4 ms·

Is continuing to apply extreme violence against these enemies likely to lead to a good result? What is the end state? I think we are fast approaching an era wh

Is continuing to apply extreme violence against these enemies likely to lead to a good result? What is the end state? I think we are fast approaching an era where weapons of mass destruction, by way of cheap killbot swarms, are trivially accessible to any government. Without radical diplomacy, I fear the entire Middle East -- Israel included -- is on a path to annihilation.

steve-atx-7600 7mo ago
I think it can be as simple as if you defeat your enemy first, they can’t defeat you or continue to threaten you.
- tastyface 7mo ago
  Defeating an enemy to the extent that they can't drive a truck full of AI killbots into a busy city center is an impossible task barring a scorched earth approach. And if that option is on the table -- killing millions to secure Israel's future -- then Israel seals its fate regardless. Live by the sword, die by the sword. Old advice that continues to ring true.
  - deleted 7mo ago
    [deleted]
  - hollerith 7mo ago
    Non-Israelis also have people that can afford truckfuls of slaughter bots that would kill them if they could, so since Israel is cooked, we are all cooked, right?
    - deleted 7mo ago
      [deleted]
    - tastyface 7mo ago
      State-level groups in the same physical vicinity that have blood feuds and generational grievances against each other are quite possibly cooked, yes. I sincerely hope this can be preempted through diplomacy, but the prognosis is not good. The depopulated, fiber-laced front lines of Ukraine set the stage for all future war and terror.
- wolvoleo 7mo ago
  That only works against nation states. After what Israel have done in Gaza there's thousands of people who have lost family in a gruesome way and now have an axe to grind against Israel. This way it'll never stop. The best way to prevent terrorism is to not give people reasons to want you dead. Look at all the ethnic conflicts in the world. Like the troubles in Ireland. Did that stop because one side threw more bombs? No, it stopped because both sides agreed to talk.
  - spwa4 7mo ago
    Really? Because there's extensive counterexamples in both directions ... Europe attacked and even persecuted the Germans (with reason) for WW2. Tens of millions of victims. Neither side wants the other dead. US and Japan? Same. Most of these countries are allies. Israel has never even had much business with Indonesia, and only little with India. Yet a large number of Indonesians want to kill all Jews (not just Israeli) and Indians largely support Israel, even in war. Or take Lebanese. Despite Israel attacking them many times and giving them plenty of "reasons to want them dead", if you talk to actual Lebanese, most population groups (in fact the ones that suffered the most) want normal relations with Israel. It seems they blame some other party, even for the deaths directly at the hands of Israel ... So, none of these situations fit your theory. It's very obvious that the issues Israel has with a great many countries have nothing to do with "giving them reasons to want you dead". By contrast, there are countries who've given each other far better reasons to hate ... and yet don't want each other dead. In fact, I have trouble finding an example of nations that want to attack each other because of such a historical situation. Hell, the history of China and Japan for the last millenium is one of each nation taking turns conquering and terrorizing the other and yet ... the only fear Japanese and Chinese have is the communist party suddenly deciding to conquer some country and attack, which every Japanese and Chinese person is secretly 100% certain will be a total disaster, for China as a whole AND for them personally. And that gives the real reason behind conflicts: one party thinks they can just take what they want, and attacks, usually for ideological reasons. Sometimes they're right, mostly they're wrong.
    - tastyface 7mo ago
      Not OP, but: peace between Germany and the rest of the West required a) millions slaughtered in war, b) an obvious big bad who got killed, c) relatively lenient and merciful occupation for years, and ultimately d) waiting for the Nazi generation to die out. I'm sure sharing a common cultural background helped a lot, too. And maybe a collective sense of optimism about the post-war world. I don't see many common elements with the situation in Gaza (and now Iran). A policy of "mowing the grass" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mowing_the_grass https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mowing_the_grass) will never lead to stability or warm and fuzzy feelings towards Israel.

steve-atx-7600 7mo ago

I think it can be as simple as if you defeat your enemy first, they can’t defeat you or continue to threaten you.

tastyface 7mo ago
Defeating an enemy to the extent that they can't drive a truck full of AI killbots into a busy city center is an impossible task barring a scorched earth approach. And if that option is on the table -- killing millions to secure Israel's future -- then Israel seals its fate regardless. Live by the sword, die by the sword. Old advice that continues to ring true.
- deleted 7mo ago
  [deleted]
- hollerith 7mo ago
  Non-Israelis also have people that can afford truckfuls of slaughter bots that would kill them if they could, so since Israel is cooked, we are all cooked, right?
  - deleted 7mo ago
    [deleted]
  - tastyface 7mo ago
    State-level groups in the same physical vicinity that have blood feuds and generational grievances against each other are quite possibly cooked, yes. I sincerely hope this can be preempted through diplomacy, but the prognosis is not good. The depopulated, fiber-laced front lines of Ukraine set the stage for all future war and terror.
wolvoleo 7mo ago
That only works against nation states. After what Israel have done in Gaza there's thousands of people who have lost family in a gruesome way and now have an axe to grind against Israel. This way it'll never stop. The best way to prevent terrorism is to not give people reasons to want you dead. Look at all the ethnic conflicts in the world. Like the troubles in Ireland. Did that stop because one side threw more bombs? No, it stopped because both sides agreed to talk.
- spwa4 7mo ago
  Really? Because there's extensive counterexamples in both directions ... Europe attacked and even persecuted the Germans (with reason) for WW2. Tens of millions of victims. Neither side wants the other dead. US and Japan? Same. Most of these countries are allies. Israel has never even had much business with Indonesia, and only little with India. Yet a large number of Indonesians want to kill all Jews (not just Israeli) and Indians largely support Israel, even in war. Or take Lebanese. Despite Israel attacking them many times and giving them plenty of "reasons to want them dead", if you talk to actual Lebanese, most population groups (in fact the ones that suffered the most) want normal relations with Israel. It seems they blame some other party, even for the deaths directly at the hands of Israel ... So, none of these situations fit your theory. It's very obvious that the issues Israel has with a great many countries have nothing to do with "giving them reasons to want you dead". By contrast, there are countries who've given each other far better reasons to hate ... and yet don't want each other dead. In fact, I have trouble finding an example of nations that want to attack each other because of such a historical situation. Hell, the history of China and Japan for the last millenium is one of each nation taking turns conquering and terrorizing the other and yet ... the only fear Japanese and Chinese have is the communist party suddenly deciding to conquer some country and attack, which every Japanese and Chinese person is secretly 100% certain will be a total disaster, for China as a whole AND for them personally. And that gives the real reason behind conflicts: one party thinks they can just take what they want, and attacks, usually for ideological reasons. Sometimes they're right, mostly they're wrong.
  - tastyface 7mo ago
    Not OP, but: peace between Germany and the rest of the West required a) millions slaughtered in war, b) an obvious big bad who got killed, c) relatively lenient and merciful occupation for years, and ultimately d) waiting for the Nazi generation to die out. I'm sure sharing a common cultural background helped a lot, too. And maybe a collective sense of optimism about the post-war world. I don't see many common elements with the situation in Gaza (and now Iran). A policy of "mowing the grass" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mowing_the_grass https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mowing_the_grass) will never lead to stability or warm and fuzzy feelings towards Israel.