That RAF advert
Author
Discussion

M5 Russ

Original Poster:

2,245 posts

223 months

Monday 6th February 2012
quotequote all
Why is the guy happy that the insurgents who prep a device that is designed to kill and maime innocent people are not killed ?

Surly the aim is to take them out or am I missing something ?

craigjm

21,687 posts

231 months

Monday 6th February 2012
quotequote all
You are missing something. All military missions are designed with minimal loss of life in mind. Military force, certainly in a British sense is not about splashing as much claret as possible as thats not how you win wars.

M5 Russ

Original Poster:

2,245 posts

223 months

Monday 6th February 2012
quotequote all
So he is happy that the insurgents are free to carry on trying to kill. Oh well maybe a member of his family wont be killed by them next time.

DanDC5

20,109 posts

198 months

Monday 6th February 2012
quotequote all
craigjm said:
You are missing something. All military missions are designed with minimal loss of life in mind. Military force, certainly in a British sense is not about splashing as much claret as possible as thats not how you win wars.
At least that's the offical line anyway, what actually happens more often than not is the Americans shoot 1st as their rules of engagement are more free to interpretation. I know which method I'm in favour of...

Skywalker

3,269 posts

245 months

Monday 6th February 2012
quotequote all
It did have me scratching my head at the 'proudest day of my life' line.
Unless of course they kept surveillance on the insurgents, followed them back home and the SF went in and cut off their hands so they couln't prep another rocket.
smokin

Halb

53,012 posts

214 months

Monday 6th February 2012
quotequote all
Skywalker said:
It did have me scratching my head at the 'proudest day of my life' line.
He's a convert, the advert is actually for al-Qaeda.

DanDC5

20,109 posts

198 months

Monday 6th February 2012
quotequote all
[redacted]

craigjm

21,687 posts

231 months

Monday 6th February 2012
quotequote all
DanDC5 said:
At least that's the offical line anyway, what actually happens more often than not is the Americans shoot 1st as their rules of engagement are more free to interpretation. I know which method I'm in favour of...
I go back to my point. Winning a war is not about killing the most people thats not how you get the upper hand. Military combat is, and quite rightly should be, about strategy to force the enemy into surrender by disabling their capabilities. Winning the war is only the first step in victory as you have to deal with the aftermath and if you have killed millions in a scorched earth type policy that is impossible.

Anyone who thinks you win wars by mass killings has been watching far too many Hollywood films and has probably been nowhere near such situations themselves.

P-Jay

11,414 posts

222 months

Monday 6th February 2012
quotequote all
Whatever your thoughts on the rights or wrongs of killing insurgents.

You have to admit that getting an ad that shows an enemy rocket being destroyed is easier to get past the powers-that-be than one that shows body parts being scattered across the screen in the middle of Corrie.

Simpo Two

93,060 posts

296 months

Monday 6th February 2012
quotequote all
Knowing that your enemy is not allowed to kill you must make fighting much easier.

The idea that you just disable their gun/bomb/sword/brick and let them go off to get another one is patently ridiculous.

durbster

12,136 posts

253 months

Monday 6th February 2012
quotequote all
Simpo Two said:
The idea that you just disable their gun/bomb/sword/brick and let them go off to get another one is patently ridiculous.
It's no more ridiculous than thinking killing as many of them as possible is going to achieve a result. All that serves is to give their family and friends a damn good incentive to join the fight.

craigjm

21,687 posts

231 months

Monday 6th February 2012
quotequote all
durbster said:
It's no more ridiculous than thinking killing as many of them as possible is going to achieve a result. All that serves is to give their family and friends a damn good incentive to join the fight.
Finally, someone else who hasn't got the sensibility of an american film.

anonymous-user

85 months

Monday 6th February 2012
quotequote all
craigjm said:
I go back to my point. Winning a war is not about killing the most people thats not how you get the upper hand. Military combat is, and quite rightly should be, about strategy to force the enemy into surrender by disabling their capabilities. Winning the war is only the first step in victory as you have to deal with the aftermath and if you have killed millions in a scorched earth type policy that is impossible.

Anyone who thinks you win wars by mass killings has been watching far too many Hollywood films and has probably been nowhere near such situations themselves.
Well put. yes

AngryApples

5,449 posts

296 months

Monday 6th February 2012
quotequote all
Err

We are not talking about "Mass Killings" in this instance though, are we?

Surely, having witnessed them setting up the weapon they are a legitimate target (so long as its not sitting right by a village/school/etc) if only to prevent them doing exactly the same thing the next day?

That advert is just pandering to PC BS for the sake of the TV audience and in no way reflects how the real world strike would take place

If NATO can so easily write off civilian "collateral damage" in surgical strikes, are they really likely to give two sts about a group of guys that have actually been witnessed setting up the weapon?

ben_h100

1,550 posts

210 months

Tuesday 7th February 2012
quotequote all
^^ Partly this, but chances are the people planting the IED would be followed by a surveillance asset. They could be identified, mobile phones intercepted etc, and a bigger picture built up of where they build the IEDs, where they gain the materials etc.

DamienB

1,211 posts

250 months

Tuesday 7th February 2012
quotequote all
craigjm said:
Winning a war is not about killing the most people thats not how you get the upper hand.
Depends which war. Said tactic clearly did pretty well in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If there were no environmental consequences I have little doubt that nuclear weapons would have been used many times since then (moral consequences to various combatant nations appear insignificant if you look at history).

M5 Russ

Original Poster:

2,245 posts

223 months

Wednesday 8th February 2012
quotequote all
AngryApples said:
Err

We are not talking about "Mass Killings" in this instance though, are we?

Surely, having witnessed them setting up the weapon they are a legitimate target (so long as its not sitting right by a village/school/etc) if only to prevent them doing exactly the same thing the next day?

That advert is just pandering to PC BS for the sake of the TV audience and in no way reflects how the real world strike would take place

If NATO can so easily write off civilian "collateral damage" in surgical strikes, are they really likely to give two sts about a group of guys that have actually been witnessed setting up the weapon?
Good post.
The advert is far too pc and thats what gets up my nose. I know people in the armed forces and the advert is not an accurate portrayal of their views.

Simpo Two

93,060 posts

296 months

Wednesday 8th February 2012
quotequote all
durbster said:
Simpo Two said:
The idea that you just disable their gun/bomb/sword/brick and let them go off to get another one is patently ridiculous.
It's no more ridiculous than thinking killing as many of them as possible is going to achieve a result. All that serves is to give their family and friends a damn good incentive to join the fight.
If what you say is true then the combined power of the Western Allies cannot defeat a few nutters with RPGs.

BaronVonVTEC

397 posts

215 months

Wednesday 8th February 2012
quotequote all
It's all about hearts and minds these days. Preferably scattered over a square kilometer.