3 ms·
Israel could nuke Gaza and kill most of Hamas. Presumably we all agree that's unacceptable. So somewhere between "zero collateral civilian casualties" and "al
by ethbr1 3y ago
Israel could nuke Gaza and kill most of Hamas.
Presumably we all agree that's unacceptable.
So somewhere between "zero collateral civilian casualties" and "all collateral civilizian casualties" is warranted.
Which leads to a debate about where the line should be.
- Sabinus 3y agoWith the ratio of the dead being about 4 civilians to every 1 Hamas fighter it checks out with other major wars. Considering Hamas is a gurella force that's actually quite good.
- ethbr1 3y agoGen Westmoreland might provide some insight on the consequences of making enemy KIA the reward function, and the incentives that back-propogates to the classifier. And to the IDF's credit, as much as I have issue with their absent strategic goals and tactical choices, they are fighting a guerrilla insurgence in one of the most density populated areas in the world. So, it could have been worse? But it still isn't great.