Originally Posted by
ElSupremo
If I was dropping a bomb on an enemy target and the sovereignty of the UK was at risk then again, I'd have no problem with this. However, I'm not sure how to rationalise dropping a bomb on a Taliban target
ES,
To kill or not to kill, that is the question. There is rarely a simple answer but many variations and uncertainties. Also times change and collateral damage (killing civilians) is increasingly contentious. I shall give some examples:
In The Cruel Sea, Jack Hawkins was prosecuting a possible submarine. Asdic had a solid contact classified as a submarine but visually they could see a line of men in the water. To attack the submarine and kill the men or resuce the men and risk being sunk? Fiction but a dilema.
Or an interdiction target, a bridge deep in enemy territory. There may be people in or around the bridge. If you do not destroy the bridge the enemy might launch a devastating attack. Not fiction but what did the crew do? (Gulf War 1)
Or friendly troops in contact but civilians in close proximity to hostiles. Not to attack could endanger own troops. Again, not fiction, Ed Macy in
Apache.
However you would not be the first to be either uncertain or actually opposed to HMGs policies. There was a recent courts martial where a member of HM Forces decided that he could not support the war in the Middle East.
There was an earlier case during the Suez campaign where a Canberra pilot was also in disagreement and retracted his undercarriage on take-off. At least that was the story at the time.
Any suggestion, at the interview stage, that would might harbour consciencious objections would probably lead to an instant objection unless you could create a very strong arguement.