4 ms·

Which treaty or convention defines what 'enough precision' means? How have you determined the "8km dispersion radius"? https://www.npr.org/2024/10/04/nx-s1-514

Which treaty or convention defines what 'enough precision' means? How have you determined the "8km dispersion radius"? https://www.npr.org/2024/10/04/nx-s1-5140058/satellite-images-dozens-iranian-missiles-struck-near-israeli-air-base https://www.npr.org/2024/10/04/nx-s1-5140058/satellite-image... shows "about 32 points where missiles landed around Nevatim Airbase in southern Israel" last year. https://www.npr.org/2024/10/04/nx-s1-5140058/satellite-images-dozens-iranian-missiles-struck-near-israeli-air-base https://www.npr.org/2024/10/04/nx-s1-5140058/satellite-image... says the longest airstrip there is 4km, so the dispersion radius in that case was at most 4km - assuming they all had the same target. FWIW, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahab-3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahab-3 says that missile has an accuracy: "2,500 m Circular error probable", which is also well under 8km. Article 58 of Additional Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, adopted on 30 November 1993, is fully cognizant that perfect precision is not possible, which is why military objectives - note, not "military infrastructure", because taking out an oil refinery can be a military objective even it's not a military infrastructure - should not be placed in or near densely populated areas: > The Parties to the conflict shall, to the maximum extent feasible: > a) without prejudice to Article 49 of the Fourth Convention, endeavour to remove the civilian population, individual civilians and civilian objects under their control from the vicinity of military objectives; > b) avoid locating military objectives within or near densely populated areas; > c) take the other necessary precautions to protect the civilian population, individual civilians and civilian objects under their control against the dangers resulting from military operations Now, Article 49 is not well followed, but that's a different topic. My question again is, where are the treaty obligations for how accurate one must be to execute a retaliatory attack? Is the use of large, high-explosive bombs in an urban environment which cause extensive collateral damage ispo facto a treaty violation or even possibly a war crime? (NB: the authors of these conventions were well aware of the mass bombings of the Second World War, which dropped large unguided bombs that caused mass collateral damage, justified in part by noting the war effort necessarily involved most of the civilian population.)

tguvot 1y ago
8km dispersion radius of submunitions in cluster warhead(they are ejected at altitude of 5km from warhead).Iran started to use them 2 days ago. You are writing about something different
- bigyabai 1y ago
  What are we opposed to? The wanton destruction of civilian infrastructure (which the IDF put into doctrine[0]) or the manufacturing of cluster munitions (which Israel also does[1]). Neither Iran nor Israel are signed onto the CCM. You're basically just complaining that Israel can't bomb colleges and hospitals without putting their own infrastructure in the line of fire. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dahiya_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dahiya_doctrine [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20070102071116/http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/761781.html https://web.archive.org/web/20070102071116/http://www.haaret...
  - tguvot 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - bigyabai 1y ago
      Next you're going to tell me there is no such thing as a Hannibal Directive. Sure is convenient that all these ugly doctrinal conventions are actually invented by the media despite them being first reported[0] by IDF members. Definitely not systemic denial[1] from a famously brutal armed force and historically dishonest government, nosiree. [0] https://www.ynetnews.com/article/rkjqoobip https://www.ynetnews.com/article/rkjqoobip [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_diplomacy_of_Israel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_diplomacy_of_Israel
- eesmith 1y ago
  I know very little of the recent exchanges. It sounds like you are saying that most of the Iranian response is acceptable under current conventions but one type is not? What treaty or other convention says that a 2.5 km radius is okay but an 8 km one is not? You characterized their use as "just to hit somebody and do some damage" but standard doctrine for decades is to use multiple warheads to make interception by anti-ballistic missiles more difficult. That's why SDI - the US "Star Wars" defense system against a Soviet missile attack - was doomed from the start. It's a lot cheaper to use multiple warheads to get through a defense than it is for the defenders to target and destroy each warhead. The Israeli missile defense system is famous, so using a cluster-like MRV system from a ballistic missile is the obvious way strategy. So to me it seems not "just to hit somebody and do some damage", but also to make the war expensive to Israel, and likely also to exhaust Israeli defenses so future attacks can be more successful. Do you know which missile/warhead systems are these? Are they MRVs or MIRVs? If they have independent targeting ability, then an 8km dispersion refers to the overall possible target area for all warheads, even if each warhead has a much smaller error.

tguvot 1y ago

8km dispersion radius of submunitions in cluster warhead(they are ejected at altitude of 5km from warhead).Iran started to use them 2 days ago. You are writing about something different

bigyabai 1y ago
What are we opposed to? The wanton destruction of civilian infrastructure (which the IDF put into doctrine[0]) or the manufacturing of cluster munitions (which Israel also does[1]). Neither Iran nor Israel are signed onto the CCM. You're basically just complaining that Israel can't bomb colleges and hospitals without putting their own infrastructure in the line of fire. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dahiya_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dahiya_doctrine [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20070102071116/http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/761781.html https://web.archive.org/web/20070102071116/http://www.haaret...
- tguvot 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - bigyabai 1y ago
    Next you're going to tell me there is no such thing as a Hannibal Directive. Sure is convenient that all these ugly doctrinal conventions are actually invented by the media despite them being first reported[0] by IDF members. Definitely not systemic denial[1] from a famously brutal armed force and historically dishonest government, nosiree. [0] https://www.ynetnews.com/article/rkjqoobip https://www.ynetnews.com/article/rkjqoobip [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_diplomacy_of_Israel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_diplomacy_of_Israel
eesmith 1y ago
I know very little of the recent exchanges. It sounds like you are saying that most of the Iranian response is acceptable under current conventions but one type is not? What treaty or other convention says that a 2.5 km radius is okay but an 8 km one is not? You characterized their use as "just to hit somebody and do some damage" but standard doctrine for decades is to use multiple warheads to make interception by anti-ballistic missiles more difficult. That's why SDI - the US "Star Wars" defense system against a Soviet missile attack - was doomed from the start. It's a lot cheaper to use multiple warheads to get through a defense than it is for the defenders to target and destroy each warhead. The Israeli missile defense system is famous, so using a cluster-like MRV system from a ballistic missile is the obvious way strategy. So to me it seems not "just to hit somebody and do some damage", but also to make the war expensive to Israel, and likely also to exhaust Israeli defenses so future attacks can be more successful. Do you know which missile/warhead systems are these? Are they MRVs or MIRVs? If they have independent targeting ability, then an 8km dispersion refers to the overall possible target area for all warheads, even if each warhead has a much smaller error.