Hooray For Us
We’re just absolutely the most inventive and creative species on the planet when it comes to new and different ways of killing each other.
Gaza doctors say patients suffering mystery injuries after Israeli attacks
Doctors in Gaza have reported previously unseen injuries from Israeli weapons that cause severe burning and deep internal wounds often resulting in amputations or death.
In another article we read
The weapon is similar to one developed by the U.S. military, known as DIME, which causes a powerful and lethal blast, but only within a relatively small radius.
Too bad we couldn’t figure out a way of channeling that creativity into solving problems that kill instead of developing new ways of doing it ourselves.
There’s your “measured response”. I understand we will never side with terrorists in a war – I wonder if Stephen Harper can figure out which side is are the terrorists. Golly, what is BOTH sides are?
I read about that… it is very sad. I find the whole idea of new weapons truly sickening. As if we aren’t good enough at killing each other already.
That the idea is to kill someone is already a given. The point of the new developments is to kill fewer additional people and cause less infrastructural damage. The choice is between more collateral damage and death, or less. Which do you prefer?
It’s the ultimate expression of energy conservation when confronting competitors for the genetic high ground. Why bother bluffing anymore to avoid a pyrrhic victory over territory? Smack’m from distance.
The only thing that’s changed from that discovery is the technology involved. Throwing ‘found object’ rocks to rocket propelled everything. Cats fit in jars, humans create better distance weapons.
I wonder how this all fits into the ‘war crimes’ ‘not war crimes’ debates?
IRC: The point of what new developments is to kill fewer additional people and cause less infrastructure damage?
I thought the point of military strategy was to inflict maximum casualty levels among the enemy as quickly as possible to save on one’s own casualties and tie up their resources on the wounded in as high a ratio as possible, while engendering morale destruction?
>The point of what new developments…
DIME, or DIME-like weapons.
>tie up their resources on the wounded in as high a ratio as possible
That makes sense during a protracted conflict and if the enemy is committed to caring for their wounded. If there are third parties providing evacuation and treatment, there are no resources to be tied up.
If terrorists could be detained indefinitely and inexpensively and interrogated to provide information of value, it might make sense to capture and hold them. But the way things stand now, it’s expedient to kill them during the first encounter and to do so with minimal risk to friendly forces and non-combatants.
>engendering morale destruction?
Their own morale is usually high and doesn’t degrade easily. The indirect approach is preferable: when enough people realize that any given terrorist and anyone within 50 meters of him could die at any moment, terrorists will have fewer seas in which to swim.
I think it’s sad that the Israeli’s are using a despicable weapon and justifying it by saying it will more accurately target the “real terrorists”. Clearly this has already failed with multitudes of civilians showing up with DIME-like injuries at the hospitals.
“The indirect approach is preferable: when enough people realize that any given terrorist and anyone within 50 meters of him could die at any moment, terrorists will have fewer seas in which to swim.”
And in your view, that moment of clarity (which seems somewhat overdue in both Iraq and Afghanistan) will be occurring roughly when?
>I think it’s sad that the Israeli’s are using a despicable weapon
Which prompts (again) the question: what constitutes a “despicable” weapon? Are there “undespicable” ways to kill people?
>will be occurring roughly when?
No idea. I can’t speak for others, but if one of the local thugs moved his HQ into apartments in my neighbourhood, I’d move my family.
IRC: How does your commentary of “The indirect approach is preferable: when enough people realize that any given terrorist and anyone within 50 meters of him could die at any moment, terrorists will have fewer seas in which to swim.†and “if one of the local thugs moved his HQ into apartments in my neighbourhood, I’d move my family.”
equate with “But the way things stand now, it’s expedient to kill them during the first encounter and to do so with minimal risk to friendly forces and non-combatants.”
So, morale (and literal) destruction of noncombatants around terrorists, who may, or may not have identified themselves to the local population (I’m sure they would identify themselves if they moved into your neighbourhood), is justifiable since the morale of the terrorists is too high to actually disrupt. How is this minimizing casualties with new technology? And even more horrific weapons that can take out even more civilians is acceptable because all weapons are nasty?
Also, I thought the point of ‘terrorists’ was being a not easily recognizable force that could blend easily into a population. So how are they killed ‘in the first encounter’? Would you indeed consider it a good trade to have your neighbourhood and neighbours razed because terrorists were targeted within it? Especially, if you didn’t know they were there?
The points don’t necessarily equate, nor do they have to; those are two separate ideas.
Among concepts of the laws of armed conflict, there is a principle called ‘military necessity’ which recognizes that in war people will be killed and things will be broken. There is a conflicting principle called ‘humanity’ which recognizes that death and destruction should be minimized.
To minimize collateral damage is a distinct and worthwhile goal to mitigate the impact of ‘military necessity’ against ‘humanity’. In general, more precise targeting systems and more limited (localized) destructive powers of weapons are desirable.
That is unconnected to the aim of killing terrorists and deterring the population from allowing them to blend in the first instance, except that one may observe that the size of the risk “bubble” surrounding a target decreases as targeting improves and effects volumes decrease.
I don’t expect anyone to consider it a good trade if a family member or a home is lost, ever. War is fundamentally an immoral activity.
>And even more horrific weapons that can take out even more civilians is acceptable because all weapons are nasty?
The idea is that the “more horrific weapons” kill and harm fewer non-combatants. A DIME warhead delivered by a PGM from a UAV in 2006 is an improvement over a carpet bombing raid by B-29s or a barrage of 155mm artillery fire in 2001.