01-20-2002, 06:49 AM
OK I would just like to pose a hypothetical question. I think this should be interesting and we should have many varied responses.
Preface: Assume the following:
1. We are being attacked by a deadly foe.
2. In order to defeat this enemy, some innocent lives will inevitably be lost due to "collateral damage."
Question: What ratio of innocent lives lost (due to unavoidable "collateral damage") to American lives lost is an acceptable figure, bearing in mind that we are facing a deadly and relentless foe. For instance, in a thread below, Cyrus seemed to indicate that he may feel that the ratio of innocent Afghani lives (lost due to "collateral damage") to American lives (lost on 9/11) might be unacceptably high. He believes the ratio is 2-1. The purpose of my question is not to debate these controversial (read "disputed" tallies); it is rather to explore this both morally and pragmatically.
A few might feel that ANY number of innocent lives is too many. Many might feel that there is a balance point or fulcrum somewhere. Some might feel that we must defend ourselves irregardless of how many foreign lives it may cost, innocent or otherwise.
So I'm just asking for opinions about this ratio or numbers in a hypothetical sense, and also in a pragmatic sense with regards to our recent involvement in Afghanistan.
Note: one factor which has great impact on what we consider a reasonable ratio is how likely do we think it is that if we do nothing, there will later come even deadlier attacks upon our soil. I think that the chances of this occurring are virtually 100% unless we somehow manage to dismantle al Qaeda (and even then we're not completely out of the woods). The point of the question, however, is not to explore the chances of future attacks (although anyone is welcome to do so), but rather to come up with a number or ratio which roughly expresses your view on how precious American lives are vs. foreign lives, assuming we are under deadly and relentless (even if intermittent) attack.
Preface: Assume the following:
1. We are being attacked by a deadly foe.
2. In order to defeat this enemy, some innocent lives will inevitably be lost due to "collateral damage."
Question: What ratio of innocent lives lost (due to unavoidable "collateral damage") to American lives lost is an acceptable figure, bearing in mind that we are facing a deadly and relentless foe. For instance, in a thread below, Cyrus seemed to indicate that he may feel that the ratio of innocent Afghani lives (lost due to "collateral damage") to American lives (lost on 9/11) might be unacceptably high. He believes the ratio is 2-1. The purpose of my question is not to debate these controversial (read "disputed" tallies); it is rather to explore this both morally and pragmatically.
A few might feel that ANY number of innocent lives is too many. Many might feel that there is a balance point or fulcrum somewhere. Some might feel that we must defend ourselves irregardless of how many foreign lives it may cost, innocent or otherwise.
So I'm just asking for opinions about this ratio or numbers in a hypothetical sense, and also in a pragmatic sense with regards to our recent involvement in Afghanistan.
Note: one factor which has great impact on what we consider a reasonable ratio is how likely do we think it is that if we do nothing, there will later come even deadlier attacks upon our soil. I think that the chances of this occurring are virtually 100% unless we somehow manage to dismantle al Qaeda (and even then we're not completely out of the woods). The point of the question, however, is not to explore the chances of future attacks (although anyone is welcome to do so), but rather to come up with a number or ratio which roughly expresses your view on how precious American lives are vs. foreign lives, assuming we are under deadly and relentless (even if intermittent) attack.