5 ms·

For one it wasn't targeted, but either way, if it, as you claim, was targeted then it would be even worse because it's worse to kill and maim kids by targeting

by cess11 11mo ago

For one it wasn't targeted, but either way, if it, as you claim, was targeted then it would be even worse because it's worse to kill and maim kids by targeting them than by being indifferent.

dlubarov 11mo ago
Targeting Hezbollah operatives is certainly targeting, yes. The fact that there was still some nonzero harm to civilians, despite the targeting, does not refute that. Targeting doesn't imply zero collateral damage, which is an impossible standard.
- array_key_first 11mo ago
  The collateral damage was obvious and predictable. If you know about the potential collateral damage and do it anyway, then it's not targeted, even if you say it's targeted. For example: say I want to kill someone. I know they live in NYC. So I target them by dropping a nuke on NYC. Is this a targeted attack? Obviously not. But I said it was targeted! Doesn't work that way. If you want to target people, you try your best to kill just them. If you're planting bombs in mundane places and setting them off in public, you are not doing that. I don't know why we feel the need to defend military operatives by essentially claiming they're the stupidest people on Earth and cannot put 2 and 2 together. No no, they can. Meaning, this was intentional.
  - dlubarov 11mo ago
    If I dive bomb an enemy position, knowing that it's dark and windy and I might end up hitting something else, that's still a targeted operation. Same deal with the pager operation. > So I target them by dropping a nuke on NYC. You would have plainly violated the principle of proportionality, which is about the relative weight of military advantage vs civilian harm. The pager operation on the other hand created a massive military advantage, with less civilian harm than what's possible with conventional warfare. > planting bombs in mundane places and setting them off in public You would have a stronger point if the conflict looked more like Ukraine, where enemies are mostly sitting in trenches wearing uniforms. Hezbollah operates very differently, storing and firing weapons from mundane civilian places. There's no real way to fight Hezbollah without bombs in such places, it's just a question of whether bombs are delivered by artillery, planes or other means. > this was intentional I'm not sure what you mean here. I of course agree Israel could have predicted that there would be non-zero harm to civilians. That's true of pretty much any operation though, at least in urban wars. For comparison, consider Ukraine's massive truck bomb of the Kerch Bridge. Of course they knew there would be collateral damage, and 5 civilians ended up being killed. It was still widely considered legal, considering the major military advantage gained.
raxxorraxor 11mo ago
How was this not targeted? I was the most targeted military operation we know of. Give me any example of anything in warfare that is close to that.
- thunderfork 11mo ago
  Firing a projectile at an individual combatant?
  - dlubarov 11mo ago
    Projectiles hit the wrong target all the time. Especially when we get into artillery or air strikes where there's no line of sight to a uniformed soldier, commanders can't be sure if they're going to hit the intended target. That's why we have the principle of proportionality rather than an impossible standard of zero collateral damage.
    - thunderfork 11mo ago
      But surely "the most targeted strike of all time" would be "a single-target strike on a visually confirmed intended individual", right? Or at least that would be more targeted than any strike without LoS?
      - dlubarov 11mo ago
        A parent comment claimed it was the most targeted “operation”, not “strike”. Some small individual strikes have 100% perfect targeting; I think the claim was about large scale operations like artillery barrages or aerial campaigns. (I think the claim is technically false if we include open field conflicts, but probably true if we narrow it to comparable environments.)
- cess11 11mo ago
  This was about as targeted as anti-personnel landmines, but spread out in civilian areas and detonated without any knowledge of their surroundings at the time. Because mines are untargeted and designed to maim without discrimination as to who they might hurt there is a long running effort to prohibit their use.

by cess11 11mo ago

For one it wasn't targeted, but either way, if it, as you claim, was targeted then it would be even worse because it's worse to kill and maim kids by targeting them than by being indifferent.

dlubarov 11mo ago

Targeting Hezbollah operatives is certainly targeting, yes. The fact that there was still some nonzero harm to civilians, despite the targeting, does not refute that. Targeting doesn't imply zero collateral damage, which is an impossible standard.

array_key_first 11mo ago
The collateral damage was obvious and predictable. If you know about the potential collateral damage and do it anyway, then it's not targeted, even if you say it's targeted. For example: say I want to kill someone. I know they live in NYC. So I target them by dropping a nuke on NYC. Is this a targeted attack? Obviously not. But I said it was targeted! Doesn't work that way. If you want to target people, you try your best to kill just them. If you're planting bombs in mundane places and setting them off in public, you are not doing that. I don't know why we feel the need to defend military operatives by essentially claiming they're the stupidest people on Earth and cannot put 2 and 2 together. No no, they can. Meaning, this was intentional.
- dlubarov 11mo ago
  If I dive bomb an enemy position, knowing that it's dark and windy and I might end up hitting something else, that's still a targeted operation. Same deal with the pager operation. > So I target them by dropping a nuke on NYC. You would have plainly violated the principle of proportionality, which is about the relative weight of military advantage vs civilian harm. The pager operation on the other hand created a massive military advantage, with less civilian harm than what's possible with conventional warfare. > planting bombs in mundane places and setting them off in public You would have a stronger point if the conflict looked more like Ukraine, where enemies are mostly sitting in trenches wearing uniforms. Hezbollah operates very differently, storing and firing weapons from mundane civilian places. There's no real way to fight Hezbollah without bombs in such places, it's just a question of whether bombs are delivered by artillery, planes or other means. > this was intentional I'm not sure what you mean here. I of course agree Israel could have predicted that there would be non-zero harm to civilians. That's true of pretty much any operation though, at least in urban wars. For comparison, consider Ukraine's massive truck bomb of the Kerch Bridge. Of course they knew there would be collateral damage, and 5 civilians ended up being killed. It was still widely considered legal, considering the major military advantage gained.

raxxorraxor 11mo ago

How was this not targeted? I was the most targeted military operation we know of. Give me any example of anything in warfare that is close to that.

thunderfork 11mo ago
Firing a projectile at an individual combatant?
- dlubarov 11mo ago
  Projectiles hit the wrong target all the time. Especially when we get into artillery or air strikes where there's no line of sight to a uniformed soldier, commanders can't be sure if they're going to hit the intended target. That's why we have the principle of proportionality rather than an impossible standard of zero collateral damage.
  - thunderfork 11mo ago
    But surely "the most targeted strike of all time" would be "a single-target strike on a visually confirmed intended individual", right? Or at least that would be more targeted than any strike without LoS?
    - dlubarov 11mo ago
      A parent comment claimed it was the most targeted “operation”, not “strike”. Some small individual strikes have 100% perfect targeting; I think the claim was about large scale operations like artillery barrages or aerial campaigns. (I think the claim is technically false if we include open field conflicts, but probably true if we narrow it to comparable environments.)
cess11 11mo ago
This was about as targeted as anti-personnel landmines, but spread out in civilian areas and detonated without any knowledge of their surroundings at the time. Because mines are untargeted and designed to maim without discrimination as to who they might hurt there is a long running effort to prohibit their use.