3 ms·

Is this some bizarre rhetorical question or did you actually spent any time thinking about how this would work practically as a defense for 2.5mil people agains

by megous 3y ago

Is this some bizarre rhetorical question or did you actually spent any time thinking about how this would work practically as a defense for 2.5mil people against a state with access to unlimited amount of precisely targeted bunker buster bombs? Want to know how well public air-raid bunkers work against advanced bombing technology? Check: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amiriyah_shelter_bombing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amiriyah_shelter_bombing and that's 30 year old tech.

YZF 3y ago
Israel doesn't have an unlimited amount of bunker busters. I think a lot of the destruction is from more conventional precision munitions. The bunker busters are reserved for bunkers, deep tunnels, etc. This question is one of the talking points of the Pro-Israel side. It's not that bizarre. But yeah, as talking points go, it's shallow/simplistic. The idea is to demonstrate that Hamas couldn't care less about Palestinian lives. They don't invest in any shape or form in protecting the citizenry or making the lives of Palestinians better. It's also meant to contrast with how Israel invests in protecting its population- lots of shelters for a much larger population, Israel has been building shelters in various forms forever. During most of the cold war Israel has been facing enemies with fairly unlimited resources as well, rockets, ballistic missiles, large air forces, even artillery (the north of Israel used to be regularly shelled by Syria way back). So it is actually possible to use shelters as a layer of defense. Israel's more recent strategy of reinforced spaces in every house/apartment (started IIRC when Saddam Hussein decide to lob Scud missiles at Israel) has worked fairly well so that could be replicated in Gaza. Israeli buildings have taken direct hits by rockets from Lebanon and Gaza with pretty decent survival rates even when the building itself was practically demolished. Though that might require using the concrete for something else than tunnels. Oh no, another talking point. The better strategy though is not to get into a situation where you're being attacked with bunker busters or try to separate civilian infrastructure from military infrastructure. Other ideas is that when you're warned about an area becoming a subject to aerial bombardments you move away. Sorry, more talking points.

by megous 3y ago

YZF 3y ago

Israel doesn't have an unlimited amount of bunker busters. I think a lot of the destruction is from more conventional precision munitions. The bunker busters are reserved for bunkers, deep tunnels, etc. This question is one of the talking points of the Pro-Israel side. It's not that bizarre. But yeah, as talking points go, it's shallow/simplistic. The idea is to demonstrate that Hamas couldn't care less about Palestinian lives. They don't invest in any shape or form in protecting the citizenry or making the lives of Palestinians better. It's also meant to contrast with how Israel invests in protecting its population- lots of shelters for a much larger population, Israel has been building shelters in various forms forever. During most of the cold war Israel has been facing enemies with fairly unlimited resources as well, rockets, ballistic missiles, large air forces, even artillery (the north of Israel used to be regularly shelled by Syria way back). So it is actually possible to use shelters as a layer of defense. Israel's more recent strategy of reinforced spaces in every house/apartment (started IIRC when Saddam Hussein decide to lob Scud missiles at Israel) has worked fairly well so that could be replicated in Gaza. Israeli buildings have taken direct hits by rockets from Lebanon and Gaza with pretty decent survival rates even when the building itself was practically demolished. Though that might require using the concrete for something else than tunnels. Oh no, another talking point. The better strategy though is not to get into a situation where you're being attacked with bunker busters or try to separate civilian infrastructure from military infrastructure. Other ideas is that when you're warned about an area becoming a subject to aerial bombardments you move away. Sorry, more talking points.