MovieChat Forums > Eye in the Sky (2016) Discussion > "Collateral Damage Estimate" Plot Hole

"Collateral Damage Estimate" Plot Hole

posted 8 years ago by Curmudgeon10
3 replies | jump to latest

I've fired missiles and dropped bombs in combat, and I've seen a target through a scope that made me wonder why we were striking it --- but as a military person, one does what one is ordered to do. I'll leave it to all the others here to thrash out the deep ethical and philosophical questions raised by the film.

However, there is one aspect of the movie that seems to be receiving much weight: the notion that a CDE --- either below the magic 50% level, or above --- somehow means anything significant in the chances of survival of the girl. First it is only an estimate, and at 45%, it simply means that she has about four chances in ten of being killed/injured. Let's say the number was really the 65 percent --- so instead of four chances in ten, there are six chance in ten. Only by repeating that strike on a fresh target over and over again would you be able to demonstrate that either number was even in the ball park of being correct. And the results of just one strike on the target, even if the girl was in a very remote part of the area and the CDE was 10% or less, could still be fatal for her.

Way too much was made over that, although as a gimmick to show how ridiculous the civilian leadership can be (even though all the scenarios had already been preapproved), it served its purpose.

[–] schubej-1 8 years ago

Don't think that is the point of the film. Is taking one innocent life (in this case a child's) justification for saving a multitude of other lives. That was the justification for dropping the A-bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I'm not in a position to condemn or condone. But, it's an interesting debate especially if one factors in their own child to be sacrificed.

[–] K_Ace 8 years ago

The numbers do not matter much from a military perspective, but their role is crucial from the political one. For a politician, 65% means the girl is more likely to die; 45% means she is more likely to survive. In the first scenario, they are most likely ordering her to death; in the second scenario, they were most likely making her severely injured.

Of course, the probability numbers are difficult to predict, they can be incorrect, and changing the impact from 65% to 45% won't magically save lives. But they still have an immense political power.

[–] tle_mgr 8 years ago

This is not WWI and WWII where you get to fire into civilians because your superiors told you to.

Among the numerous international laws, Geneva Conventions and even UK laws, you have a legal responsibility to not follow an unlawful order. By legal, I mean you won't get a way with " I was following orders". If you bomb a hospital or school, knowing that there are kids there, but your superior told you a HVT was inside, YOU as well as them will face a court martial.

How do I know this? Oh gee, because I served in the US Army.