8 ms·
Reminds me in a weird way of this episode: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0708414/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0708414/ A culture has computer simulated war and
by fossuser 6y ago
Reminds me in a weird way of this episode: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0708414/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0708414/
A culture has computer simulated war and “casualties” must report to euthanasia chambers.
This was the end result agreed to to stop actual bombings.
Of course, the officers disrupt it in the end. But it’d be interesting if they returned and nothing was left but craters.
More on topic, iron dome is an automated missile interception system and works well to protect Israelis from missile attacks. Just because a system is automated doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a bad idea, but obviously there’s high risk.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Dome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Dome
- jbob2000 6y agoYou could argue that the Iron Dome has allowed the Israelis to perpetuate the conflict. If Israel citizens were faced with actually dying, they might push for a peaceful resolution faster.
- philwelch 6y agoA faster resolution, yes, but not a peaceful one.
- fossuser 6y agoOn the subject of ethics - proportionate response, narrow targeting, and trying not to kill civilians are good things. This topic is too political to have a nuanced internet discussion and quickly dissolved into weird anti-semitism most of the time. https://samharris.org/podcasts/why-dont-i-criticize-israel/ https://samharris.org/podcasts/why-dont-i-criticize-israel/
- tomjen3 6y ago>proportionate response, narrow targeting, and trying not to kill civilians are good things. How is it better to only respond with proportionate responses? If you were known as generally a good country, but could go mad at the drop of a hat, other countries would take even more steps to avoid harming you, wouldn't they? At the same time, if you were known of flattening neighborhods or even entire cities, your enemies wouldn't be able to hide among civilians. In either case you trade of more deaths now, for fewer dead in the future.
- JumpCrisscross 6y agoMistakes happen. Escalating a misfire at the border into a levelled capital city block pretty much guarantees the aggressor won’t survive long.
- gpderetta 6y agohttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option
- hpcjoe 6y agoUnfortunately, 70+ years ago, one side was prevented from winning their war of independence. Then 50ish years ago, when they were attacked, same thing. Then 40ish years ago. As horrible as it sounds, either the losing side needs to accept reality and concede (disbanding UNRWA would be a giant step in the right direction to force that issue), or the war should resume, and the gloves and restraints need to come off, until one or the other side sues for peace. This is the only way to end this conflict. Otherwise it is going to simmer forever. Without the cost for continuing the conflict being made very high, it will continue. The cost for Israel to protect its citizens is very high. The cost for launching attacks against Israelis needs to be disproportionately high for a change in political approach to be considered.
- siculars 6y agoI've been here a long time. This may actually win the award for most ridiculous comment ever written on HN. To argue that a main should willingly sacrifice their people for... what exactly? Why do you think these systems were built? To keep their people from "actually dying." Another route could be to indiscriminately return 10x fire for every indiscriminately fired inbound rocket. Would that be an appropriate response? I mean, it could "push for a peaceful resolution faster."
- BobbyJo 6y agoIt wasn't an argument that one side should allow people to die, it was an argument that high mutual cost deters conflict and encourages diplomatic engagement. Which is true, see: nukes.
- hpcjoe 6y agoDeterrence presumes rational actors. One side in this conflict is rational. The other side, decidedly irrational, acting not in their best interests, harming themselves and many others specifically to attack the rational actor. Aside from that, the real issue is that the irrational side has not yet conceded that they lost their war, 70+ years ago, against the rational actor, who had established a state. They instigated that war, as they did not wish the rational actor to have that state. They are aided in their irrationality by various NGOs, and have managed to perpetuate and sustain their presumed victimhood, by attacking, with literal impunity, the rational actor. Now, here, you are suggesting that maybe, the rational actor should be restricted in their response to the irrational actor as it may bring the rational actor to the negotiating table. Which of course, completely neglects all the times the rational actor sat at the negotiating table with the irrational actor, hammered things most of the way out, and watched the irrational actor breach every single agreement. So ... What we have here has nothing to do with rational actor deciding enough is enough, and developing tech to reasonably neutralize the threat the irrational actor poses. Arguing against this de minimus effort, as it might bring the rational actor back to the table (in your mind) if they had to rely on sticks and stones ... is pretty much the definition of ludicrous. The rational actor has tried, for 70+ years, to get the irrational actor to work with it. And has been met with bloodshed, the irrational actor targeting civilians, which, is a real war crime, as compared to the BS alleged by the irrational actor, in their attempt to get the world to ostracize the rational actor. Exactly how, would this time be different? What would the irrational actor offer to jump start discussions? Because it is obvious from the last 70+ years that the underlying thesis of "land for peace" has not worked. A different approach was, and is needed. As much as I hate giving Trump credit, what he did was to change the parameters, which allowed other nations to get off the ledge with the irrational actor. This is, in turn, putting pressure on the irrational actor to begin acting rationally. Those actions need to continue. This all said, implying you wish to disarm a people who have armed themselves specifically to prevent mass slaughter at the hands of a losing side irrational non-nation state actor ... yeah ... not really a sound argument in any context.
- venomsnake 6y agoOr they could just exile all people into the occupied territories in Syria and Jordan. If you don't have defense you go on offense.
- Papirola 6y agoWhat you just wrote is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response, were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this thread is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
- dang 6y agoFlamebait like this is totally unacceptable on HN, regardless of how you feel about the underlying topic. We ban accounts that damage the site this way. No more of this please. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- phkahler 6y agoReminded me directly of that episode. First drones kill people. Then drones kill drones. Then they destroy things. Then it goes completely virtual to save real-world costs.