[keepamovin]

What is the alternative, ask them not to tell?

If you had to make the decision in the moment how would you weigh compromising the chance to prevent thousands or millions of deaths for advanced warning of nuclear or other attack using your ability to install that monitoring equipment now or in future, versus the lives of potentially hostile people who show up in your mission area?

You have to live with the moral cost, and human conflict means these choices have to be made.

[chubot]

What happens if you just abort the mission? Probably nothing, and certainly doing nothing is less likely to provoke war and further escalation than murdering civilians, hoping no one notices, and then having a front page NY Times article published about it later

If North Korean spies murdered fisherman off the coast of California on a failed mission, you bet there would be blowback

If they were simply noticed, the US govt might be able to and be incentivized to downplay it. Similar to downplaying whatever drones were flying over NJ

[keepamovin]

That's one way to assess it. Can you take the cost if your presence is detected?

Maybe nothing happens. How likely is nothing? And if your presence finds it ways to the authorities, what's the cost? Likely, NK will patch what might be your best chance at advance warning.

As fishing is dangerous and many never return, their plausibly 'accidental' deaths provide cover to keep the secrecy and your future access intact.

Now the story leaks out from inside - what are the consequences? I don't know.

[impossiblefork]

It doesn't matter if you can take the cost.

It's forbidden to kill civilians. You can only kill non-civilians, and there's nothing allowing you to hide the bodies of civilians or interfere with their burial rites.

[arcatech]

The article states that it was NOT forbidden to kill civilians. Or at least, the US considered it justified.

[chubot]

the US considered it justified

s/ the US / "some bureaucratic process within the military"

which is almost certainly politically influenced, as many decisions at this level are

In this case, I don't think the bureaucracy reflects the will of the people

[impossiblefork]

The US has signed treaties according to which it is forbidden and these treaties are additionally so special that they're treated as applying to even non-signatories, the so-called customary international law.

[keepamovin]

Specialist missions normally have custom RoE not always mirroring those in conventional theatre, but nevertheless appropriate for the mission specifics.

[impossiblefork]

Yes, but this it's clearly forbidden to make civilians object of attack, and it doesn't matter whether you risk discovery or whatever. Surely the RoE should be at least as restrictive as IHL.

I think it might be legal to hide the body, but if you do so you must do something to ensure that it can be recovered, either informing the enemy afterwards or some other measure to that effect.

[keepamovin]

Does a civilian become a combatant or pose a threat if they could derail, though awareness of your presence, your mission to prevent NK making civilians the object of attack on massive scale with nuclear weapons?

[justacrow]

I don't think it's so much about the Rules of Engagement but more about "Don't indiscriminately murder people"

[keepamovin]

Indiscriminate would be nuclear weapons on cities. This mission’s ultimate goal was to prevent NK doing that.

If you could stop NK doing that, would you pull the trigger? Would you make a targeted kill of a person who compromised that mission by discovering it?

[w0de0]

They’re detected now. Right now. Front page of the NY Times. The murders didn’t do shit.

[keoneflick]

> What is the alternative, ask them not to tell?

The moment the seals fired the rifles the mission was over, a complete failure.

So the obvious alternative was to abort without killing everyone. The vaunted seals can't escape from a fishing boat? Nothing was accomplished by this mission other than killing a bunch of fishermen. For shame.

[impossiblefork]

The alternative is not murdering anybody and leaving.

You don't have a right to kill civilians and being discovered can never be a justification for doing so.

You can only kill actual combatants.

[mlhpdx]

False dichotomy. There were many other options available.

[keepamovin]

Such as?

[sussmannbaka]

Not becoming a murderer for hire in the first place, for one.

[lifeformed]

If I break into your home to steal something, and accidentally wake you up, is the only reasonable option for me to shoot you?

[Ferret7446]

That's a surprisingly fitting analogy, because you don't know if the person you're robbing keeps a gun under their pillow, and you may only have a second to find out.

[lifeformed]

Yes, killing them is the "correct" answer if the only thing that motivates you is self-preservation, but it is the worst answer if you consider pesky inconveniences like morality, legality, and basic humanity and decency.

[jacquesm]

You're not a thief. You're a murderer. Because it is only a matter of time before that situation occurs.

[lifeformed]

> versus the lives of potentially hostile people who show up in your mission area?

So what? Then you fight the people proven to be hostile or run away. At no point is executing innocents an option that should be on the table in that situation. If things go wrong and escalate to a life threatening situation for you, then that's one the risks YOU consented to. It's not a risk that civilians are responsible for.

Maybe you get killed, or there is political fallout, but both of those situations are a better outcome than killing civilians.