone assassinations in Pakistan

But isnt this going against the catechism 2309:
“The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. …etc”

Note the word defense. It is not talking about an offensive war, or perpetual war.

How can using pradator drones over foreign countries be defensive?

I am the only one who thinks killing people with drones over Pakistan, Yemen, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya is immoral.

“According to the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, 957 Pakistani civilians were killed in American drone attacks on the country in 2010.”

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Hi, I take it from the above you agree with the use of drone assassinations in Pakistan

But isnt this going against the catechism 2309:
“The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. …etc”

Note the word defense. It is not talking about an offensive war, or perpetual war.

How can using pradator drones over foreign countries be defensive?

I am the only one who thinks killing people with drones over Pakistan, Yemen, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya is immoral.

“According to the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, 957 Pakistani civilians were killed in American drone attacks on the country in 2010.”

So, a country is only allowed to defend.

OK.

So, having failed to defend on December 7, 1942, the United States was immoral in conducting offensive military operations against Japan.

The United States was NEVER actually attacked by Germany. So, U.S. participation in the WWII in Europe and North Africa against Germany was immoral.

The United States had no moral role in the Korean “War”.

The United States had no moral role in the Vietnam War.

And since the USSR never attacked the United States, the entire military buildup of the United States during the “cold war” was immoral.

Having failed to defend against the 9/11 hijackers, further military and/or police and/or security operations against those who organized the hijackers was immoral.

Did I get that right?

 

[Darryl1958]

The American army is really doing amazing things with the new generation of drones. They have some the size of small birds or large instects that copy the flight pattern of these and gather ever more precise information as to who is residing where.

Technology is helping p(name removed by moderator)oint with greater precision and confidence just where the enemy combattant is and limiting deaths to these legitimate targets.

It is a war against an enemy that respect no boundaries and has no national affiliations.

This seems to be the most humane means to perpetrate the war against the enemy according to the rules that the enemy wants to impose on the innocent he hides among

Precision killing is about as good as it gets at limiting unintended casualties.