Pros And Cons Of A Sniper

A major objection to my argument is that there are times in which lethal force in indeed necessary, and that non-lethal alternatives would be less effective. First of all in my argument I am assuming that future events are not factors to consider if they are unreasonable to expect. For instance, one could imagine a scenario in which an enemy soldier is disarmed and detained by a robot rather than being killed. Should this combatant later in life, after being captured most likely as a POW, decide that his capture was unacceptable, and proceeds to strap a bomb on his body to blow up a market. It is unreasonable to expect the would be suicide bomber to be killed by the robot instead of detained due to his future incalculable actions. One of

Suppose negotiations have failed, and the only way to save the hostage is through use of force. First let us imagine that another human is facing this scenario. At this point there are few options a human being would have: They could wait for support of someone more highly trained, or they could choose to shoot the enemy. The most useful type of support, other than perhaps a professional negotiator, would be a sniper due to their “pinpoint” accuracy. Since we are assuming negotiating will not work we will choose the sniper support. The sniper only really has two viable options: He could choose to shoot at the assailant 's head, and hope they are unable to pull the trigger, or they could try to shoot the assailant 's weapon, disarming them. The soldier in the situation are also limited to these options should they choose to shoot, but they are even less accurate. The first option is a true gamble since we cannot specifically target the piece of the brain needed to prevent the shot from being fired, let alone hit it accurately. The latter option is an even greater risk: the target is much smaller, and hitting the wrong part of the gun can cause greater damage than the