• In total there are 3 users online :: 1 registered, 0 hidden and 2 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 789 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 5:08 am

Negotiating with terrorists for the release of hostages?

Authors are invited and encouraged to present their FICTION books solely within this forum.
User avatar
TheWizard
The Great Gabsby
Posts: 64
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2013 6:43 pm
10
Location: Blaine, TN
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 17 times
Contact:

Re: Negotiating with terrorists for the release of hostages?

Unread post

The only Islamic state that has nuclear weapons is Pakistan and they're not like other Islamic nations. They also submit to monitoring.

Bunk-buster technology may or may not work in Iran - however making the facilities completely inaccessible by destroying the outlying terrain with conventional weapons still ends the program, as do other methods of assault on the bunkers.

The problem is that this ridiculous idea that we could negotiate with these fanatics has us in the place where we are now
Robert Brady
Author of The Fovean Chronicles
http://www.swordsandsorcery.com
User avatar
LanDroid

2A - MOD & BRONZE
Comandante Literario Supreme
Posts: 2800
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2002 9:51 am
21
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Has thanked: 195 times
Been thanked: 1166 times
United States of America

Re: Negotiating with terrorists for the release of hostages?

Unread post

The Wizard said The only Islamic state that has nuclear weapons is Pakistan and they're not like other Islamic nations.
Correct. They routinely crossed the Afghan border to support the Taliban and fight our troops. They attack civilians in India. They also housed Osama bin Laden. Still no rain of death.
ClosetScribe
Getting Comfortable
Posts: 7
Joined: Sun Nov 16, 2014 2:39 pm
9
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: Negotiating with terrorists for the release of hostages?

Unread post

When I first put this topic up, it was to ask a question about the wisdom of negotiating with terrorists. I initially limited my thoughts to the problem of dealing with a group that is not a nation state. ISIL, Boko Haram, Hamas and others have the luxury of blending in with the general population which makes it all but impossible to to fight them without massive civilian casualties. It is my belief that a no negotiation policy works to some extent with these groups. To negotiate a ransom with them only incentivizes others to do the same.

But when it comes to dealing with nation states, like with Russia and Putin's desire to rebuild the old Soviet Union, and Iran, whose nuclear ambitions were clear, the use of nuclear weapons or carpet bombing would be completely unacceptable for a number of important reasons. If nukes were used on Russia, it would be inviting the end of the world for all of us. The concept is called mutually assured destruction, and it's very real. To bomb Iran with nukes would be tantamount to inviting the rest of the world to treat us as pariahs, and economically, if that were to occur, it would quickly bring us to our knees. There are no easy solutions to rogue states. Economic sanctions work because they put pressure on the leadership from the inside out. It takes time, a lot of it, but in the end, it seems to work. Iran is composed of millions of people who don't hate the US. They just want to live, feed and clothe and educate their children, etc. the same as us. And for that reason, Iran will eventually come around or face a Persian spring.

Happy Thanksgiving everyone. I'm all ranted out. :)
User avatar
Robert Tulip

2B - MOD & SILVER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6497
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:16 pm
18
Location: Canberra
Has thanked: 2717 times
Been thanked: 2659 times
Contact:
Australia

Re: Negotiating with terrorists for the release of hostages?

Unread post

Just wondering, as technology improves with GPS trackers on vehicles etc, what is the likelihood of people in danger zones having GPS microchip implants?* I know it is a bit cyborg SF, but it might reduce kidnappings, since after paying a ransom for release the holding location could be bombed.

The moral dilemma is similar to turning back refugee boats. Australia has successfully implemented this policy, dramatically reducing deaths at sea through deterrence. Meanwhile Italy is dominated by leftwing acceptance of illegals, so is growing its lure as a honeypot for unseaworthy trips across the sea.

Maybe the ideal would be GPS chips plus a preemptive bombing policy, so any Americans who get kidnapped know they and their attackers will die as soon as a ransom is demanded. That would be a deterrent.

* en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microchip_implant ... plications
Last edited by Robert Tulip on Fri Nov 28, 2014 2:03 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Taylor

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
Awesome
Posts: 959
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 7:39 pm
14
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 422 times
Been thanked: 589 times

Re: Negotiating with terrorists for the release of hostages?

Unread post

I used to think "bomb them all and let god sort them out", but my days as soldier of fortune are past.

Can there really be a successful outcome when attempting to reason with unreasonable people?, The answer is of course no.

Sanctions are bribery, a tool that has been applied in the areas in question for many decades, when that has failed brut force is the outcome.

There is a third outcome as well, it is called de'-tente, which lately seems to mean idol threats or similar rhetoric.
I myself wonder: how many more years can the world stand nose to nose with each other in some economic pissing contest before it becomes necessary to have a real go at one another? (big picture)

I think it is a truism that negotiated outcomes can work in some situations, but fails abjectly in others.
Its also a truism that people are people where ever you go, most do only hope for peace, but somehow this peace eludes the world. I would suggest that the inability to negotiate successfully being greater than the opposite is the proof of the pudding, you can not negotiate with terrorist for the release of hostages to the satisfaction of all parties involved.

I the case of Iranian nukes, its likely their leadership sees the weapons as a strong tool of sovereign state. In diplomacy all things are equal, and necessary are they not?

With ISIL as well as the others, invitation to negotiate isn't a position they are prepared for as they remain more effective to their cause by distance to the table. The interesting thing for me personally is to put myself in the shoes of the terrorist and or the so-called axis of evil,( one of LehelVondors thought experiments) and try to think like they might think, how is the cause we fight for furthered? this is of course what intelligence agents do, but it is a required tool for knowing how to negotiate.

Where's the easy part in any of this?
Last edited by Taylor on Fri Nov 28, 2014 10:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
ClosetScribe
Getting Comfortable
Posts: 7
Joined: Sun Nov 16, 2014 2:39 pm
9
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: Negotiating with terrorists for the release of hostages?

Unread post

Robert Tulip wrote:Just wondering, as technology improves with GPS trackers on vehicles etc, what is the likelihood of people in danger zones having GPS microchip implants?* I know it is a bit cyborg SF, but it might reduce kidnappings, since after paying a ransom for release the holding location could be bombed.

The moral dilemma is similar to turning back refugee boats. Australia has successfully implemented this policy, dramatically reducing deaths at sea through deterrence. Meanwhile Italy is dominated by leftwing acceptance of illegals, so is growing its lure as a honeypot for unseaworthy trips across the sea.

Maybe the ideal would be GPS chips plus a preemptive bombing policy, so any Americans who get kidnapped know they and their attackers will die as soon as a ransom is demanded. That would be a deterrent.

* en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microchip_implant ... plications
The thought of a preemptive strike on the kidnap victim and the attackers as soon as ransom is demanded is really harsh. Victims are just that....victims. They may have been in the wrong place at the wrong time. The Doctor's Without Borders who treat everyone in a conflict zone are prime examples of people doing good who are at risk of kidnap. Should they be bombed if taken? I think not. You don't destroy evil by also destroying that which is good. We can attempt rescues to get them back, our current policy, but giving in to kidnappers brings about more kidnappings, not fewer. Now, if the perpetrators are a nation state, then there are many economic pressures coupled with discussions that offer a way out (example North Korea and the recently released hostages). Events like those don't encourage other states to follow suit..
Thanks for your comments and opinion. GPS chips to implants might help in rescue efforts. If the technology allows that, I know I'd consider it.
User avatar
Robert Tulip

2B - MOD & SILVER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6497
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:16 pm
18
Location: Canberra
Has thanked: 2717 times
Been thanked: 2659 times
Contact:
Australia

Re: Negotiating with terrorists for the release of hostages?

Unread post

I just wanted to throw in an extremely cruel end point of the options to help illustrate the dilemma. An extremely punitive policy could pretty well eliminate ransom kidnapping, on the imperial principle of kill one and make a thousand tremble.

A victim is not only a victim,they are also a precedent. If western powers make the precedent say we are soft and will participate in a hostage market, then we send incentive to increase kidnapping and worsen risks.

The rival scenarios are that this year one hostage gets killed due to refusal to negotiate, or no hostages get killed due to payment of ransom. On the non-payment scenario, next year there are no kidnappings, but on the payment scenario next year five hostages are taken and two get killed, setting off a syndrome that will only worsen until a tough policy is instituted. A willing buyer creates a seller.

Maybe if there were edible GPS designed to fix to the stomach wall and remain there until programmed to pass through the intestine, then the military could apply a policy of dropping bombs a mile away, to say to the kidnappers we know where you are. But I suppose the kidnappers could easily x-ray for the GPS, and then remove it surgically in a moving ambulance and take it to a place aimed to inflict maximum reputational damage if bombed. Very hard to win against such an enemy.

I actually think that dialogue and trade are more effective security strategies than armies and walls. But dialogue has to be backed by power.
User avatar
LanDroid

2A - MOD & BRONZE
Comandante Literario Supreme
Posts: 2800
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2002 9:51 am
21
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Has thanked: 195 times
Been thanked: 1166 times
United States of America

Re: Negotiating with terrorists for the release of hostages?

Unread post

Robert, You must be an extraordinarily successful marketing professional if you think you can sell a GPS doohickey for that purpose. :up: 8)
Post Reply

Return to “Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book!”