5 ms·

> The turrets feature heavy duty 7.62 calibre machine guns tied into a network spanning the entire border. If any turret detects human movement, the entire chai

> The turrets feature heavy duty 7.62 calibre machine guns tied into a network spanning the entire border. If any turret detects human movement, the entire chain of guns can train their sights and concentrate firepower on the interloper. Some turrets are also able to fire explosive rockets. > With such overlapping fields of fire, even heavily armored vehicles would be quickly eliminated. The effect on a human body would be overwhelming, disproportionately violent, and would leave little in the way of human remains. You can tell this is not written by a person with any military knowledge or with an agenda against weapons. Non peaceful borders have been manned with such weapons operated by humans for more than a century (in the case of machine guns). And generally, if you can shoot one bullet and kill someone, you don’t use keep shoot hundreds of bullets, and if you can stop a threat with bullets, you don’t launch a rocket at it. Israel doesn’t launch rockets at people next to the border. And tries to avoid killing unarmed people (for example by aiming for the legs). I assume every sane military does the same. Killing unarmed people, besides obviously being immoral, is bad strategically as well. (This comment deals with a specific paragraph, and not the actual interesting issue raised by this article, which is not unique to Israel I presume, and is practiced by all military industries capable of building such weapons today) EDIT: well, I had it coming. I didn’t mean for it to become the classic Israel vs Palestinians flame war - just wanted to point out the realities of borders, wars and weapons which I suspect most HN readers are not exposed to. But again, I should have seen this coming. :(

Nullabillity 6y ago
Oh no, who will be brave enough to take a stand against the all-powerful anti-murder lobby!
- strulovich 6y ago
  Is your viewpoint that you see any person killed in an armed conflict as a murder?
  - Nullabillity 6y ago
    Let's see.. 1. Did a human die? Yes. 2. Was it caused by another human, directly or indirectly? Yes. 3. Did the perpetrator intend for a human to die? Yes. Yeah, I'd call that murder.
    - samatman 6y ago
      It's fine that you adopt a definition of murder which means that absolutely clear-cut self defense (someone comes at you with a knife, you pick up a nearby wine bottle and clock them on the head, they die) is murder, it's your prerogative. The rest of us will ignore you, however. Personally I think your definition is evil, not just wrong.
      - WitCanStain 6y ago
        This seems like a clear example of a case where the culprit did not intend for the other person to die. Rather, they wanted to neutralize the threat by the means at their disposal, and the person's death was a side-effect.
        skinkestek 6y ago
        Fine, it is what the Israelis do: they deliberately go out of their way not to kill. (Why? At least because it hurts their cause.)
nezirus 6y ago
"tries to avoid killing unarmed people" I respectfully disagree, Israel is an occupation force, has overwhelming power (military, economical and diplomatic) and they do kill grown people and children almost without prejudice. Some official numbers (I suspect it is even worse in reality): https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-208380/ https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-208380/ P.S. I don't condone violence on both sides, eternal war like one in Palestine/Israel is horrible (I've lived through 4 years of war, believe me a day of it is too much), but I really don't like political correctness, where we must have "balance" in reporting, but it is completely clear who holds the keys of peace and who has the finger on the trigger)
- strulovich 6y ago
  What part of this link proves Israel is not trying to avoid casualties? At no point I’m saying there’s not casualties, including civilian casualties, including horrible mistakes, including trigger happy psychos that make it through the ranks. But the imbalance of casualties is the result of Israel being better at it. It would be great if there was peace. But even if I ran Israel and the Palestinian Territories as a dictatorship tomorrow I still wouldn’t be able to turn all violence to zero. Personally, as an Israeli I would love for Israel to evacuate settlements. But pretending that would bring peace is not even naive, it just doesn’t align with anything anyone involved is saying.
  - nezirus 6y ago
    You should read your words out loud, to yourself, to your kids. Israel is better at it, better at killing people... There is no easy solution for that conflict, but killing more people and holding millions of people in de facto concentration camp sure wont help it.
    - strulovich 6y ago
      That’s one twisted way to interpret it. A more charitable one would be that Israel is better at protecting its civilians. It sounds as if you have an idea that Israel could just make it all go away in a day if they’d like. I would love to know what you think that move would be.
matheusmoreira 6y ago
> aiming for the legs This doesn't make bullets any less lethal. If a bullet damages your femoral artery, you'll bleed out in minutes if not seconds.
- strulovich 6y ago
  Maybe you mean it can still be lethal. It definitely make it less lethal. Your chances of dying from a well aimed bullet to the legs are an order of magnitude less than a well aimed bullet for the head or chest. In case it’s unclear: Aiming for the legs would be an option for an unarmed person approaching the Israeli Gaza border, and not yielding to instructions, or warning shots. There’s generally not any other good options if your goal is to keep your border protected, and protect your forces against such events being used as diversions for a real attack, which is why it’s a common tactic.
  - tomjen3 6y ago
    Also an option: do not shoot at all. If they are unarmed they pose no threat to you, and cannot therefore be a diversion. It also remains the only moral option, but of course this assumes you consider other people to be humans - given that members of the Stern gang became impotent members of the Israeli government, I am basically convinced that the Isreali government does not, though some individuals do.
- skinkestek 6y ago
  Lets put it this way: a 7.62 to the head - an actual, literal "head shot" - is lethal in all but the most exceptional circumstances. Same with the hearth region. A hit in the leg can easily be survived, especially if someone is around you to put a tourniquet on it. In fact someone in the same boot camp as me got a 7.62 through his thigh after he didn't get the notice and wandered around between the targets as people started shooting. He survived with no lasting injuries. Extremely lucky but still. Source: I got most of my small arms training on G3s which are 7.62.

Nullabillity 6y ago

Oh no, who will be brave enough to take a stand against the all-powerful anti-murder lobby!

strulovich 6y ago
Is your viewpoint that you see any person killed in an armed conflict as a murder?
- Nullabillity 6y ago
  Let's see.. 1. Did a human die? Yes. 2. Was it caused by another human, directly or indirectly? Yes. 3. Did the perpetrator intend for a human to die? Yes. Yeah, I'd call that murder.
  - samatman 6y ago
    It's fine that you adopt a definition of murder which means that absolutely clear-cut self defense (someone comes at you with a knife, you pick up a nearby wine bottle and clock them on the head, they die) is murder, it's your prerogative. The rest of us will ignore you, however. Personally I think your definition is evil, not just wrong.
    - WitCanStain 6y ago
      This seems like a clear example of a case where the culprit did not intend for the other person to die. Rather, they wanted to neutralize the threat by the means at their disposal, and the person's death was a side-effect.
      - skinkestek 6y ago
        Fine, it is what the Israelis do: they deliberately go out of their way not to kill. (Why? At least because it hurts their cause.)

nezirus 6y ago

"tries to avoid killing unarmed people" I respectfully disagree, Israel is an occupation force, has overwhelming power (military, economical and diplomatic) and they do kill grown people and children almost without prejudice. Some official numbers (I suspect it is even worse in reality): https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-208380/ https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-208380/ P.S. I don't condone violence on both sides, eternal war like one in Palestine/Israel is horrible (I've lived through 4 years of war, believe me a day of it is too much), but I really don't like political correctness, where we must have "balance" in reporting, but it is completely clear who holds the keys of peace and who has the finger on the trigger)

strulovich 6y ago
What part of this link proves Israel is not trying to avoid casualties? At no point I’m saying there’s not casualties, including civilian casualties, including horrible mistakes, including trigger happy psychos that make it through the ranks. But the imbalance of casualties is the result of Israel being better at it. It would be great if there was peace. But even if I ran Israel and the Palestinian Territories as a dictatorship tomorrow I still wouldn’t be able to turn all violence to zero. Personally, as an Israeli I would love for Israel to evacuate settlements. But pretending that would bring peace is not even naive, it just doesn’t align with anything anyone involved is saying.
- nezirus 6y ago
  You should read your words out loud, to yourself, to your kids. Israel is better at it, better at killing people... There is no easy solution for that conflict, but killing more people and holding millions of people in de facto concentration camp sure wont help it.
  - strulovich 6y ago
    That’s one twisted way to interpret it. A more charitable one would be that Israel is better at protecting its civilians. It sounds as if you have an idea that Israel could just make it all go away in a day if they’d like. I would love to know what you think that move would be.

matheusmoreira 6y ago

> aiming for the legs This doesn't make bullets any less lethal. If a bullet damages your femoral artery, you'll bleed out in minutes if not seconds.

strulovich 6y ago
Maybe you mean it can still be lethal. It definitely make it less lethal. Your chances of dying from a well aimed bullet to the legs are an order of magnitude less than a well aimed bullet for the head or chest. In case it’s unclear: Aiming for the legs would be an option for an unarmed person approaching the Israeli Gaza border, and not yielding to instructions, or warning shots. There’s generally not any other good options if your goal is to keep your border protected, and protect your forces against such events being used as diversions for a real attack, which is why it’s a common tactic.
- tomjen3 6y ago
  Also an option: do not shoot at all. If they are unarmed they pose no threat to you, and cannot therefore be a diversion. It also remains the only moral option, but of course this assumes you consider other people to be humans - given that members of the Stern gang became impotent members of the Israeli government, I am basically convinced that the Isreali government does not, though some individuals do.
skinkestek 6y ago
Lets put it this way: a 7.62 to the head - an actual, literal "head shot" - is lethal in all but the most exceptional circumstances. Same with the hearth region. A hit in the leg can easily be survived, especially if someone is around you to put a tourniquet on it. In fact someone in the same boot camp as me got a 7.62 through his thigh after he didn't get the notice and wandered around between the targets as people started shooting. He survived with no lasting injuries. Extremely lucky but still. Source: I got most of my small arms training on G3s which are 7.62.