Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
wikipedia on tranqulizer use in military/police forces
tl;dr of that summary—it's too unreliable/dangerous.
"Never let the truth get in the way of a good story." Twitter@Thorn: ...I never said he was a civilian. However, he's an international criminal, so he should've faced trial, like all criminals should.
@Cannon: And killing a criminal, however horrible, without trial is wrong.
@ch00: I don't think they're instantly effective, and I'm sure the military would be able to calibrate them just fine. You know what else isn't instantly effective? Bullets. You still think using them was a good idea despite that.
Stun guns are effective at range, though not perfect, and no good armor covers the entire body since that would make it absolutely horrible to wear. Plus, it was a surprise attack. I'm sure that plenty of them were not prepared, and out of armor.
@DG: Doesn't mean he'll necessarily escape this time.
@Kostaya: It was also a sneak attack and Navy SEALs are probably better trained and more accurate than policemen.
@Cannon: Actually, that wasn't, exactly, what I was suggesting, at least not originally. I was suggesting that they should've, in their assault of the compound, taken Osama Bin Laden captive rather than killing him. It would've been awesome if they tried it with non-lethal weapons, and were successful, but I know that would've been stupid.
@Hilarity: He was an international criminal who should've had a fair trial with the ICC.
@chi: I would too, but that doesn't mean they are completely ineffective.
@Green: And, yet, bullets are much more lethal than they are.
I would have preferred it to capture Bin Laden alive, but I don't blame the military for killing him.
Also I wouldn't trust a single piece of information the Chinese government gives about there military.
edited 14th Oct '12 2:00:46 PM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016I'm pretty sure that capturing him alive was the main goal of going after Bin Laden. A trial would probably have made Obama even more popular if they'd managed to do that. That said, I'm not going to get offended because some military guys used deadly force against people who were currently trying to kill them. Because one; these were not ordinary criminals by any stretch of the imagination, and two, these people had already used deadly force against other innocent people. I'd feel much the same if the US was entirely uninvolved in a tragedy of the magnitude of 9/11.
death, there are simply some situations in which you are largely unable to achieve the ideal goal. I applaud your high standards of behavior and largely agree with them, but you need to realize that in some cases your ideals aren't the solution to a problem. Pragmatism is a bitch that way.
As regards China's army: Exactly why should we worry about that? China's not even in a mood to invade anybody, they're concerned with economic expansion. That's where their successes, such as they are, have been lately.
edited 14th Oct '12 2:01:22 PM by AceofSpades
In that case, the Seals might not have realized it was Laden they shot before they shot him. Stress and adrenaline in combat, y'know. That stuff usually makes your accuracy go to the single digits, so don't blame soldiers for not non-lethally taking down people who are trying to kill them.
Also, you might want to refer to me as Loose, so people don't get me and Director Cannon confused.
Burn the land and boil the sea, you can't take the sky from me.again, you're showing a great misunderstanding of how shooting and guns work to think that shooting for and hitting anything other than center of mass (protected by body armor) is a trivial thing to do.
and as the wikipedia article said, you need to know the exact weight of your target to calibrate tranquilizers—I'm sure the seals are equipped with battle scales, so I concede that you're right about them being able to calibrate it.
"Never let the truth get in the way of a good story." TwitterEssentially, there is no such thing as non-lethal methods. There are just less-than-lethal methods. Rubber bullets can still kill people, as can tear gas canisters, tranquilizer darts, stun guns, etc.
edited 14th Oct '12 2:15:07 PM by DrunkGirlfriend
"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian
Plus as Only a Flesh Wound points out, In reality, there's no "safe" place to shoot a person, not even in a seemingly non-vital extremity like a leg or arm
edited 14th Oct '12 2:16:05 PM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016Well, as pointed out, China's not exactly keeping up with the highest tech, so manpower alone probably isn't the greatest way to calculate "most expensive military". You need actual amount of dollars spent to calculated that. And really, we do spend enough that the military guys themselves are saying "you're giving us too much."
Hell, I read an article where the tech guys just bought a bunch of P S2s or whatever and hooked them together to do the job they wanted to do as opposed to just building a specific, highly expensive machine to do it. It's not like the military guys can't make a dollar stretch just a tiny bit to cover what they need to do.
@Braeburn: Well, I do. I'm against killing, regardless of who does it, and especially against a high profile international criminal who not only should've gotten a fair trial, but would've helped to legitimize the ICC in the eyes of Americans who don't like it, for whatever reason, and I'm all in support of the ICC, so that would've been a good thing.
@Ace: ...From what I can tell, it was an order to kill or capture, while I feel the order should've been to capture, without killing being a part of the order.
@Loose: ...I'm pretty sure a trained soldier would be able to tell who Osama Bin Laden is, especially since he probably wasn't out as a part of the regular forces, but in the center being protected. Regardless, I'm not blaming the soldier, but the man who put his killing on the table, which would be Obama.
@chi: America's military budget is greater than the 13 military budgets below it.
@ch00: It's true I'm not good with combat and stuff, and I don't want to be. Ever. However, the military is an expert on combat. I'm sure they would be able to find a way to capture their target rather than killing him.
Osama had body doubles, so identification would also not a trivial thing to do, especially when bullets are flying at you.
"Never let the truth get in the way of a good story." TwitterAnd we're all saying that in a situation where you're sending the military into a situation where you know your soldiers are going to be shot at telling them "Capture only" is fucking stupid and puts your soldiers in danger. You're essentially saying these people are supposed to be unable to defend themselves at all, because deadly force is, by nature of the situation, an absolute certainty.
You are, in essence, asking for the impossible in all situations. The "capture only" only works when the other guys play by the same non-lethal rules. Which Bin Laden and his guys certainly weren't. Add in all the other factors others have pointed out.. well... you're just looking more and more impractical.
R.I.P. Arlen Specter
This sounds like a failure of the whole idea of civilian-versus-military distinction, in the face of terrorism, where you have what are effectively civilians arming themselves and carrying out military operations.

@Kos: I know, I'm just saying that on the topic of questionable counter-terrorism methods, this seems like the wrong thing to get upset about.