- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Would you be in favor of destroying infrastructure even if it leads to civilian deaths?
Posted on 4/7/26 at 10:20 am
Posted on 4/7/26 at 10:20 am
See title.
Not talking about direct deaths like human shields, but destroying railways, transmission lines, desalination plants, etc. leading to starvation or power outages causing deaths.
Trying to gauge what would be seen as acceptable to force the IRGC to the table.
Not talking about direct deaths like human shields, but destroying railways, transmission lines, desalination plants, etc. leading to starvation or power outages causing deaths.
Trying to gauge what would be seen as acceptable to force the IRGC to the table.
24
Posted on 4/7/26 at 10:22 am to Ingeniero
quote:
leads to civilian deaths
What do you mean by this? Obviously, no one wants innocent people to die but it's such a nirvana fallacy to think that a war can be fought with a 100% limit of collateral damage. One can do everything in their power but it's just not realistic. There has not been a single war in the history of mankind where no civilians have been killed.
This post was edited on 4/7/26 at 10:23 am
Posted on 4/7/26 at 10:23 am to JiminyCricket
quote:
What do you mean by this? Obviously, no one wants innocent people to die but it's such a nirvana fallacy to think that a war can be fought with a 100% limit of collateral damage. One can do everything in their power but it's just not realistic.
There is definitely a difference in targeting civilians vs collateral damage of civilians and the president is outwardly threatening killing their entire "civilization".
This post was edited on 4/7/26 at 10:24 am
Posted on 4/7/26 at 10:23 am to Ingeniero
Yes and much much more, 10x, no 100x
Posted on 4/7/26 at 10:24 am to Ingeniero
Plunging the country and potentially region into a blackout is a pretty inhumane move, and in my opinion, an extreme escalation based on what has gone on so far.
Posted on 4/7/26 at 10:24 am to Ingeniero
No, the citizens did nothing to us... It is not acceptable. God will judge those harshly who do actions like that.
Posted on 4/7/26 at 10:24 am to Ingeniero
I'm in favor of the region glowing, so yes to all.
Posted on 4/7/26 at 10:24 am to BeeFense5
quote:
There is definitely a difference in targeting civilians vs collateral damage of civilians
Which is why I asked the question of what he meant by "leading to the deaths."
Posted on 4/7/26 at 10:28 am to JiminyCricket
That's kind of the purpose of the thread. I intentionally left it open to interpretation to spark that discussion. If you bomb a power plant that feeds a hospital and a hundred patients end up dying, is that inevitable? Acceptable? Not relevant? The fault of the regime rather than us? Those are the answers I'm looking for.
Posted on 4/7/26 at 10:28 am to aubie101
quote:
No, the citizens did nothing to us... It is not acceptable. God will judge those harshly who do actions like that.
There is no current way to avoid civilian casualties in war nor has there ever been a war in the history of mankind that has eliminated the loss of innocent life. War is hell. It's a gritty, dirty business and even when the best efforts are utilized to prevent innocent loss of life, it's just unavoidable.
Posted on 4/7/26 at 10:30 am to Ingeniero
Never… But if they start using children and women as shields, Trump needs to call them out for being the chickenshit cowards that they are. There are plenty of other things to annihilate.
Posted on 4/7/26 at 10:32 am to Ingeniero
quote:
That's kind of the purpose of the thread. I intentionally left it open to interpretation to spark that discussion. If you bomb a power plant that feeds a hospital and a hundred patients end up dying, is that inevitable? Acceptable? Not relevant? The fault of the regime rather than us? Those are the answers I'm looking for.
While I think most would oppose direct targeting of civilians, it's just not realistic that any war ever in the history of the world was fought without civilian death. One can be opposed to actions like genocide while also understanding the reality that yes, some civilians will die. It's the unfortunate reality of our mortal bodies. People die so we can pump oil out of the ground. People die so we can eat king crab. People die so we can build buidlings. It's tragic but it's inescapable. For the world to go round, some will die. It's just the way it is.
This post was edited on 4/7/26 at 10:34 am
Posted on 4/7/26 at 10:33 am to Ingeniero
All wars lead to civilian deaths. It is a WAR after all. That is most unfortunate but a fact.
The US has been patient (maybe stupid) for 47 years and finally we have a will and a President willing to take action. Nothing we have done in the past 47 years has worked.
IT"S ABOUT TIME WE STOOD UP AND ADDRESSED THE PROBLEM HEAD ON!!!
The US has been patient (maybe stupid) for 47 years and finally we have a will and a President willing to take action. Nothing we have done in the past 47 years has worked.
IT"S ABOUT TIME WE STOOD UP AND ADDRESSED THE PROBLEM HEAD ON!!!
Posted on 4/7/26 at 10:34 am to Ingeniero
quote:
Would you be in favor of destroying infrastructure even if it leads to civilian deaths?
That's at the hands of their leaders.
The same leaders that have been slaughtering them anyway for dissenting.
If we could have prevented the 20,000 or more murders by nailing leadership and infrastructure sooner, and the resulting death toll were less than 20k or so, would that be worth it?
It is war. People will die. My hope is it's over fast and hard and limited lives are lost (not counting those already slaughtered).
Posted on 4/7/26 at 10:34 am to Ingeniero
How would you feel if it were you and your family?
This post was edited on 4/7/26 at 10:36 am
Posted on 4/7/26 at 10:35 am to AUveritas
Not too much.
Posted on 4/7/26 at 10:36 am to Ingeniero
quote:
That's kind of the purpose of the thread. I intentionally left it open to interpretation to spark that discussion.
perhaps you're just being disingenuous
Posted on 4/7/26 at 10:42 am to tiger789
I don't think it's disingenuous, it's just an uncomfortable question because there's no easy answer. It's a real life trolley problem.
Posted on 4/7/26 at 10:43 am to Ingeniero
quote:
Trying to gauge what would be seen as acceptable to force the IRGC to the table.
i was in favor of fire bombing dresden and tokyo, does that answer your question?
by the way hard case the bombing of dresden occurred febuary 13-15th 1945 when germany was basically defenseless and the war would be over in two months.
it was true than as it is now when people phuck around they need to find out.
Posted on 4/7/26 at 10:44 am to gumpinmizzou
quote:
Plunging the country and potentially region into a blackout is a pretty inhumane move, and in my opinion, an extreme escalation based on what has gone on so far.
The argument is essentially "we're doing this for you - short term pain for long term gain"
Which is pretty dumb even if it worked out like that. I just don't see the mandate for that type of strategy 7500 miles away.
Page 1 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News