How about Hamed, who might know a guy who knows a guy, who might jeopardise the goals of Murder Squad? How important is not murdering random people vs achieving mission objectives? What if Hamed is a prisoner and slowing Murder Squad down will jeopardise the mission?
It's eerily analogous to the AI alignment problem. It seems like not having hard core elite Murder Squads would be preferable to pretending we can ask people to do their job in a moral vacuum.
I don't pretend to be right on this, and I expect reasonable people to disagree, but if you set up the incentives to prioritise mission success over human life, you will obviously get mission success at the expense of human life and a culture that is proud to kill people to get the job done (thats what makes them different from infantry). "Isn't that what you asked for?"
analogizing a house, the purpose of which is to store and house human occupants, ran by non-professionals, to a dock store-house that houses hazardous compounds and is staffed by employees is pretty useless.
Yes, most everything is fuel.
Storing large amounts of explosive chemicals is beyond the scope of purpose behind a household.
Dock storehouses routinely deal with hazardous/dangerous goods. They are built to do so with the premise that the staff that run them will follow strict (and in most cases clearly written) guidelines.
In other words : I don't need to demonstrate explosion-readiness as a strict rule before home ownership -- but most countries require groups that house and manipulate explosive or combustible goods to demonstrate both their skill in manipulation, and their disaster planning in the worst case.
I was trying to explain why civilian city leadership might not have good intuition for why the storage issue would be a problem for them.