Comment by YeGoblynQueenne | Hacker News Reader

Comment by YeGoblynQueenne | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

YeGoblynQueenne

>> I asked the vice president that question and he answered it in the affirmative. I asked again to be sure. “Sir, I am confirming that you have given permission?” For me, being a military member and an aviator—understanding the absolute depth of what that question was and what that answer was—I wanted to make sure that there was no mistake whatsoever about what was being asked. Without hesitation, in the affirmative, he said any confirmed hijacked airplane may be engaged and shot down.

I have a faint recollection of Dick Cheney and who he was. I find it easy to believe that the reason he did not hesitate was because his own person was in mortal danger from the airliner in question.

I think a leader responsible for the lives of people on the air and on the ground both, would find it very hard to make a decision to condemn one group to save the other, even if one group was condemned already. I mean, it's not for nothing that the Trolley Problem and Sophie's choice, etc are such well-known ethical conundrum examples.

But when it comes to saving one's own bacon- the decision is much simpler.

Is this comment too cynical?

You're jumping to conclusions based on incomplete information and your existing point of view.

Refer to https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/were-the-onl...

Quote:

Karl Rove: Andy and I are there with the president. The president gets this call from Cheney—we didn’t know who it was at the time, we just knew the phone rang. He said “yes,” then there was a pause as he listened. Then another “yes.” You had an unreal sense of time that whole day. I don’t know whether it was 10 seconds or two minutes. Then he said, “You have my authorization.” Then he listens for a while longer. He closes off the conversation. He turns to us and says that he’s just authorized the shoot-down of hijacked airliners.

I have a very low view of Dick Cheney, but my view of him is that he would have made this decision in a cold, calculating manner—looking at the probability of casualties on the ground vs. in the air, and doing a numbers game. He would probably also consider the ramifications of civilians in the air killed vs. the destruction of a national symbol and the casualties inflicted there.

Cheney was Secretary of Defense for four years under Bush I, during a small adventure you may remember called Desert Storm. I doubt this was the first time he's ever had to make a life or death call. In the article he also mentions training they went through to prepare for a Soviet nuclear attack, where you'd be playing with the lives of billions of people. In short, this wasn't his first rodeo.

Trolley Problem aside, there's a clear "right" answer in terms of damage to the country which is ostensibly what he's trying to optimize for. 40 people dead in a field is a lot better than hundreds dead and a national symbol (White House? Congress?) destroyed.

Cheney certainly doesn't seem like a good guy, but I can't go along with you here.

First, the white house bunker is supposed to survive nuclear weapons. Was his life even on the line?

Second, do you imagine the air force base commander was the first person to ask 'are you sure'? I'd imagine between Bush, Rice, the aides in the room and the pentagon he'd probably have been asked that at least twice by other people already.

In the wider context they're talking about if it's going to be used to attack a populated area. If the pilots determine that is the intent, then the most limiting action you can take is to take the plane down. I really don't think being far underground in a bunker Cheney felt threatened.

I know almost nothing about Dick Cheney, so what do you mean by saying this:

> he did not hesitate was because his own person was in mortal danger

By this time wasn't he in the bunker? So his own person really wasn't in mortal danger anyway.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com