4 ms·

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

by 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
  cluster munitions are considered to be indiscriminate weapon and prohibit to use in civilian areas 2.5km is also indiscriminate weapon. >So to me it seems not "just to hit somebody and do some damage", but also to make the war expensive to Isr what you wrote can be rephrased as "terrorize population by bombing downtown"
  - eesmith 1y ago
    MRVs are cluster-like, but not cluster munitions. Otherwise the US ICBM fleet with MIRVs would be a cluster munition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_independently_targetable_reentry_vehicle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_independently_targeta... even mentions 'multiple re-entry vehicle (MRV) system for a ballistic missile deploys multiple warheads above a single aimpoint which then drift apart, producing a cluster bomb-like effect.' Note the "like". That is not the same as saying MRVs are cluster bombs. The Convention on Cluster Munitions says: “Cluster munition” means a conventional munition that is designed to disperse or release explosive submunitions each weighing less than 20 kilograms, and includes those explosive submunitions -- https://www.clusterconvention.org/files/convention_text/Convention-ENG.pdf https://www.clusterconvention.org/files/convention_text/Conv... From what I've heard, the MRV warheads carry more than 20kg of explosives, making them not a cluster bomb. In any case, neither Israel, the US, nor Iran are signatories to the Convention on Cluster Munitions. What I said was, point to the relevant treaty or conventions which are being violated. No, what I said was it cannot be read as "just to hit somebody and do some damage". Your best response should be to describe why there are no military objectives by bombing a city - no military targets, no command-and-control centers, no anti-missile bases, no espionage headquarters, etc. (There's a reason Article 58 is so hard to follow.) Do you really want to argue that this is "terrorism"? Definitions of terrorism regularly exclude armed conflict between nations, as you can read at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_terrorism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_terrorism . What definition are you using? So: 1) Which treaty or convention defines what 'enough precision' means? 2) What makes these cluster munitions? Are all MIRV systems (including conventionally-armed ones) cluster munitions? 3) Which treaty or convention prohibits the use of these weapons? 4) Which tribunal will determine if Iran or Israel violated these conventions? As far as I can tell, none, no, none, and none. The ICC and other post-war agreements were meant to prevent the atrocities regularly carried out during wars. Reject those agreements, fail to uphold them internally, well, don't be surprised about the outcome when a non-curb-stomp war breaks out.

by 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
cluster munitions are considered to be indiscriminate weapon and prohibit to use in civilian areas 2.5km is also indiscriminate weapon. >So to me it seems not "just to hit somebody and do some damage", but also to make the war expensive to Isr what you wrote can be rephrased as "terrorize population by bombing downtown"
- eesmith 1y ago
  MRVs are cluster-like, but not cluster munitions. Otherwise the US ICBM fleet with MIRVs would be a cluster munition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_independently_targetable_reentry_vehicle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_independently_targeta... even mentions 'multiple re-entry vehicle (MRV) system for a ballistic missile deploys multiple warheads above a single aimpoint which then drift apart, producing a cluster bomb-like effect.' Note the "like". That is not the same as saying MRVs are cluster bombs. The Convention on Cluster Munitions says: “Cluster munition” means a conventional munition that is designed to disperse or release explosive submunitions each weighing less than 20 kilograms, and includes those explosive submunitions -- https://www.clusterconvention.org/files/convention_text/Convention-ENG.pdf https://www.clusterconvention.org/files/convention_text/Conv... From what I've heard, the MRV warheads carry more than 20kg of explosives, making them not a cluster bomb. In any case, neither Israel, the US, nor Iran are signatories to the Convention on Cluster Munitions. What I said was, point to the relevant treaty or conventions which are being violated. No, what I said was it cannot be read as "just to hit somebody and do some damage". Your best response should be to describe why there are no military objectives by bombing a city - no military targets, no command-and-control centers, no anti-missile bases, no espionage headquarters, etc. (There's a reason Article 58 is so hard to follow.) Do you really want to argue that this is "terrorism"? Definitions of terrorism regularly exclude armed conflict between nations, as you can read at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_terrorism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_terrorism . What definition are you using? So: 1) Which treaty or convention defines what 'enough precision' means? 2) What makes these cluster munitions? Are all MIRV systems (including conventionally-armed ones) cluster munitions? 3) Which treaty or convention prohibits the use of these weapons? 4) Which tribunal will determine if Iran or Israel violated these conventions? As far as I can tell, none, no, none, and none. The ICC and other post-war agreements were meant to prevent the atrocities regularly carried out during wars. Reject those agreements, fail to uphold them internally, well, don't be surprised about the outcome when a non-curb-stomp war breaks out.