5 ms·

There's that quote (paraphrasing from memory): War is fought by young people who don't know each other, on behalf of old people who do. I think it would be mas

There's that quote (paraphrasing from memory): War is fought by young people who don't know each other, on behalf of old people who do. I think it would be massive if warfare could be decoupled from sacrificing a nation's youth.

pbiggar 2y ago
In favor of sacrificing a different nation's youth, right?
- Mockapapella 2y ago
  Better than sacrificing both
  - pbiggar 2y ago
    It's not. If you can sacrifice just one without a cost to the other, than they will. Witness the US leaving Vietnam and what would have happened if US soldiers were not facing a grueling war. Witness other asymmetric wars such as Iraq (500,000 Iraqi civilians killed and only 5,000 US soldiers) or the genocide in Gaza now (50,000-200,000 killed by Israel). If one side has the ability to wage war at no human cost, it will mean massive human cost for civilians, as we constantly see.
    - cscurmudgeon 2y ago
      Your lower estimate for Gaza is higher than UN estimate at 34000. What is happening in Gaza does not meet the definition of genocide. Sheer numbers don’t make a genocide. Intention is key.
      - MeImCounting 2y ago
        Not only that but Israel is keeping the ratio of civilian to combatant casualties well within the acceptable norm for this type of combat. Claims of genocide undermine actual criticisms of israels handling of this whole situation.
      - astromaniak 2y ago
        [flagged]
      - dmbche 2y ago
        From the UN march report: "Citing international law, Ms. Albanese explained that genocide is defined as a specific set of acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group. “Specifically, Israel has committed three acts of genocide with the requisite intent: causing seriously serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group, deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part, and imposing measures intended to prevent birth within the group,” she said. Furthermore, “the genocide in Gaza is the most extreme stage of a long-standing settler colonial process of erasure of the native Palestinians,” she continued. " Edit0: Feel free to google "Nakba" and search for yourself as well
        cscurmudgeon 2y ago
        Albanese is not the final judge of this though. This has to be argued in an impartial court with facts demonstrating and documenting intent. Albanese’s mere words won’t count as facts. If there is intent why does the IDF warn before strikes?
        dmbche 2y ago
        Sure - did Israel stop all actions and sent Nethanyahu and Yoav to the ICJ for judgment? Do you think it's possible to act in a way to veil your intent as much as possible? Further questions to ask yourself : Did Israel let power back in Gaza? Can the Gazans get the warning? Do they warn everytime? What's the delay? Where does "soldiers dressing up as aid workers and doctors against international law" fit in your idea of "warning before a strike"? And most important of all - is there a line they could conceivably cross for you to call it genocide?
      - racional 2y ago
        What is happening in Gaza does not meet the definition of genocide. According to the definition for genocide as provided sections (a)-(2) of Article 2 of the Geneva Convention ("acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group") it does. The substantiation for this rests not so much on the numbers killed (though these are also one component), but on the clear and obvious intent to render the Strip uninhabitable -- and to encourage what Israeli politicians are openly and cynically referring to as "voluntary migration". To intentionally kick an entire population off of their indigenous territory is a means of destroying them as a people, full stop. Intention is key. As has been made chillingly clear by major figures in the 37th Government: “We are imposing a complete siege on Gaza. There will be no electricity, no food, no water, no fuel. Everything will be closed. We are fighting human animals and we act accordingly” -- Defense Minister Yoav Gallant We also have Minister Avi Dichter chiming in: Israeli security cabinet member and Agriculture Minister Avi Dichter (Likud) was asked in a news interview on Saturday whether the images of northern Gaza Strip residents evacuating south on the IDF’s orders are comparable to images of the Nakba. He replied: “We are now rolling out the Gaza Nakba. From an operational point of view, there is no way to wage a war – as the IDF seeks to do in Gaza – with masses between the tanks and the soldiers.” When asked again whether this was the “Gaza Nakba”, Dichter – a member of the security cabinet and former Shin Bet director – said “Gaza Nakba 2023. That’s how it’ll end.” This quote file goes on and on and on. It's really screamingly bloody obvious what's happening in Gaza and the West Bank presently.
    - falcor84 2y ago
      Advocating for the devil, if it became obvious to the Vietnamese that they couldn't hurt the US, wouldn't they just surrender? I mean, isn't it clear that it was good for Japan to surrender, rather than prolonging the war? Why did surrendering apparently stop being a legitimate solution, and everyone's fighting neverending wars?
      - dunekid 2y ago
        The Imperial Japan surrendered before US forces with the hope that they could continue administering their country, but stop the offensive war as part of the axis powers. Vietnamese were fighting against occupation and, if they surrender they could not live in and administer their own native land. The difference is glaring.
HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
The point of war is still to hurt the enemy into submission. Nuclear weapons do war without the need for young soldiers, but that doesn't mean no one gets hurt. They just skip the battlefield stage. We're merely replacing nukes with murder drone clouds.
- cjbgkagh 2y ago
  Nukes feel more impersonal and the quick death seems merciful compared to being chased around a tree. But the sheer magnitude of the destruction of nukes still has me preferring murder done clouds to nukes.
  - HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
    I find nukes are preferable because it's possible to have survivors, and their bluntness discourages use. Drones preserve infrastructure and resources; the Nazis would have loved this for their "living space" plans.
    - cjbgkagh 2y ago
      Nukes are far bigger now and there are cluster warheads which enable carpet nuking which would not leave survivors. They have dial a yield warheads especially designed to reduce bluntness and enable / encourage tactical use. Then there is neutron bombs that are designed to focus on killing the people and leaving the infrastructure. It used to be presumed that any real conflict would start out with nuclear weapons and for now that is unthinkable. I hope it stays that way but there is no divine reason for it to. Just traditions and norms that are easily swept away. I remember a time, not that long ago, when arming drones with weapons was unthinkable. Then we did it and now it’s being done to us. I worry that the ‘unthinkable’ nature of nukes is being used to push red lines as far as possible. The same way the unthinkable systemic crash of the housing market enabled the very leverage that caused it. The same logic of ‘Russia will not use nukes because they have not yet used nukes’ which elides the fact that there is always a first time. And like weaponized drones, once it starts it’s really hard to stop.

pbiggar 2y ago

In favor of sacrificing a different nation's youth, right?

Mockapapella 2y ago
Better than sacrificing both
- pbiggar 2y ago
  It's not. If you can sacrifice just one without a cost to the other, than they will. Witness the US leaving Vietnam and what would have happened if US soldiers were not facing a grueling war. Witness other asymmetric wars such as Iraq (500,000 Iraqi civilians killed and only 5,000 US soldiers) or the genocide in Gaza now (50,000-200,000 killed by Israel). If one side has the ability to wage war at no human cost, it will mean massive human cost for civilians, as we constantly see.
  - cscurmudgeon 2y ago
    Your lower estimate for Gaza is higher than UN estimate at 34000. What is happening in Gaza does not meet the definition of genocide. Sheer numbers don’t make a genocide. Intention is key.
    - MeImCounting 2y ago
      Not only that but Israel is keeping the ratio of civilian to combatant casualties well within the acceptable norm for this type of combat. Claims of genocide undermine actual criticisms of israels handling of this whole situation.
    - astromaniak 2y ago
      [flagged]
    - dmbche 2y ago
      From the UN march report: "Citing international law, Ms. Albanese explained that genocide is defined as a specific set of acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group. “Specifically, Israel has committed three acts of genocide with the requisite intent: causing seriously serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group, deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part, and imposing measures intended to prevent birth within the group,” she said. Furthermore, “the genocide in Gaza is the most extreme stage of a long-standing settler colonial process of erasure of the native Palestinians,” she continued. " Edit0: Feel free to google "Nakba" and search for yourself as well
      - cscurmudgeon 2y ago
        Albanese is not the final judge of this though. This has to be argued in an impartial court with facts demonstrating and documenting intent. Albanese’s mere words won’t count as facts. If there is intent why does the IDF warn before strikes?
        dmbche 2y ago
        Sure - did Israel stop all actions and sent Nethanyahu and Yoav to the ICJ for judgment? Do you think it's possible to act in a way to veil your intent as much as possible? Further questions to ask yourself : Did Israel let power back in Gaza? Can the Gazans get the warning? Do they warn everytime? What's the delay? Where does "soldiers dressing up as aid workers and doctors against international law" fit in your idea of "warning before a strike"? And most important of all - is there a line they could conceivably cross for you to call it genocide?
    - racional 2y ago
      What is happening in Gaza does not meet the definition of genocide. According to the definition for genocide as provided sections (a)-(2) of Article 2 of the Geneva Convention ("acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group") it does. The substantiation for this rests not so much on the numbers killed (though these are also one component), but on the clear and obvious intent to render the Strip uninhabitable -- and to encourage what Israeli politicians are openly and cynically referring to as "voluntary migration". To intentionally kick an entire population off of their indigenous territory is a means of destroying them as a people, full stop. Intention is key. As has been made chillingly clear by major figures in the 37th Government: “We are imposing a complete siege on Gaza. There will be no electricity, no food, no water, no fuel. Everything will be closed. We are fighting human animals and we act accordingly” -- Defense Minister Yoav Gallant We also have Minister Avi Dichter chiming in: Israeli security cabinet member and Agriculture Minister Avi Dichter (Likud) was asked in a news interview on Saturday whether the images of northern Gaza Strip residents evacuating south on the IDF’s orders are comparable to images of the Nakba. He replied: “We are now rolling out the Gaza Nakba. From an operational point of view, there is no way to wage a war – as the IDF seeks to do in Gaza – with masses between the tanks and the soldiers.” When asked again whether this was the “Gaza Nakba”, Dichter – a member of the security cabinet and former Shin Bet director – said “Gaza Nakba 2023. That’s how it’ll end.” This quote file goes on and on and on. It's really screamingly bloody obvious what's happening in Gaza and the West Bank presently.
  - falcor84 2y ago
    Advocating for the devil, if it became obvious to the Vietnamese that they couldn't hurt the US, wouldn't they just surrender? I mean, isn't it clear that it was good for Japan to surrender, rather than prolonging the war? Why did surrendering apparently stop being a legitimate solution, and everyone's fighting neverending wars?
    - dunekid 2y ago
      The Imperial Japan surrendered before US forces with the hope that they could continue administering their country, but stop the offensive war as part of the axis powers. Vietnamese were fighting against occupation and, if they surrender they could not live in and administer their own native land. The difference is glaring.

HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago

The point of war is still to hurt the enemy into submission. Nuclear weapons do war without the need for young soldiers, but that doesn't mean no one gets hurt. They just skip the battlefield stage. We're merely replacing nukes with murder drone clouds.

cjbgkagh 2y ago
Nukes feel more impersonal and the quick death seems merciful compared to being chased around a tree. But the sheer magnitude of the destruction of nukes still has me preferring murder done clouds to nukes.
- HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
  I find nukes are preferable because it's possible to have survivors, and their bluntness discourages use. Drones preserve infrastructure and resources; the Nazis would have loved this for their "living space" plans.
  - cjbgkagh 2y ago
    Nukes are far bigger now and there are cluster warheads which enable carpet nuking which would not leave survivors. They have dial a yield warheads especially designed to reduce bluntness and enable / encourage tactical use. Then there is neutron bombs that are designed to focus on killing the people and leaving the infrastructure. It used to be presumed that any real conflict would start out with nuclear weapons and for now that is unthinkable. I hope it stays that way but there is no divine reason for it to. Just traditions and norms that are easily swept away. I remember a time, not that long ago, when arming drones with weapons was unthinkable. Then we did it and now it’s being done to us. I worry that the ‘unthinkable’ nature of nukes is being used to push red lines as far as possible. The same way the unthinkable systemic crash of the housing market enabled the very leverage that caused it. The same logic of ‘Russia will not use nukes because they have not yet used nukes’ which elides the fact that there is always a first time. And like weaponized drones, once it starts it’s really hard to stop.