• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Is Sheikh Nasrallah done and buried?

theprestige said:
It's a figure of speech. You've crafted your scenario so that your preferred answer is the correct answer. It's one of the main reasons I find the use of analogies in debate so odious.

If you want to talk about the problems and ethics of collateral damage in anti-insurgent and counter-terrorist operations, talk about it in its own terms.
Click to expand...

Okay if I just telegraph it as GoT instead? (In the interests of brevity?) (That's an analogy too, but would you agree that's an apt analogy? And by any chance would you agree with me that it shows up just why what Netanyahu's doing is so utterly lacking in empathy as to be not quite sane? And he's not even hot, but ugly as sin.)


eta: Heh, as far as analogies: While, as you know, I fully agree with you on that; but, like I pointed out to Ziggurat, it might actually work, and work roaringly well, provided two things: one, the analogy itself is apt; and two, both parties are doing it in good faith (even though they might disagree completely).

The argument I'm making here is simple. Look at all the unarmed non-combatant Palestinian citizens Netanyahu has killed and rendered homeless and destroyed all aspects of their lives. It isn't sane to do that, to that many people, no matter what. Would he have done that if the cost would have been to do exactly that to exactly that many Jews? If the answer to that is a No, then clearly he's, I don't know, racist, Islamophobe, call it what you will, but someone who doesn't consider a great many citizens of the country he's the head of as full-on human beings at all. That's ...just not sane. It's evil.

I think Hitler wasn't evil for having started WW2. He was just one grab-it-all in a world then full of grab-it-all powers. Nor was he evil for believing Jews had taken over control of the financial system of Germany, that only made him misguided and mistaken but not necessarily evil. It is the fact that as a result of all of that he went ahead and killed so many unarmed non-combatant citizens like that, that mark him out as a monster, as the embodiment of evil. And likewise Netanyahu as well.

Is what I'm trying to say, if I get rid of the analogies via which I try to say as much but with lesser words.

...And there I go derailing the thread again! I really must stop doing that. ...I'll bow out again. For the final time now. theprestige, I'll be happy to read your response, though, if any.
 
Last edited:
Chanakya said:
Okay if I just telegraph it as GoT instead? (In the interests of brevity?)
Click to expand...
It's not okay with me.

(That's an analogy too, but would you agree that's an apt analogy?
Click to expand...
(Absolutely not. I do not believe there is any such thing as an apt analogy in debate. There's only the thing itself, in its own terms.

And by any chance would you agree with me that it shows up just why what Netanyahu's doing is so utterly lacking in empathy as to be not quite sane? And he's not even hot, but ugly as sin.)
Click to expand...
No chance in hell that I would agree with this. If you think Netanyahu's policies show a lack of empathy, just say so. Don't try to foist agreement on me by analogy to a begged question.)

---

Look, the writers for Game of Thrones are purveyors of sensationalist fantasy fiction. For sure they have not considered the challenges of ethical warfare in any great depth - or even at all, probably. Certainly, they are not as informed and expert as the people who actually formulate the bodies of law and custom tend to govern ethical warfare in the real world. They are a terrible authority for you to appeal to, on this subject.

If you want to discuss Netanyahu's apparent lack of "empathy" in his oversight of counter-terrorist and anti-insurgency operations by the IDF, Mossad, et al., don't start with Game of Thrones. Start here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collateral_damage#International_humanitarian_law
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
It's not okay with me.


(Absolutely not. I do not believe there is any such thing as an apt analogy in debate. There's only the thing itself, in its own terms.


No chance in hell that I would agree with this. If you think Netanyahu's policies show a lack of empathy, just say so. Don't try to foist agreement on me by analogy to a begged question.
Click to expand...


What, you think Netanyahu's hot?!

(Yeah, I did say I'll bow out for good, given this line of talk is clearly off-topic, but you can hardly blame me for ducking back in for a brief minute in order to say that, right?)
 
Chanakya said:
What, you think Netanyahu's hot?!

(Yeah, I did say I'll bow out for good, given this line of talk is clearly off-topic, but you can hardly blame me for ducking back in for a brief minute in order to say that, right?)
Click to expand...

I was going to pass over the original joke without comment, but if you insist: I was impressed with how you managed to work pretty privilege, the objectification of women, and misandry all into one short superfluous sentence.
 
theprestige said:
I was going to pass over the original joke without comment, but if you insist: I was impressed with how you managed to work pretty privilege, the objectification of women, and misandry all into one short superfluous sentence.
Click to expand...


hahaha, touche
 
Chanakya said:
eta: Heh, as far as analogies: While, as you know, I fully agree with you on that; but, like I pointed out to Ziggurat, it might actually work, and work roaringly well, provided two things: one, the analogy itself is apt; and two, both parties are doing it in good faith (even though they might disagree completely).
Click to expand...

I would agree that it might actually work, if (a) I believed there was no such thing as an apt analogy in debate, and (b) I believed an analogy could be introduced into a debate in good faith. Since I believe neither of those things, I cannot share your optimism that introducing an analogy into a debate could possibly work.
 
While the world is waiting if and how Israel is going to respond to Iran's latest salvo of missiles, Ryan McBeth made a video to explain the logistics of targeted military strikes from Israel into Iran.

He assumes that Israel would use planes to drop ordnances precisely against hardened targets, rather than missiles. F-35s, surely, within Iran.

Since "nuclear facilities" is on everyone's Bingo card, that's what he goes with.

Scenario: Pick 2 of the more important of Iran's half a dozen or so nucear program facilities; send a package of 8 F-35s to either target. Arm them with 2000-pound bunker-busting bombs to significantly crack the lairs. They would additionally have to carry some systems and AA missiles for self-defence.

Iran is at some distance from Israel, and it is also a pretty large country and the targets are roughly somewhere "in the center", so the F-35s have to fly a considerable distance to and fro, and that is only possible with tankers.

McBeth says that the IDF has (only) 7 tankers for in-flight refueling. Since either package needs to have all its 8 F-35s leave the refuelling station and dart into Iran within a short time, because distance to target is still considerable from Northern Iraq (the most convenient area to have the tankers loiter around), they are best advised to use most tankers - say, 5 of them.
They'd probably send a few fighters alongside the tankers to protect those.

Such a mission would take a lot of coordination, be quite expensive, bear some real risks (such as: any dog fight a F-35 would get involved in over Iran might cost it so much fuel it could not return to the nearest tanker). And damage just two targets (albeit high-value ones).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BS3fXUFRH8U

So, this scenario shows that Israel is capable of hurting Iran at any time in ways that Iran perhaps can't hurt Israel. BUT Israel may not have the aerial capacity to do a full-scale war against Iran - tankers would be a serious limiting factor, and it would not be at clear if Iraq and/or Jordan would be willing to let Israel use their airspace for a full war quite like they accept commando actions.

For a full air war, Israel would probably need some level of US assistance (e.g. refueling - America has hundreds of tankers). But I don't see that President Harris would go for that at all. And a ground invasion is probably out of the question entirely - far too large an enemy country with formidable geographic barriers of various sorts.

-------

I suppose what Iran's leadership is afrad of the most is Israels apparent ability to strike THEM directly.
 
Last edited:
Israel does not have the type of bombs necessary to penetrated hardened Iranian facilities - the question is if the US will provide them.
 
Ziggurat said:
How do you know that?
Click to expand...

Because Israel doesn't produce them or the 2,000 pound bombs.
And it doesn't have a MOAB, which might be required, or a vehicle capable of delivering it.
Why bother building something when you can just call your fat rich uncle to send you one ASAP without asking what you want it for ?

Without the US, Israel is not remotely able to operate on the level it currently is.
 
Last edited:
The Great Zaganza said:
Israel does not have the type of bombs necessary to penetrated hardened Iranian facilities - the question is if the US will provide them.
Click to expand...

The Great Zaganza said:
Because Israel doesn't produce them or the 2,000 pound bombs.
And it doesn't have a MOAB, which might be required, or a vehicle capable of delivering it.
Why bother building something when you can just call your fat rich uncle to send you one ASAP without asking what you want it for ?

Without the US, Israel is not remotely able to operate on the level it currently is.
Click to expand...

And yet Israel claims to have used such a weapon very recently. Maybe, just maybe, they do actually have them. Nasrallah appears to have experienced them up close.

And having had them in their possession it is likely only a matter of time before Israel has the capability to produce their own.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
It's not like building a pager ...
Click to expand...

It is, on the other hand, like building some of the most technologically-advanced weapon systems in the world. Which Israel is also good at. But honestly building a ground-penetrating bomb is probably more like building a pager than it is like building Iron Dome or Spike NLOS. They already build 500-lb. penetrating bombs.
 
Last edited:
The Great Zaganza said:
Because Israel doesn't produce them or the 2,000 pound bombs.
Click to expand...

They have 2000 lb bunker buster bombs, the BLU-109. But that's not the only bunker buster they have. Israel also has the GBU-28, which is a 4,000 lb bunker buster. The USA also have the GBU-72, which is an upgrade on the GBU-28. Does Israel have that? I'm not sure, but I wouldn't be surprised.

And it doesn't have a MOAB, which might be required, or a vehicle capable of delivering it.
Click to expand...

Do you know what MOAB stands for? Despite popular naming, it doesn't stand for Mother Of All Bombs. It stands for Massive Ordinance Air Blast. See that "air" part? It's designed to explode in the air, above the target. The MOAB isn't a bunker buster. It's not intended for the task, and it's not suitable for the task. So the lack of MOABs is hardly an impediment, and the fact that you thought it was even relevant tells me you really don't know much about the topic at all.

What is relevant that they're probably lacking is the Massive Ordinance Penetrator (MOP). At around 30,000 lbs, this is by far our biggest bunker buster. Given its size, this cannot be carried by the F-35 or even the F-15, it needs a bomber, and Israel doesn't have good candidates for that.

But is the MOP necessary to take out Iranian nuclear weapons facilities? Would the BLU-109, the GBU-28, or the GBU-72 suffice? I don't know. But neither do you.
 
Lost in all this is Israel's ability to deliver small-yield battlefield tactical nukes, from subs or even in artillery-shell warheads. The doctrine for Israel has been not to be the nation to introduce these weapons into combat scenarios unless as final resort. That may change --- Gaza literally might require a full removal of all standing & damaged buildings with such a blast, to level it all and then a few months down the road, earthmovers can roll in to remove the (very low radioactivity by then) debris and leave a cleared landscape to work with in establishing a NewState of Palestine, Gaza/N.Sinai.

Egypt is standing in the way of that.
This, too, might change after Israel detonates a couple minor mushroom clouds a few kilometers up the way from the Rafah border~~~~

And the signal conveyed to Tehran, and Beirut, is unmistakable -- DON'T CONTINUE AS YOU ARE...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom