You have an epsilon chance of hitting the terrorist (“NO ONE has ever hit a target from this far”). POI only gives you an epsilon-of-epsilon lower chance of hitting the child. Your superior officer is an idiot.
That’s leaving aside the fact that it would take more time to concentrate on the shot that you actually have (“They are hastily heading towards another building nearby”). And it’s a moving target. The officer is asking a miracle of this sniper.
I’m actually just interested in whether you find the POI argument valid, not in what you think the right strategic call would be if that was a real-life situation.
The two cannot be separated. Reasoning not directed towards decisions about actions is empty. The purpose of the officer’s POI argument is to persuade the sniper that taking the shot is the right call. It is clearly not, and the argument is stupid.
You have an epsilon chance of hitting the terrorist (“NO ONE has ever hit a target from this far”). POI only gives you an epsilon-of-epsilon lower chance of hitting the child. Your superior officer is an idiot.
That’s leaving aside the fact that it would take more time to concentrate on the shot that you actually have (“They are hastily heading towards another building nearby”). And it’s a moving target. The officer is asking a miracle of this sniper.
The two cannot be separated. Reasoning not directed towards decisions about actions is empty. The purpose of the officer’s POI argument is to persuade the sniper that taking the shot is the right call. It is clearly not, and the argument is stupid.