There is no moral difference between a Stealth bomber and a suicide bomber

Nino Brown · 06-01-2014 11:20PM

Callum Gorgeous Farmhouse wrote: »

Its part of war, not all of war.

I've seen lots of bombs drop on target without damage to civilians or civilian property, the majority in fact cause little damage to anything but the intended target.

However bombs do fall short, or are not aimed correctly etc etc and innocent people will be killed but I've never seen that happen deliberately.

It would be a very expensive way to kill innocent people ~ a much cheaper way (if you really don't care about killing innocents0 would be to carpet bomb and area with old 'dumb' unguided munitions.

Of course some stealth bomb drops only hit their target, likewise some suicide bombers only kill military targets. But in general both kill innocent people, I would argue that stealth bombers kill more innocent people because they drop far more bombs.
B2's can carry 80 500lb JDAMS, JDAMS are guided but if you drop 80 500lb bombs, you're definitely taking out some unintended targets.

stoneill · 07-01-2014 11:04AM

nacho libre wrote: »

The Making of the Atomic Bomb, is this the book you're referring to?

yep

Nino Brown · 07-01-2014 11:39AM

Callum Gorgeous Farmhouse wrote: »

It would be a very expensive way to kill innocent people ~ a much cheaper way (if you really don't care about killing innocents) would be to carpet bomb an area with old 'dumb' unguided munitions.

Also we keep saying innocent people, but what does that mean?

If a bomber drops a bomb on a bunch of Afghan insurgents would you consider that a legitimate, or not an innocent target? They are people who are trying to defend their home country, The US is attacking them in their country, if the US went home many would go back to being innocent civilians. They believe that what they are doing is the right thing for their family and country. The coalition forces disagreed, and we don't see them as innocent. But I see it as an honorable thing to do, and would like to think if foreign forces invaded Ireland, I'd be out there planting roadside bombs.

Likewise, when a suicide bomber blows up a school, in his mind the school children are legitimate targets. Now clearly we think that is wrong, but they use religious extremism or whatever else to justify that in their head, to them the school children are not innocent and are legitimate targets.

I'm not arguing the right or wrong or war, in fact in many cases I am for military action, and I think the war in Afghanistan and Iraq were justified (but lets not get into that, there's other threads for that). The point I'm trying to make is that in war, good/bad, innocent/guilty, legitimate/illegitimate are all relative.

Take WW2 for example, I'm sure the people in the axis countries saw the west as the evil force.
You can't win a war without getting you hands dirty, but we always hear the worst of what the enemy has done, and the heroic stories of the western forces, I'm sure the enemies do the same.But the highway of death in 1991, Mukaradeeb wedding party in 2004 etc etc, tell us that in most wars there is no good/bad, it's just bad/bad.

old hippy · 07-01-2014 12:14PM

Nino Brown wrote: »

You mean the facts are nonsense, we should be clinging to opinions?

WW2 lasted 6 years, The atomic bombs were dropped and within a few days the war was over. Are you saying that was a co-incidence? That the bombs did not end the war?

I think we're focussing on the Pacific War which lasted 3 years, 8 months.

Fratton Fred · 07-01-2014 12:19PM

Nino Brown wrote: »

Also we keep saying innocent people, but what does that mean?

If a bomber drops a bomb on a bunch of Afghan insurgents would you consider that a legitimate, or not an innocent target? They are people who are trying to defend their home country, The US is attacking them in their country, if the US went home many would go back to being innocent civilians. They believe that what they are doing is the right thing for their family and country. The coalition forces disagreed, and we don't see them as innocent. But I see it as an honorable thing to do, and would like to think if foreign forces invaded Ireland, I'd be out there planting roadside bombs.

The Taliban aren't defending their country, the Afghan national army are doing that. If the coalition came home tomorrow, the Taliban would carry on until they have taken control of the country and returned it to the extremist hell hole it was before the latest phase of the war.

Nino Brown · 07-01-2014 12:30PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The Taliban aren't defending their country, the Afghan national army are doing that. If the coalition came home tomorrow, the Taliban would carry on until they have taken control of the country and returned it to the extremist hell hole it was before the latest phase of the war.

I don't doubt that for a second, I't not trying to argue to right or wrong of the war. I think you're missing my point. How about Iraq as an analogy then, the US dispanded the Iraqi army, many of whom then became insurgents. They were regular "innocent" working people before the war, are they then not innocent because they are fighting for their country during the war as insurgents?
The point I'm making is, innocence in war terms is a relative term, we may think someone is an illegitimate target, but the enemy may not see it that way and vice versa.

Fratton Fred · 07-01-2014 12:43PM

Nino Brown wrote: »

I don't doubt that for a second, I't not trying to argue to right or wrong of the war. I think you're missing my point. How about Iraq as an analogy then, the US dispanded the Iraqi army, many of whom then became insurgents. They were regular "innocent" working people before the war, are they then not innocent because they are fighting for their country during the war as insurgents?
The point I'm making is, innocence in war terms is a relative term, we may think someone is an illegitimate target, but the enemy may not see it that way and vice versa.

There are always shades of grey in a war. Is a civilian who works in an army canteen a legitimate target? Or one that works in a munitions factory?

Are they legitimate targets at work, but what about at home?

There is, however, areas of very clear black and white. For example, bombing a school because it educates girls is never ever going to be anything other than wrong and if one side in a war thinks otherwise, then lets hope they never become more than just insurgents.

In terms of the OP, I can't see any moral difference between the two. Is there a moral difference between a carving knife and an AK-47? There isn't if they are both used to kill innocent people.

Nino Brown · 07-01-2014 01:01PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

There are always shades of grey in a war. Is a civilian who works in an army canteen a legitimate target? Or one that works in a munitions factory?

Are they legitimate targets at work, but what about at home?

Exactly my point, well put

Fratton Fred wrote: »

There is, however, areas of very clear black and white. For example, bombing a school because it educates girls is never ever going to be anything other than wrong and if one side in a war thinks otherwise, then lets hope they never become more than just insurgents.

I some what agree here also, but in this case the extremists are just as convinced they are right, as we are that they are wrong. They believe that not only is that what their god wants, but it is their duty to enforce gods will. Obviously I think they are batsh!t crazy, but they think the same about me.
Imagine a nation of only vegans, they would be 100% sure we are barbaric because of the millions of animals we slaughter, and raise in some pretty terrible conditions to supply our food chain because we think it's okay to eat meat.
But we've always ate meat, and we would believe it is our right and in our nature to eat meat and that there is nothing wrong with it, despite an entire nation thinking we are barbaric. So who is right and wrong there? I know how animals are treated in the food industry, I still eat meat because I want to, am I evil?

Obviously I'm not comparing killing kids to killing animals,I'm just trying to play devils advocate here to show that even when when we think right and wrong is black and white. The enemy can have the opposite opinion, but it's just as black and white for them too. Its all relative.

arybvtcw0eolkf · 07-01-2014 04:27PM

Nino Brown wrote: »

Of course some stealth bomb drops only hit their target, likewise some suicide bombers only kill military targets. But in general both kill innocent people, I would argue that stealth bombers kill more innocent people because they drop far more bombs.
B2's can carry 80 500lb JDAMS, JDAMS are guided but if you drop 80 500lb bombs, you're definitely taking out some unintended targets.

Give me an example of a time when a single B2 or any other type of aircraft dropped 80 JDAM's on a target?.

And why the focus on stealth bombers anyway, to me it doesn't matter what type of aircraft a bomb is dropped from.

Anyway in a war/battle (there's a difference) civilians are always going to be killed, but guided munitions go a long way to minimizing civilian casualties ~ civilian casualties make bad press.

And what happens if your enemy is laughing attacks on your position from behind of close to civilians? ~ Do you not drop a bomb and hope he'll stop when he runs out of ammunition and expose your own forces, towns/cities and its peoples to more danger?.

Nino Brown · 07-01-2014 04:40PM

Callum Gorgeous Farmhouse wrote: »

Give me an example of a time when a single B2 or any other type of aircraft dropped 80 JDAM's on a target?.

I can't tell you, it's classified. But the US government hardly built a stealth bomber capable of carpet bombing, just for the giggle. Here's video which claims to be a B2, which I beleive because fighers couldn;t carry that payload
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t41WD_40tq8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VU7cTfdxOkY

Callum Gorgeous Farmhouse wrote: »

And why the focus on stealth bombers anyway, to me it doesn't matter what type of aircraft a bomb is dropped from.

Don't ask me, I didn't start the thread I was only staying on topic

Callum Gorgeous Farmhouse wrote: »

Anyway in a war/battle (there's a difference) civilians are always going to be killed, but guided munitions go a long way to minimizing civilian casualties ~ civilian casualties make bad press.

For sure, I'm not anti guided bombs or anything, but I bet they kill more civilians that suicide bombersjust because they're used much more often

Callum Gorgeous Farmhouse wrote: »

And what happens if your enemy is laughing attacks on your position from behind of close to civilians? ~ Do you not drop a bomb and hope he'll stop when he runs out of ammunition and expose your own forces, towns/cities and its peoples to more danger?.

I'd drop the bomb on the civilians everytime, but that's my whole point about the right and wrong of war, it depends which side you're on, I'd expect the enemy to do the same to me in that situation.

arybvtcw0eolkf · 07-01-2014 06:39PM

Nino Brown wrote: »

I'd drop the bomb on the civilians everytime, but that's my whole point about the right and wrong of war, it depends which side you're on, I'd expect the enemy to do the same to me in that situation.

Good because so would I... And yes your enemy would, thats why he's placed himself in a school, mosque, UN building etc ~ so he can lauch attacks on you in the hope that you won't drop bombs on the innocents housed inside.

As regards who's a terrorist etc, I'm reminded of the words of The Ballad of Joe McDonald;

"And you dare to call me a terrorist while you look down your down, when I think of all the deeds you have done... You have plundered many nations, divided many lands, you have terrorized their peoples, you rule with an iron hands... and you brought this reign of terror to my land"

dees99 · 07-01-2014 07:57PM

Nino Brown wrote: »

They do though, collateral damage is part of war, and everyone knows it. When a stealth bomber drops a bomb they know they will very likely kill "innocent" people.
The term "innocent" is somewhat subjective though when it comes to war. For example, if you drop a bomb on a bomb factory, the workers are civilians, are they innocent?

No collateral damage is when innocent civilians get caught up in the crossfire. When the Americans send in a drone they aim for a military target and sometimes innocent people die.

Suicide bombers actually target civilians, café's anywhere they can do the most damage. That's deliberate. Collateral damage is generally accidental

dees99 · 07-01-2014 08:10PM

Nino Brown wrote: »

Also we keep saying innocent people, but what does that mean?

If a bomber drops a bomb on a bunch of Afghan insurgents would you consider that a legitimate, or not an innocent target? They are people who are trying to defend their home country, The US is attacking them in their country, if the US went home many would go back to being innocent civilians. They believe that what they are doing is the right thing for their family and country. The coalition forces disagreed, and we don't see them as innocent. But I see it as an honorable thing to do, and would like to think if foreign forces invaded Ireland, I'd be out there planting roadside bombs.

Likewise, when a suicide bomber blows up a school, in his mind the school children are legitimate targets. Now clearly we think that is wrong, but they use religious extremism or whatever else to justify that in their head, to them the school children are not innocent and are legitimate targets.

I'm not arguing the right or wrong or war, in fact in many cases I am for military action, and I think the war in Afghanistan and Iraq were justified (but lets not get into that, there's other threads for that). The point I'm trying to make is that in war, good/bad, innocent/guilty, legitimate/illegitimate are all relative.

Take WW2 for example, I'm sure the people in the axis countries saw the west as the evil force.
You can't win a war without getting you hands dirty, but we always hear the worst of what the enemy has done, and the heroic stories of the western forces, I'm sure the enemies do the same.But the highway of death in 1991, Mukaradeeb wedding party in 2004 etc etc, tell us that in most wars there is no good/bad, it's just bad/bad.

No you are incorrect, the Taliban are trying to protect their way of life, their harsh brutal regime which they use as a means of control. They see the west as a threat to that extremist ideology. They execute people for smoking, singing, women being uncovered and millions of other things that only an extremist radical could hope to understand. And its not their country btw its the people of Afghanistan's country.

Every chief in Karzai's government recently voted in favour of keeping American forces in the country for the next few years. Why weren't they out planting roadside bombs? When Afghanistan votes for a new president in April do you they will vote for the commander of the Taliban to be the new president. They're the Taliban not the IRA. Get real will ya.

Theres a video on YouTube which shows Taliban gunmen executing 44 unarmed people followed by a bullet in each one of their heads. I'd love to post the link but id probably get barred. The Taliban are bullies who follow the 2000 year old writing of a 'prophet' who also says it also ok for old men to marry 7 year olds. If the Taliban were powerful enough they would be in Ireland executing us infidels too.

Thank god for stealth bombers, that's all I can say!

dees99 · 07-01-2014 08:12PM

And you don't see stealth bombers blowing up crowded parts of Kabul now do you?

dees99 · 07-01-2014 08:16PM

Nino Brown wrote: »

Also we keep saying innocent people, but what does that mean?

If a bomber drops a bomb on a bunch of Afghan insurgents would you consider that a legitimate, or not an innocent target? They are people who are trying to defend their home country, The US is attacking them in their country, if the US went home many would go back to being innocent civilians. They believe that what they are doing is the right thing for their family and country. The coalition forces disagreed, and we don't see them as innocent. But I see it as an honorable thing to do, and would like to think if foreign forces invaded Ireland, I'd be out there planting roadside bombs.

Likewise, when a suicide bomber blows up a school, in his mind the school children are legitimate targets. Now clearly we think that is wrong, but they use religious extremism or whatever else to justify that in their head, to them the school children are not innocent and are legitimate targets.

I'm not arguing the right or wrong or war, in fact in many cases I am for military action, and I think the war in Afghanistan and Iraq were justified (but lets not get into that, there's other threads for that). The point I'm trying to make is that in war, good/bad, innocent/guilty, legitimate/illegitimate are all relative.

Take WW2 for example, I'm sure the people in the axis countries saw the west as the evil force.
You can't win a war without getting you hands dirty, but we always hear the worst of what the enemy has done, and the heroic stories of the western forces, I'm sure the enemies do the same.But the highway of death in 1991, Mukaradeeb wedding party in 2004 etc etc, tell us that in most wars there is no good/bad, it's just bad/bad.

And a Taliban would murder they're own daughter if they caught her even talking to a male. So please don't say they are doing the right thing for their family and then call them honourable in your next sentence. They have their own warped ideology and will slaughter man woman or child who dares contradict it

karma_ · 07-01-2014 08:17PM

dees99 wrote: »

No collateral damage is when innocent civilians get caught up in the crossfire. When the Americans send in a drone they aim for a military target and sometimes innocent people die.

Suicide bombers actually target civilians, café's anywhere they can do the most damage. That's deliberate. Collateral damage is generally accidental

Let's say a suicide bomber targets some civilians and kills 10

And a stealth bomber targets a 'legitimate target' and accidentally kills 30 civilians.

How is it that 10 deaths are any more morally unacceptable than the 30?

In what absolute insanity could anyone with a straight face stand up and try and argue that the atomic bombs vaporising 200,000+ is morally acceptable and that the London 7/7 bombings that killed 52 are not?

Neither are morally acceptable, and those that argue there is a difference should take a long hard look at themselves.

dees99 · 07-01-2014 08:21PM

Nino Brown wrote: »

Also we keep saying innocent people, but what does that mean?

If a bomber drops a bomb on a bunch of Afghan insurgents would you consider that a legitimate, or not an innocent target? They are people who are trying to defend their home country, The US is attacking them in their country, if the US went home many would go back to being innocent civilians. They believe that what they are doing is the right thing for their family and country. The coalition forces disagreed, and we don't see them as innocent. But I see it as an honorable thing to do, and would like to think if foreign forces invaded Ireland, I'd be out there planting roadside bombs.

Likewise, when a suicide bomber blows up a school, in his mind the school children are legitimate targets. Now clearly we think that is wrong, but they use religious extremism or whatever else to justify that in their head, to them the school children are not innocent and are legitimate targets.

I'm not arguing the right or wrong or war, in fact in many cases I am for military action, and I think the war in Afghanistan and Iraq were justified (but lets not get into that, there's other threads for that). The point I'm trying to make is that in war, good/bad, innocent/guilty, legitimate/illegitimate are all relative.

Take WW2 for example, I'm sure the people in the axis countries saw the west as the evil force.
You can't win a war without getting you hands dirty, but we always hear the worst of what the enemy has done, and the heroic stories of the western forces, I'm sure the enemies do the same.But the highway of death in 1991, Mukaradeeb wedding party in 2004 etc etc, tell us that in most wars there is no good/bad, it's just bad/bad.

Sorry for all the quotes but I don't know if your just a bit naïve or what? They bomb schools to -
Stop people being educated because education is the key to destroying the Taliban
To promote terror
To ensure there is no faith in the security services
To destabilise the country
To seize advantage of the situation and gain power by force (Fallujah, iraq as we speak)

Tony EH · 07-01-2014 08:27PM

There seems to be some people on this thread that are struggling with the term "stealth" bomber.

A Stealth bomber is not some kind of aircraft that can magically only target the "bad guys". It's an aircraft that's designed to evade detection and reach its target, whether that's a bunker, a hamlet or a city.

Stealth bombers, like the F-117, are still subject to the same arbitrary bombing methods that other bombing aircraft are, because the propaganda of "precision bombing" is a lie, used to salve western conscience.

In any case, as somebody has already asked, why the focus on stealth bombers? The vast majority of bombing sorties are carried out, without stealth technology and there isn't any difference in the result on the ground.

Nino Brown · 07-01-2014 08:27PM

dees99 wrote: »

Sorry for all the quotes but I don't know if your just a bit naïve or what? They bomb schools to -
Stop people being educated because education is the key to destroying the Taliban
To promote terror
To ensure there is no fate in the security services
To destabilise the country
To seize advantage of the situation and gain power by force (Fallujah, iraq as we speak)

You've done a lot of quoting but obviously not a lot of reading, and you've missed the whole point of what I said. I never once supported the Taliban. All I said was they believe they are doing the right thing.

Nino Brown · 07-01-2014 08:29PM

Tony EH wrote: »

In any case, as somebody has already asked, why the focus on stealth bombers? The vast majority of bombing sorties are carried out, without stealth technology and there isn't any difference in the result on the ground.

Because the original quote which was the subject of this thread referred to stealth bombers

dees99 · 07-01-2014 08:32PM

karma_ wrote: »

Let's say a suicide bomber targets some civilians and kills 10

And a stealth bomber targets a 'legitimate target' and accidentally kills 30 civilians.

How is it that 10 deaths are any more morally unacceptable than the 30?

In what absolute insanity could anyone with a straight face stand up and try and argue that the atomic bombs vaporising 200,000+ is morally acceptable and that the London 7/7 bombings that killed 52 are not?

Neither are morally acceptable, and those that argue there is a difference should take a long hard look at themselves.

Because the stealth bombers mission is to takeout a military target. People might get caught in the crossfire and its harsh but it happens.

A suicide bomber will actually head into a crowded shopping centre, marketplace and detonate with the aim of killing as many innocents as possible. There might not even be a military target in sight. They will specifically aim for highly populated areas. Why do suicide bombers kill their own people? I could understand them hitting a military target but they slaughter locals that they don't even know. They are just bullies who want to control by violence!

dees99 · 07-01-2014 08:37PM

Nino Brown wrote: »

You've done a lot of quoting but obviously not a lot of reading, and you've missed the whole point of what I said. I never once supported the Taliban. All I said was they believe they are doing the right thing.

You called they're actions honourable and said you would do the same thing. So that means your unsupportive? I'm sorry for getting myself mixed up there

Tony EH · 07-01-2014 08:40PM

dees99 wrote: »

Because the stealth bombers mission is to takeout a military target. People might get caught in the crossfire and its harsh but it happens.

A suicide bomber will actually head into a crowded shopping centre, marketplace and detonate with the aim of killing as many innocents as possible. There might not even be a military target in sight. They will specifically aim for highly populated areas. Why do suicide bombers kill their own people? I could understand them hitting a military target but they slaughter locals that they don't even know. They are just bullies who want to control by violence!

There's really no such thing as a "military" target, unless you are bombing the enemy in the field, which simply doesn't happen much these days.

By far and away, the most often hit targets are urban areas and there are huge civilian casualties all the time.

As for "slaughtering locals they don't even know" and "bullies who want to control", well, by those parameters the employers of bombing aircraft and suicide bombers are one in the same. The suicide bomber is simply more honest about his target.

karma_ · 07-01-2014 08:40PM

dees99 wrote: »

Because the stealth bombers mission is to takeout a military target. People might get caught in the crossfire and its harsh but it happens.

A suicide bomber will actually head into a crowded shopping centre, marketplace and detonate with the aim of killing as many innocents as possible. There might not even be a military target in sight. They will specifically aim for highly populated areas. Why do suicide bombers kill their own people? I could understand them hitting a military target but they slaughter locals that they don't even know. They are just bullies who want to control by violence!

With respect, that's just fúckíng waffle, and does nothing to change the effects.

Nino Brown · 07-01-2014 08:43PM

dees99 wrote: »

You called they're actions honourable and said you would do the same thing. So that means your unsupportive? I'm sorry for getting myself mixed up there

I was referring to the insurgents who are from Afghanistan, not all insurgents are hard line Taliban, many just joined to fight the US. Just like in Iraq, thousands of ex military became insurgents just to fight the US. I think defending your country from foreign invaders is an honorable thing to do. But I also said I supported both wars. I'd love to see the Taliban wiped out. But the west can't go flattening foreign countries, then taking the moral high ground when we get attacked back.

end of the road · 07-01-2014 09:27PM

dees99 wrote: »

Because the stealth bombers mission is to takeout a military target. People might get caught in the crossfire and its harsh but it happens.

A suicide bomber will actually head into a crowded shopping centre, marketplace and detonate with the aim of killing as many innocents as possible. There might not even be a military target in sight. They will specifically aim for highly populated areas. Why do suicide bombers kill their own people? I could understand them hitting a military target but they slaughter locals that they don't even know. They are just bullies who want to control by violence!

their just using the same tactics britain and murica used in all of their wars, the tactic of deliberately murdering civilians, the only difference is the method, its wrong either way

dees99 · 07-01-2014 09:30PM

Nino Brown wrote: »

I was referring to the insurgents who are from Afghanistan, not all insurgents are hard line Taliban, many just joined to fight the US. Just like in Iraq, thousands of ex military became insurgents just to fight the US. I think defending your country from foreign invaders is an honorable thing to do. But I also said I supported both wars. I'd love to see the Taliban wiped out. But the west can't go flattening foreign countries, then taking the moral high ground when we get attacked back.

But they're not defending their country they're defending their way of life. So they can continue to rule through fear and extreme violence. Ffs they couldn't give a **** about they're country or people. America wants to install a democratic government where all the people have a vote. And that's right!Taliban are completely the opposite. What are they defending their country from? Because America wants to tear down schools, hold kangaroo trails, behead people at will? If they want to defend they're country then why not join the national army?? Because Taliban want they're own rule. They want to be judge and jury. And if they could Nino, they would probably chop our heads off too. Sure they're religion condones killing infidels. They are not the IRA, they are not freedom fighters, they are killers unless you completely submit to them and they're ways

end of the road · 07-01-2014 09:32PM

Nino Brown wrote: »

the west can't go flattening foreign countries, then taking the moral high ground when we get attacked back.

best post in this thread and absolutely correct

dees99 · 07-01-2014 09:33PM

Taliban are enemy of Afghanistan. Remember in Pakistan when they tried to murder that girl for going to school and whos now in hiding in Britain? I guess you think they were fighting for their country then too

dees99 · 07-01-2014 09:34PM

end of the road wrote: »

best post in this thread and absolutely correct

They have never attacked a democracy. No history in Afghanistan until Taliban protected bin laden

There is no moral difference between a Stealth bomber and a suicide bomber

Comments