Should The Soldier Allow Himself to Be Killed Rather Than...

[Eyeron]

There are such things as child suicide bombers before. Of that there can be no doubt. So the question I put to you is this:

Is it morally right for a soldier to kill a child who intends to bomb him and his friend with the intent of killing him and other soldiers with a suicide bomb? Or is a child's life so important that a soldier should just allow himself be killed rather than allow the child to come to harm?

[Hux]

Id shoot first and ask philosophical questions later.

[Gate2501]

Isn't the child going to blow up at any rate in this hypothetical?

Kill it.

[DallasDad]

If there's no peaceful way to disarm the child, shoot it. Cry and curse humanity afterward.

[Eyeron]

Isn't the child going to blow up at any rate in this hypothetical?

Actually the situation itself, that of a child suicide bomber, isn't really hypothetical.

[Gate2501]

Actually the situation itself, that of a child suicide bomber, isn't really hypothetical.

Well, hypothetical or not, I see this as a no-brainer.

You kill the suicide bomber, or the bomber dies anyway and takes you with him.

[X]

You kill the suicide bomber, or the bomber dies anyway and takes you with him.


True, and all the more tragic for it.
Still, I feel like a **** for saying that.

[Beerina]

Isn't the child going to blow up at any rate in this hypothetical?

Kill it.

Except it's not a hypothetical. It happens.

And it happened in Vietnam, too.

And they end up shooting kids who are not wired sometimes, too.


Now think about it a moment. If the US soldiers just let themselves get blown up, would this discourage or encourage suicide bombers from wiring even more children?

[Gate2501]

Except it's not a hypothetical. It happens.

And it happened in Vietnam, too.

And they end up shooting kids who are not wired sometimes, too.

I will clarify:

I think that if you suspect a child of being a suicide bomber, and that child is running towards you and not listening to your shouts for him to stop(I'm sure that in a war zone, you will know how to at least yell "STOP" in his language), you have no choice but to kill or disable him before he gets close enough to harm you with the suspected device. Even if this means killing a kid who is not wired sometimes. :(


Now think about it a moment. If the US soldiers just let themselves get blown up, would this discourage or encourage suicide bombers from wiring even more children?

A good point. I don't know how effective this tactic actually is however.

[Dragonrock]

I suspect that it is less effective at killing soldiers than demoralizing them and turning locals against them. The locals tend to blame the soldiers rather than the one who gave the kid the grenade and sent him off to die.

[Steelmage]

Unfortunely, the child will die either way, so it is better to kill the child then hunt down the bastard would make the child a bomb and kill him.

[popscythe]

Suicide bomb child before child can suicide bomb you.

[Darat]

There are such things as child suicide bombers before. Of that there can be no doubt. So the question I put to you is this:

Is it morally right for a soldier to kill a child who intends to bomb him and his friend with the intent of killing him and other soldiers with a suicide bomb? Or is a child's life so important that a soldier should just allow himself be killed rather than allow the child to come to harm?

Why does it matter (in this instance) if the suicide bomber is a child or an adult or indeed a tortoise?

[Hux]

So we are agreed the kid's toast.

Would anyone, given the circumstances, consider otherwise?

[Fishstick]

Why does it matter (in this instance) if the suicide bomber is a child or an adult or indeed a tortoise?

I don't think suicide bombing toirtoises would be very effective, unless sent at the elderly.

[Cainkane1]

There are such things as child suicide bombers before. Of that there can be no doubt. So the question I put to you is this:

Is it morally right for a soldier to kill a child who intends to bomb him and his friend with the intent of killing him and other soldiers with a suicide bomb? Or is a child's life so important that a soldier should just allow himself be killed rather than allow the child to come to harm?
I know a man who had to kill a woman with a baby on her back. This was in Vietnam. A woman was running towards a a group of soldiers carrying a hand grenade and she was shot dead. The grenade went off and killed the baby. Bad thing to happen but I fault the mother and whoever put her up to doing that.

[Hux]

I don't think suicide bombing toirtoises would be very effective, unless sent at the elderly.

Turtle carnage.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Remind me again why it matters if the kid has a bomb?

[Darat]

Remind me again why it matters if the kid has a bomb?

Bombs can be useful so you don't want to accidentally explode one.

[Dancing David]

There are such things as child suicide bombers before. Of that there can be no doubt. So the question I put to you is this:

Is it morally right for a soldier to kill a child who intends to bomb him and his friend with the intent of killing him and other soldiers with a suicide bomb? Or is a child's life so important that a soldier should just allow himself be killed rather than allow the child to come to harm?

Um in war you kill those who are trying to kill you, ergo if the child clearly has a bomb and is trying to kill you or orthers...

[jadey]

Why does it matter (in this instance) if the suicide bomber is a child or an adult or indeed a tortoise?

If you had to choose between two scenarios, which would you choose?

1) Killing a child suicide bomber.
2) Killing an adult suicide bomber.


I tend to think that the younger the individual, the less responsible they are, and the less they deserve the consequences of their actions. I suspect that most of the shooters in the above situations would think it matters.

[Marquis de Carabas]

If you had to choose between two scenarios, which would you choose?

1) Killing a child suicide bomber.
2) Killing an adult suicide bomber.
Are you sure I can't have both?

[jadey]

Are you sure I can't have both?

You are a Dark Lord. Next, you'll be demanding the tortoise as well.:)

[fuelair]

There are such things as child suicide bombers before. Of that there can be no doubt. So the question I put to you is this:

Is it morally right for a soldier to kill a child who intends to bomb him and his friend with the intent of killing him and other soldiers with a suicide bomb? Or is a child's life so important that a soldier should just allow himself be killed rather than allow the child to come to harm?

Soldier's duty is to kill the child - seen the same "problem" in shows (mostly British) where child has a pistol pointed at soldier. If you cannot follow procedure - which means you stop anyone trying to kill you or fellow soldiers - then you are no good as a soldier. Not all people are - nothing to be ashamed of - but weigh life value against life value. And, in the scenario you give the kid dies regardless.

[triadboy]

Take the child out (preferably with an air-launched, heat-seeking missile)

[gambling_cruiser]

There are such things as child suicide bombers before. Of that there can be no doubt. So the question I put to you is this:

Is it morally right for a soldier to kill a child who intends to bomb him and his friend with the intent of killing him and other soldiers with a suicide bomb? Or is a child's life so important that a soldier should just allow himself be killed rather than allow the child to come to harm?
What a stupid scenario.
The child will die either way, so what should be moral about dying with the suicide bomber and risking the life of your comrades?
It would be a cross negligence of your duty at your comrades to not kill the attacker to save their and your life.

[Beerina]

Remind me again why it matters if the kid has a bomb?

Bombs can be useful so you don't want to accidentally explode one.

Exactly. If you stop the bomb from exploding and killing you, you can recover it, and sell it for forty silver at the vendor's.

Unfortunately, there are class 2 suicide bombers, where innocent victims are sent in, but someone far away watching does the detonation by radio signal. This makes recovery almost impossible, because even if you safely shoot the bomber, the remote person will just wait for you to approach and then detonate it.

[Eyeron]

Why does it matter (in this instance) if the suicide bomber is a child or an adult or indeed a tortoise?

Because I've heard people talk about how people should never draw a firearm on a child no matter what. And that anybody who does so is a monster.

[gambling_cruiser]

Because I've heard people talk about how people should never draw a firearm on a child no matter what. And that anybody who does so is a monster.
That are people who haven't encountered a suicide bomber.

[gambling_cruiser]

And yes war is a messy busyness where nice, nice doesn't help to survive.

[Cainkane1]

True, and all the more tragic for it.
Still, I feel like a **** for saying that.
Heres another one of my Vietnam horror stories. The Vietcong would sometimes sit a small child on the ground in front of a begging bowl. The area in front of the child was mined. Children are often used by terrorists.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Holy crap that's fiendish! So you'd die just because you were trying to steal money from a child beggar? That's not cool.

[Eyeron]

I hope that's a joke.

If it's not, then that completely misses the mark. It's for soldiers who would give the child some money. And it's more monstrous to think that a person would use a child to lure a soldier in like because the mine would kill the child and the soldier.

[Marquis de Carabas]

It's for soldiers who would give the child some money.
So they're smart mines who only blow up when the generous approach, and leave the greedy bastards alone? I need to find out how to get me some of those.

[Darth Rotor]

Unfortunely, the child will die either way, so it is better to kill the child then hunt down the bastard would make the child a bomb and kill him.
This.

@ MdC: please, don't stop, yer ticklin' my funny bone.

[newton3376]

There are such things as child suicide bombers before. Of that there can be no doubt. So the question I put to you is this:

Is it morally right for a soldier to kill a child who intends to bomb him and his friend with the intent of killing him and other soldiers with a suicide bomb? Or is a child's life so important that a soldier should just allow himself be killed rather than allow the child to come to harm?

I would do what I was trained to do.....2 in the chest and 1 in the head.

After that I can ponder the philosophical/religious/moral implications of what I had done....

And after pondering it I would do the exact same thing if the same situation arose....

[fuelair]

I would do what I was trained to do.....2 in the chest and 1 in the head.

After that I can ponder the philosophical/religious/moral implications of what I had done....

And after pondering it I would do the exact same thing if the same situation arose....

Been visiting Mozambique have we?:)

[Mason]

I would do what I was trained to do.....2 in the chest and 1 in the head.

After that I can ponder the philosophical/religious/moral implications of what I had done....

And after pondering it I would do the exact same thing if the same situation arose....

I find that one single shot to the vicinity of the chest usually does the trick.

But then again, I carry a 203, so YMMV.

[ElightenMe]

There are such things as child suicide bombers before. Of that there can be no doubt. So the question I put to you is this:

Is it morally right for a soldier to kill a child who intends to bomb him and his friend with the intent of killing him and other soldiers with a suicide bomb? Or is a child's life so important that a soldier should just allow himself be killed rather than allow the child to come to harm?

What deems a child's life more important?

[Eyeron]

What deems a child's life more important?

I don't know. And I wish I knew. As for myself I don't find a child's life more important than an adult's, they are equally valuable. But there are people out there who believe in protecting children trumps any adult's rights.

[Marquis de Carabas]

I don't know. And I wish I knew. As for myself I don't find a child's life more important than an adult's, they are equally valuable. But there are people out there who believe in protecting children trumps any adult's rights.
It's too simple to say any kid is more valuable than any adult. Adults are generally more valuable in a what they can offer right now sort of way, but kids usually have more potential value, particularly as compared to adults past reproductive age. Of course, individual cases can vary greatly. A particularly skilled adult past reproductive age may still be more valuable than a child with a terminal illness.

[ElightenMe]

It's too simple to say any kid is more valuable than any adult. Adults are generally more valuable in a what they can offer right now sort of way, but kids usually have more potential value, particularly as compared to adults past reproductive age. Of course, individual cases can vary greatly. A particularly skilled adult past reproductive age may still be more valuable than a child with a terminal illness.

I agree with what you're saying, but yes it is also more complex from that.

I'm wondering what you're thoughts are on relation to the awareness of implication.

Such where a child soldier may not fully understand the implications of their actions compared to where a child has understood the implications and chosen to attempt to bring harm.

[newton3376]

Been visiting Mozambique have we?:)

LOL um....no...

I am ex US Army.

[newton3376]

I find that one single shot to the vicinity of the chest usually does the trick.

But then again, I carry a 203, so YMMV.

I remember someone during training asked....

"What if the first or second shot to the chest drops him?"

The sergeant doing the training answered.....

"Well that makes the head shot a lot easier, now doesn't it?"

[Darat]

Because I've heard people talk about how people should never draw a firearm on a child no matter what. And that anybody who does so is a monster.

Really? I never have.

[fuelair]

I remember someone during training asked....

"What if the first or second shot to the chest drops him?"

The sergeant doing the training answered.....

"Well that makes the head shot a lot easier, now doesn't it?"

Ah! Did not realize our Army was teaching Mozambiqueing now - weren't at Ft. Campbell on my indirect (through Ft.Detrick) movement to Vietnam. They were pushing making sure you placed your output both high and low into shrubberies in 'Nam. "It'will put any hiding Cong in a world of hurt - but if you do not fire low they will put you there." Almost word for word.:)

[fuelair]

Because I've heard people talk about how people should never draw a firearm on a child no matter what. And that anybody who does so is a monster.Doubtless, there are people who believe - outside of scenarios similar to the one in the op (to include any weapon/device a child could operate correctly and well enough to kill/cause major harm with -that and possibly some who even believe it in the scenarios of that type. I am of the type who is willing to wait and see, but happy to terminate the attacker of a child NOT in that scenario group, but to terminate the child in that scenario group. The circumstance determines the responce for me. And I love kids.:):)