naraburns nihil supernum
2yr ago
(text post)
31466 thread views
Israel-Gaza Megathread #2
This is a refreshed megathread for any posts on the conflict between (so far, and so far as I know) Hamas and the Israeli government, as well as related geopolitics. Culture War thread rules apply.
IDF literally using nuclear weapons would be a huge deal, much huger than just levelling it through conventional means (which would be a huge deal as well). Nuclear weapons have been mystified completely out of proportion, but this mystification has probably also been a thing that's been preventing their use in, say, Ukraine; no-one wants to be the one who "takes the nuclear genie out of the bottle", partly because dispelling the mystification might make them less scary and partly because of diplomatic consequences. If the genie is taken out of the bottle, the treshold for further use would be lowered by necessity.
Nuclear weapons have been mystified completely out of proportion
Indeed, people forget that not all nuclear weapons are strategic in scope; tactical nukes exist, and only simplify the kind of destruction that conventional weapons achieve. And anyway it's not like large campaigns of conventional bombings can't achieve the kind of destruction we associate with strategic nuclear weapons too, as Dresden and Tokyo can attest. But I guess it's good that we still kept that genie in the bottle, there's no reason to make large scale destruction easier, it's already too easy.
During the early months of the Ukrainian War I got nuclear anxiety and assuaged it by reading a fair deal about modern nukes, and one thing that surprised me was that even the strategic nuclear weapons were tinier than I assumed. People are used to talking about "megatons" when talking about nukes, but even the biggest nuke in the current Russian nuclear arsenal is "only" 800 kilotons, with most being much smaller; they'd cause a huge amount of damage, to be sure, but compared to magazines using Tsar Bomba - a bomb that was only built and exploded once for flaunting purposes over 50 years ago - as their typical nuke for "What would happen if..." demonstrations, serves to show that the popular idea of nuclear weapons is hugely overblown.
I would guess that if Israel dropped a nuke on Gaza, it would create enough nuclear panic throughout the entire Israel - which is right next to Gaza, that's the whole point of this conflict - to create some major local reprecussions solely through that effect.
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
IDF literally using nuclear weapons would be a huge deal, much huger than just levelling it through conventional means (which would be a huge deal as well). Nuclear weapons have been mystified completely out of proportion, but this mystification has probably also been a thing that's been preventing their use in, say, Ukraine; no-one wants to be the one who "takes the nuclear genie out of the bottle", partly because dispelling the mystification might make them less scary and partly because of diplomatic consequences. If the genie is taken out of the bottle, the treshold for further use would be lowered by necessity.
Indeed, people forget that not all nuclear weapons are strategic in scope; tactical nukes exist, and only simplify the kind of destruction that conventional weapons achieve. And anyway it's not like large campaigns of conventional bombings can't achieve the kind of destruction we associate with strategic nuclear weapons too, as Dresden and Tokyo can attest. But I guess it's good that we still kept that genie in the bottle, there's no reason to make large scale destruction easier, it's already too easy.
During the early months of the Ukrainian War I got nuclear anxiety and assuaged it by reading a fair deal about modern nukes, and one thing that surprised me was that even the strategic nuclear weapons were tinier than I assumed. People are used to talking about "megatons" when talking about nukes, but even the biggest nuke in the current Russian nuclear arsenal is "only" 800 kilotons, with most being much smaller; they'd cause a huge amount of damage, to be sure, but compared to magazines using Tsar Bomba - a bomb that was only built and exploded once for flaunting purposes over 50 years ago - as their typical nuke for "What would happen if..." demonstrations, serves to show that the popular idea of nuclear weapons is hugely overblown.
I would guess that if Israel dropped a nuke on Gaza, it would create enough nuclear panic throughout the entire Israel - which is right next to Gaza, that's the whole point of this conflict - to create some major local reprecussions solely through that effect.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link