Suicide...

[promethius]

The red text is key! That is what the unlimited liability clause means. There is a HUGE difference to risking your life and being “called on to die”. “Called on to die” are your words, not mine.

That’s the point. If a military officer orders a unit to defend a position “to the last man” then that unit is to stay and fight until every man in it is dead. If a person were to abandon said post they would be tried by courts martial and, ultimately, could face the death penalty as a result.

I’m not just talking about one man missions which will result in death either. In Korea units were placed to fight off the chinese and NK forces until they were dead or the enemy had been repulsed… sounds well and good until you consider that the enemy was an army of 1,000,000 men approaching a unit of 100 men to hold them back. That is a mission no one would come back from, and yet it happened.

In vietnam, Kham Duc, 15 Marines were sent to spike their artillery guns, even though it was a known fact that 30,000 north vietnamese would surround that area before they could get out. Those men went and did their mission and every one of them died as a result.

The fact that an officer may have to call on a man and send him into a situation KNOWING that man WILL die is a harsh reality of the military and it DOES happen.

How much more calculated or manipulated can this get?? I remember you said “I gave a hypothetical situation which was not very stretched or manipulated”.

You’re the one who asked for a realistic scenario and then turned around and gave limitations and created a totally UNrealistic scenario. I never mentioned the idea of a plane going towards a building, but now we have this scenario which is me in a plane, unarmed, TWO planes headed to a building and I can only take down one.

I gave a proper deontological moral analysis of your very hypothetical and unlikely scenario. I note that you have not responded to my original scenario or to my moral analysis. Are you dodging? I’ll present it again:

What if, instead of the japanese needing to kamikaze our aircraft carriers, we had realized that the only way we could take down the german navy was by kamikaze. Would we have been justified to use suicide attacks in order to end the holocaust?

I would like to see you provide an analytical and logical response to this scenario, as I provided to yours above.

I never said that it would never be acceptable, but only that the suicide bomber scenario was not one of them.

WHY though? As of yet you’ve said dying in combat is not wrong, and that killing in combat is not wrong, provided both are done within the proper strictures of a just war and following the laws of war.

You’re being impossible here. You can’t state a specific moral objection other than repeating your personal opposition. Give me something logical we can discuss because your personal opinion is contrary to church teaching.