Random scenario

[Somebody Else]

Let us say, there is a tower block. In which, is the headquarters of an organisation. This tower block lies within an area where if not direct support of said organisation, local sympathies are at the least neutral. The tower block is also home to an indeterminate number of civilians.

This organisation has been staging attacks on your state. Bombings, kidnappings, etc.

What do you do?

Bomb the building? Send in troops to target only the HQ? Ignore them and let them get on with their merry bomb-making?

Completely unrelated to anything going on at the moment... honest.

[Papewaio]

You really hate the UN don't you

[Somebody Else]

You really hate the UN don't you

Just it's ineffectiveness. If it were an organisation capable of scaring anyone, even the US, into toeing the line, on the other hand...

Addendum - I would however, whole-heartedly support a proper attempt at a true world government. Nation-states tend to bicker pointlessly.

[Divinus Arma]

.

Addendum - I would however, whole-heartedly support a proper attempt at a true world government. Nation-states tend to bicker pointlessly.

Only a volunteer world government. I think the EU is a great example of what global governance could be (at least from what little I know of it). Before the anti EU people jump on me and my ignorance, let me at least express what I like:

Voluntary membership- Nations may leave at any time.
A unified currency- just makes everything much more stable.
Voluntary Military Contributions.

Basically, I like that it is based on volunteerims in every aspect rather than compulsary membership. The United States, for example, is entirely compulsary. This is not something I agree with. I much prefer a confederation of sovereign states unified in economic and political policy by choice.

A huge all-powerful federal government is baaaaaaad. Why? Because the leadership is too far removed from the electorate. The people lose all power. At least in a confederation, power is distributed.

[InsaneApache]

Only a volunteer world government. I think the EU is a great example of what global governance could be (at least from what little I know of it). Before the anti EU people jump on me and my ignorance, let me at least express what I like:

Voluntary membership- Nations may leave at any time.[i]
A unified currency- just makes everything much more stable.[ii]
Voluntary Military Contributions.

Basically, I like that it is based on volunteerims in every aspect rather than compulsary membership. The United States, for example, is entirely compulsary. This is not something I agree with. I much prefer a confederation of sovereign states unified in economic and political policy by choice.

A huge all-powerful federal government is baaaaaaad. Why? Because the leadership is too far removed from the electorate. The people lose all power. At least in a confederation, power is distributed.

Voluntary membership- Nations may leave at any time.

[i] Voluntary yes, but only as far as the politicians being duplicitous with the electorate. The EU was never sold to the UK electorate as a political union. It was always touted as being an economic entity. More like the NAFTA. It is almost impossible to leave as well. All laws drafted in Bruxelles have to be implemented in the member states, whether they like it or not. Sovereign Parliaments elected by the member states have no choice than to rubber stamp these laws, even though they are conjured up by unelected bureaucrats.

A unified currency- just makes everything much more stable.

[ii]Sorry my fellow Orgah, the Pound Sterling is alive and well and doing fine thankyou very much.

I refer the Right Honourable Gentleman to my post in the EU constitution thread where I covered the Euro issue.

[Fragony]

What do you do?

Cut of the food supply and allow civilians to leave. Easy.

I think the EU is a great example of what global governance could be

Hold it right there, who are you and what have you done to Divinus Arma?? I am starting to get worried about you mia muca

[Somebody Else]

Cut of the food supply and allow civilians to leave. Easy.

The civilians who are passively, if not actively aiding the terrorists? If they do, how do you know the terrorists haven't left with them?

[Fragony]

The civilians who are passively, if not actively aiding the terrorists? If they do, how do you know the terrorists haven't left with them?

Hmmmm good one. Apprarently I am not the machiavelli I thought I was, let's just kill them all just for kicks and giggles, let god decide who was guilty.

A more human aproach would be to fill the building with sleeping gas!

and then kill them all

[R'as al Ghul]

A more human aproach would be to fill the building with sleeping gas!

Done!

[Husar]

Yeah, so we can have more and smaller wars.

[Vladimir]

Screw world government. We need to split into more and smaller states.

Hello? The Balkans?

[Ironside]

The civilians who are passively, if not actively aiding the terrorists? If they do, how do you know the terrorists haven't left with them?

Almost better. You can then take out the stash and equipment unopposed. Monitor the area to prevent any quick re-establishments in the area and identify all that has left the area. Destroy all secret passages and notice thier exits.
Try then to continue the pressure on the group. If you can keep this up it will cripple the organisation as it will constantly loose equipment and people that shows up on several places will either be very unlucky or members. And learning thier secret retreat habits can be useful...

Striking the headquaters will often wond them, possibly cripple them for a while, but you're damn lucky if you can take out the head of the beast in one strike this way. They're usually prepared for that situation.

[Somebody Else]

And if the civvies refuse to leave?

Plus, as far as I know, stockpiling all equipment in one place is rather foolish, compared to having multiple hidden caches. I would assume anyone who's capable of organising a terrorist group will have at least that amount of sense...

[Husar]

And if the civvies refuse to leave?

That´s human stupidity, according to Darwin only the strong or those who can adapt will survive, well, they obviously can´t adapt...

[Ironside]

And if the civvies refuse to leave?

Plus, as far as I know, stockpiling all equipment in one place is rather foolish, compared to having multiple hidden caches. I would assume anyone who's capable of organising a terrorist group will have at least that amount of sense...

Well you are cutting of thier food supplies... So simply wait and take your time to check for any secret exits. Offer to deploy troops inside to prevent looting, but make it known that they'll withdraw if attacked... And withdraw them if it happens.

As I said, you can only be really effective if you constantly take out thier bases and stashes. Or is doing an extremly good operation (that would require insane amounts of very good intel though, and strikes agaisnt several places at once).

Well... the Israelis are dropping leaflets saying exactly that. Carte blanche then, huh?

Airstrikes are quite different compared to sieging an area.