naraburns nihil supernum
6mo ago
(text post)
29917 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.
Would someone be willing to spell out for me the likely consequences of Israel taking the nuclear option? I am not condoning this but I am curious about it and find very little serious discussion about it.
What I mean by "nuclear option" isn't the use of nuclear weapons, not necessarily. What I mean is the IDF literally turning all or at least the northern half of Gaza into rubble without any semblance of discretionary targeting. What would the fallout be? Would the US withdraw all support and could Israel survive the ensuing revenge from arab countries? Are groups within the Israeli government seriously considering options like this?
Israel uses conventional bombs and openly abandons any attempts at targeting.
Israel uses conventional bombs. Lots of conventional bombs. Gaza burns to the ground. Israel makes reasonable attempts at PR.
Scenario #1 would be unthinkable. As @Stefferi says, "tak[ing] the nuclear genie out of the bottle" is a huge deal.
Scenario #2 would be very bad, but probably survivable for Israel. The problem with thinking about this scenario is that an Israel that openly abandons any attempt at targeting is making some very strange PR decisions. If Israel is openly admitting that they're trying to kill civilians en-mass, would they still be trying to maintain normal diplomatic relations with the US?
Israel would likely face a lot of sanctions. I don't think the issue would be the act itself. Lots of countries have killed lots of people, to minimal consequence in the international stage. But, countries have to maintain the pretense of caring about civilian life. Removing that pretense is -- like firing a nuclear weapon -- a dangerous first step.
That said, I don't think this would lead to a war, simply because I don't think any of Israel's neighbors have the ability to fight Israel and win. Given that, I don't think Israel's neighbors would be motivated enough to pick a fight that they'd lose.
Scenario #3 would generate some nasty headlines, but I don't know if it would actually change geopolitics. The issue comes down to the modern version of "Fog of War;" the news outlets that oppose Israel would publish anti-Israel stories. But Israel's opponents have been accusing Israel of genocide for decades, so I don't know that they've left themselves room to increase the intensity of their rhetoric.
Even setting journalistic dishonesty aside, I'm imagining a friend trying to convince me to change my opinion of Israel based on the new bombing campaign. I'd like to think that I'm following the conflict more closely than other people. But I couldn't tell you how many bombs Israel launches in a day. So, if my friend told me that Israel launched 1,000 bombs into Palestine is that a lot? Maybe they'd frame the situation as Israel launching 100x as many bombs as they did last week. But, again, is that a lot?
Scope insensitivity is very much a thing. I can understand the tragedy of an individual death. I could see photos of an elementary school getting bombed and feel more tragic. But, once we get past ~40 victims, the statistics just start to feel like numbers. The 2011 Tohoku Earthquake resulted in 18,000 people dead, but is that better or worse than the 2023 Earthquake in Turkey?
Similarly, the New York Times can put a photo of a bombed building on a their front page and imply that it's a bombed hospital, and that's sad. But could they present a bombed region in a notably more sympathetic way?
Israel uses conventional bombs and openly abandons any attempts at targeting.
I would observe that the easiest way to present this would be "Sorry, our budget for JDAM kits has run out. We're switching to dumb bombs, and we have to drop them from high altitude (inaccurately, in larger numbers) because Hamas probably has MANPADs." Comparatively few these days seem complain about Russia's use of unguided munitions.
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 -
Would someone be willing to spell out for me the likely consequences of Israel taking the nuclear option? I am not condoning this but I am curious about it and find very little serious discussion about it. What I mean by "nuclear option" isn't the use of nuclear weapons, not necessarily. What I mean is the IDF literally turning all or at least the northern half of Gaza into rubble without any semblance of discretionary targeting. What would the fallout be? Would the US withdraw all support and could Israel survive the ensuing revenge from arab countries? Are groups within the Israeli government seriously considering options like this?
I'd break this into 3 different scenarios:
Scenario #1 would be unthinkable. As @Stefferi says, "tak[ing] the nuclear genie out of the bottle" is a huge deal.
Scenario #2 would be very bad, but probably survivable for Israel. The problem with thinking about this scenario is that an Israel that openly abandons any attempt at targeting is making some very strange PR decisions. If Israel is openly admitting that they're trying to kill civilians en-mass, would they still be trying to maintain normal diplomatic relations with the US?
Israel would likely face a lot of sanctions. I don't think the issue would be the act itself. Lots of countries have killed lots of people, to minimal consequence in the international stage. But, countries have to maintain the pretense of caring about civilian life. Removing that pretense is -- like firing a nuclear weapon -- a dangerous first step.
That said, I don't think this would lead to a war, simply because I don't think any of Israel's neighbors have the ability to fight Israel and win. Given that, I don't think Israel's neighbors would be motivated enough to pick a fight that they'd lose.
Scenario #3 would generate some nasty headlines, but I don't know if it would actually change geopolitics. The issue comes down to the modern version of "Fog of War;" the news outlets that oppose Israel would publish anti-Israel stories. But Israel's opponents have been accusing Israel of genocide for decades, so I don't know that they've left themselves room to increase the intensity of their rhetoric.
Even setting journalistic dishonesty aside, I'm imagining a friend trying to convince me to change my opinion of Israel based on the new bombing campaign. I'd like to think that I'm following the conflict more closely than other people. But I couldn't tell you how many bombs Israel launches in a day. So, if my friend told me that Israel launched 1,000 bombs into Palestine is that a lot? Maybe they'd frame the situation as Israel launching 100x as many bombs as they did last week. But, again, is that a lot?
Scope insensitivity is very much a thing. I can understand the tragedy of an individual death. I could see photos of an elementary school getting bombed and feel more tragic. But, once we get past ~40 victims, the statistics just start to feel like numbers. The 2011 Tohoku Earthquake resulted in 18,000 people dead, but is that better or worse than the 2023 Earthquake in Turkey?
Similarly, the New York Times can put a photo of a bombed building on a their front page and imply that it's a bombed hospital, and that's sad. But could they present a bombed region in a notably more sympathetic way?
I would observe that the easiest way to present this would be "Sorry, our budget for JDAM kits has run out. We're switching to dumb bombs, and we have to drop them from high altitude (inaccurately, in larger numbers) because Hamas probably has MANPADs." Comparatively few these days seem complain about Russia's use of unguided munitions.
Because English language people who complain loudly about Russia have far less accurate complaints about ‘genocide of Ukrainians’ than that.
More options
Context Copy link
Well, if someone wants to complain about Russia they have better targets.
More options
Context Copy link
Only because the set of people who oppose Israel also tend to support Russia for the most part.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link