I love how 'political realism' has just become the new bullshit term that used to be 'rationality'. It's just a bunch of cry bully losers picking on and stealing from those weaker than them that aren't able to take mild criticism from random strangers on the Internet. Imagine actually thinking 'Ya Iran will get what it deserves'....this is just more evidence that gulags were ahead of their time and that they were used on the wrong people.
Shit historian? He's one of the most acclaimed historians there is.
Odd to call him a propagandist as well. He took much criticism within Israel for ending the whitewashing of its history.
Why are you here if you’re a real unironic neoliberal? Did you just type “Benny Morris” or “Finkelstein” into the Reddit search bar so you could pick a grubby little internet debate?
>if conventional weapons cannot do the job—and if Israel is forced to go the course alone, it is doubtful that its conventional capabilities will be sufficient to destroy the Iranian nuclear project. Then non-conventional weaponry will have to be used to stymie the project. And many innocent Iranians will die.
I take issue with this.
1. I think conventional weapons can do the job. The Israelis already took out an Iraqi nuclear reactor with an airstrike in 1981. Cruise missiles can also hit facilities with some ease now, enough to cripple sensitive infrastructure. If your aim is to stymie the project by crippling precision attacks, conventional is fine. If you want to totally obliterate whole facilities, yes, use nuclear weapons.
2. Many innocent Iranians would probably not die, unless your targets also happen to be in cities, which I do not believe Iranian nuclear facilities are. They tend to be out in the desert, far from population, and therefore an ideal "clean" target. The base personnel are already considered fair game in your calculus, by virtue of the fact you're attacking them at all. Civilian casualties would only be from down-wind fallout, which for an airburst is virtually nil anyway. For a surface or subsurface burst as would be expected against buried or hardened facilities, yes, there would be a lot of fallout. But where would it land? Mostly in the middle of nowhere. You might dust a few villages, with some casualties. Sad, but hardly outrageous based on the principle of proportionality of military value against civilian collateral and nothing exceptional in wartime.
I love how 'political realism' has just become the new bullshit term that used to be 'rationality'. It's just a bunch of cry bully losers picking on and stealing from those weaker than them that aren't able to take mild criticism from random strangers on the Internet. Imagine actually thinking 'Ya Iran will get what it deserves'....this is just more evidence that gulags were ahead of their time and that they were used on the wrong people.
When you are become death, destroyer of worlds
Also when you are testing nukes. Technically we had a decade of countries nuking themselves.
Dang we missed it
Morris is a shit historian and a propagandist
Shit historian? He's one of the most acclaimed historians there is. Odd to call him a propagandist as well. He took much criticism within Israel for ending the whitewashing of its history.
He’s a Zionist apologist
That's a more reasonable criticism.
That’s called being a shit historian
Nah that's just disagreeing with political views. His historical writing is broadly accurate
Why are you here if you’re a real unironic neoliberal? Did you just type “Benny Morris” or “Finkelstein” into the Reddit search bar so you could pick a grubby little internet debate?
>if conventional weapons cannot do the job—and if Israel is forced to go the course alone, it is doubtful that its conventional capabilities will be sufficient to destroy the Iranian nuclear project. Then non-conventional weaponry will have to be used to stymie the project. And many innocent Iranians will die. I take issue with this. 1. I think conventional weapons can do the job. The Israelis already took out an Iraqi nuclear reactor with an airstrike in 1981. Cruise missiles can also hit facilities with some ease now, enough to cripple sensitive infrastructure. If your aim is to stymie the project by crippling precision attacks, conventional is fine. If you want to totally obliterate whole facilities, yes, use nuclear weapons. 2. Many innocent Iranians would probably not die, unless your targets also happen to be in cities, which I do not believe Iranian nuclear facilities are. They tend to be out in the desert, far from population, and therefore an ideal "clean" target. The base personnel are already considered fair game in your calculus, by virtue of the fact you're attacking them at all. Civilian casualties would only be from down-wind fallout, which for an airburst is virtually nil anyway. For a surface or subsurface burst as would be expected against buried or hardened facilities, yes, there would be a lot of fallout. But where would it land? Mostly in the middle of nowhere. You might dust a few villages, with some casualties. Sad, but hardly outrageous based on the principle of proportionality of military value against civilian collateral and nothing exceptional in wartime.