Theoretical question about terrorism and innocent casualties

[Journeyman]

Theoretical question:
A known terrorist leader is hiding out in a small village. The country that he has terrorized (hundreds have died) becomes aware of where the terrorist is hiding out, so they drop bombs in the area where he is hiding out. The terrorist dies, but so do some civilians including small children. Is the country’s actions of dropping the bombs immoral, or can this immoral action (if it is) be judged possibly morally appropriate due to the number of lives that may be saved by killing this terrorist?

 

[Scottgun]

Theoretical question:
A known terrorist leader is hiding out in a small village. The country that he has terrorized (hundreds have died) becomes aware of where the terrorist is hiding out, so they drop bombs in the area where he is hiding out. The terrorist dies, but so do some civilians including small children. Is the country’s actions of dropping the bombs immoral, or can this immoral action (if it is) be judged possibly morally appropriate due to the number of lives that may be saved by killing this terrorist?

If the act is immoral (I’ll let others handle that. My unreflected instinct is that this is indescriminate killing and would be immoral), it does not matter how many lives would be saved, it’s still immoral. Otherwise it would be the heresy of *proportionalism *I think.

 

[manualman]

Possibly permissible under double effect.

1. It is permissible to kill in self defense. A terrorist by definition intends to kill again. So the primary effect is not immoral.
2. For purposes of discussion, lets say that they have determined there is no other feasible way of getting in and arresting or killing him. This is a BIG if and needs thorough deliberation!
3. The second and undesired, but unavoidable effect is the death of the innocent civilians around him. Per #2 above, you can’t accomplish #1 without the resulting civilian deaths.
4. The “do nothing” alternative is likely to result in MORE deaths of innocent civilians than the proposed method of killing the terrorist.

Based on how I understand the principle of double effect, it might be OK. But meeting the criteria of #2 is an awfully tough judgement call.

 

[markomalley]

Bottom line is if the target can be eliminated using some other, more precise method, then “dropping bombs in the area” is neither effective, moral, nor allowable under International Law.

 

[agmoose02]

Depends on the level of technology of the country seeking the terrorist. An advanced nation would have precision weapons that most likely would only hit the hideout in question, and therefore would be obligated to do their best to minimize civilian casualties by not bombing the area. A less technologically advanced nation might not have another option so bombing the area instead of the actual target might be acceptable if an assasin could not be infiltrated. I would tend to look at it as a state of just war between the nation in question and the terrorist with the terrorist turning the town into the battlefield. Try to minimize collateral damage but some might be unavoidable.

 

[roanoker]

The basic rule of war is to hurt people and take their stuff. In all wars there is collateral damage, and unlike our current enemy, we in this nation hate that it has to occur. But it does. Always has. Some cowards hide among civilians to save their skin, and its tought to dig them out. But it has to be done, or we lose. Its as simple as that. As a combat veteran I’ve seen some terrible things, but I know sometimes its necessary. As Gen’l. Sherman once said, " War is brutality and there’s no refining it"…Roanoker

 

[GeorgiaPeach]

To me it is pretty clear where the immorality lies in this scenario. The terrorists are immoral for hiding out among innocent civilians; knowingly and willingly putting their lives in danger.

 

[Hastrman]

As Gen’l. Sherman once said, " War is brutality and there’s no refining it"

As in, William Tecumseh Sherman?

Oh, good, for a quick encore let’s get the opinions of Bernhardi, Lavrenty Beria, and Slobadan Milosevic.

How about Hilaire Belloc (military historian, among other things):

Of all the historical ignorance upon which the foolish Pacifist’s case is founded, perhaps the worst is the conception that these abominations are the natural accompaniment of war. They have attached to war when war was ill organised in type. But the more subject to rule it has become, the more men have gloried in arms, the more they have believed the high trade of soldier to be a pride, the more have they eliminated the pillage of the civilian and the slaughter of the innocent from its actions. Those things belong to violent passion and to lack of reason. Modern war and the chivalric tradition scorned them.
–in RAEMAEKERS’ CARTOONS, 1916

The question of if such bombing is the only option does, however, remain open.

 

[roanoker]

Gen’l. Sherman is a pretty reliable source of accurate opinions about war. He ought to know, he was in a big one! He has been vilified for the March through Georgia, but unfairly so. The destruction was not nearly as bad as was reported. Remember, this was a tough war. And he went a long way towards winning it, and ending untold grief. Study that war and his operations in depth as I have you may be enlighted. Well, maybe not. But give it a try anyway. Roanoker