Terrorist Targeting vs Military Targeting
Fury at RAF Kamikaze plan
By JOHN KAY
APRIL 03, 2007
Quote:
RAF Top Guns were stunned last night after being asked to think of being Kamikaze pilots in the war on terror.
Elite fliers were shocked into silence when a senior RAF chief said they should consider suicide missions as a last resort against terrorist targets.
Air Vice Marshal David Walker put forward the attacks — like those flown by desperate Japanese pilots in World War Two — as a “worst case scenario” should they run out of ammo or their weapons failed.
He asked aircrews at a conference: “Would you think it unreasonable if I ordered you to fly your aircraft into the ground in order to destroy a vehicle carrying a Taliban or al-Qaeda commander?”
Such an order would mean certain death for a pilot who cost £6million to train — and the loss of a £50million jet.
Last night pilots slammed the suggestion as “utter madness”. One — summing up a flabbergasted “After you, Sir” reaction — said: “I’m prepared to give it a go but only if the Air Vice Marshal shows me how to do it first.”
…
Full text here:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2007150271,00.html
Seriousluy, but seriously enough?
Hi Ryan,
Quote:
Originally Posted by
RTK
Don't believe everything you read. From within the system, it's taken very seriously.
There's an interesting problem that is running around in the infosphere - Americans are judged on a different scale. As a case in pint, I have been following the stories about friendly fire incidents that killed Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan. If we look at the first example, there is damnably clear evidence that it was not the pilots fault - it was a system screw up, but they got blamed (and penalized) for it. I think I can speak for most Canadians when I say we were frakin' PO'd when it happened and, on the whole, frustrated with the outcome.
As a nation, we recognize that "Sierra happens" - as the saying goes. I think a lot of us were POd when we say the pilots used as, in our perception, scapegoats for a systemic failure.
I Think what Sarajevo 071 is getting at is the perception rather than a logical examination of the problem. Does "collateral damage" happen? Sure. Is it on purpose? Rarely. Most importantly, how is this type of damage spun in the various press agencies and media outlets?
Logically, someone who is "at fault" for killing civilians, but does so in ignorance and as a result of a systemic screwup is, under Western codes of honour, morality and law, not guilty. They get a slap on the wrist, but that is more of a CYA for the system. Under bother codes, regardless of their intention, they owe a blood debt which must be met. What I would like to see is a recognition of this blood debt and some form of culturally appropriate "payment". I'll point out that the pilots who killed 4 Canadians did this - our blutgelt was an apology and talking with the family.
What of strict liability?
I'm reminded of the principal of strict liability, that should you deal with inherently dangerous things, like explosives, if anything bad happens, it's your fault; even if it wasn't your fault, it's still your fault. Granted, as solderers a friendly government will indemnify you of any criminal liability, absent negligence, but real people have been badly hurt and it's still you fault. Tellingly, your employer is civilly liable for the damages.
I've always thought the broader application of strict liability was one of the more charming aspects of military jurisprudence and I'm rather disappointed to hear commenters abandon it in favour of a 'responsible system'.
Respectfully,
Evan