Should the US call a special UN Security Council meeting warning of the attack, resulting in revealing that they have broken the Russian code?

Complete a 3-4-page assignment by selecting two out of the three posed questions. In your response you will need to choose and support the ethical framework you have chosen from the A-G list below:
A) Utilitarianism
B) Ethical Egoism
C) The Common Good Approach
D) The Duty Approach
E) The Rights Approach
F) The Justice Approach
G) The Virtue Approach
It is January 2019, and the US has recently cracked a highly classified Russian communication system. Over the course of 6 months, the US gathered tremendous details regarding Russian leadership plans and intentions in Ukraine, Russian support for Iranian ballistic missiles programs and President Putin’s talking points for a pending European Summit. Many in the intelligence community consider this the biggest leap in intelligence collection on Russia in 10 years. In July of 2019, the US decodes communications from a Russian commander describing Russian plans to transport chemical weapons to the Assad regime to be used against the Syrian town of Zafarana held by anti-regime members. The attack will occur in 24 hours and likely lead to the death of hundreds of civilians.
Should the US call a special UN Security Council meeting warning of the attack, resulting in revealing that they have broken the Russian code? Or do they allow the attack to go forward because the intelligence collection is too important? It is assumed that once the Russians learn that their communication system has been compromised, they will stop using it.
The Maoist terrorist group Sendero Luminoso has reemerged as a serious threat in Peru. In addition to making numerous attacks against Peruvian officials and installations, it has kidnapped and murdered several American businessmen and diplomats. Just recently, it bombed the U.S. Embassy in Lima, killing eight more Americans. The CIA secretly provides equipment, training, and intelligence to the Peruvian National Police and the Peruvian military to help them fight terrorism. As a result, the Sendero Luminoso attacks against Americans in Peru have decreased significantly. We learn, however, that on some occasions, when the Peruvian National Police and military capture known Sendero Luminoso terrorists in the field, they do not always bring them in for trial because such high-profile trials tend to be dangerous and the members of the judiciary are often corrupt. Instead, in their frustration, they summarily execute these terrorists on the spot in what is clearly a human rights violation.
Would it be morally acceptable for the CIA to continue equipping, training, and providing intelligence to the Peruvian National Police and military or counterterrorism operations knowing, as it does now, that they sometimes commit human rights violations?
The president of Venezuela, Elias Vazquez, has moved his country to the far left and has severely strained relations with the United States. Earlier this year, he expelled all U.S. military personnel from Venezuela and cut the staff of the U.S. Embassy in Caracas in half. He maintains close ties with Cuba and appointed a Cuban-trained officer to head his security service. Several international human rights groups have expressed concern about the flagrant human rights violations in the country. Vazquez has publicly announced his sympathy for the Colombian terrorist group FARC and has provided the Colombian guerillas with training bases and safe havens inside Venezuela. U.S. intelligence recently confirmed that Vazquez and his Cuban allies are supplying FARC with weapons and other support. DEA and CIA reporting has established conclusively that Vazquez is allowing the Middle Eastern terrorist groups Hezbollah and Hamas to engage in widespread drug trafficking and money laundering operations in Venezuela, with profits exceeding $100 million a year. The Organization of American States (OAS) condemned Venezuela last month for its human rights violations, support of terrorism, drug trafficking, and undemocratic government. Although Vazquez has tried to stifle all political opposition in Venezuela, he has reluctantly agreed to a recall referendum early next year in the face of intense international pressure. The Venezuelan opposition is weak and poorly funded. The U.S. National Security Council has directed the CIA to develop a plan for aggressive covert action to prevent a victory by Vazquez in the referendum. The CIA operation to oust Vazquez from power is encrypted Operation FASTFOWARD. The major elements of the plan are the following:
Secret funding of the Venezuelan opposition.
Hack Venezuelan government websites and conduct denial of service attacks.
Disruption of Vazquez’s campaign speeches and rallies.
Efforts to foment unrest and anti-Vazquez sentiment in the military and in pro-democracy labor unions.
Use of social media to plant stories critical of Vazquez.
Stuffing of ballot boxes.
Bribery of election officials to report results favorable to the opposition.
Would it be morally acceptable for the CIA to implement Operation FASTFOWARD, as described above, to defeat Vazquez in the recall referendum?
Submission Instructions:
The assignment must be written and submitted as a 3-4 page Word document with 12-pt Times New Roman font. The assignment will follow The Chicago Manual Style of citations. A minimum of four scholarly sources are required to support your argument. Submit your assignment via the Ethical Moral Choice Paper link above.
Review the Ethical Moral Choice Paper Rubric.

Access the Chicago Manual of Style 17th Edition using the following link – Chicago Manual of Style 17th Edition. owl.purdue.edu

RECENT POSTS