Israel/Palestine discussion

[Panonadin]

Listen, this whole argument is silly: Iran is threatening Israel with a nuclear attack and you all expect Israel to do nothing about that, despite the fact that Iran is perhaps Israel's greatest enemy. That's not reasonable.

Correct. IT IS silly. Iran has never threatend Israel with a nuclear attack. Israel wants to launch an attack based on fear and call it defense. Iran should not have to stop nuclear research because the neighbors said so.

[sourmìlk]

Iran is attacking Israel, getting a nuclear weapon, and telling Israel that it should be destroyed. I suppose that the US didn't explicitly tell the Japanese they'd nuke them when working on the Manhattan project, but would it have been somehow inappropriate for Japan to try and stop it anyways?

[yurell]

The USA committed an act of war to prevent nuclear missiles being installed in Cuba, potentially causing war between the SU and the USA.

The situation between Israel and Iran really isn't that dissimilar.

Ah yes, I remember how the US launched a massive air-strike across the CCCP, destroying all Russia's nuclear reactors, killing hundreds of civilians and the Soviets did nothing.

Oh wait, that never happened because not all 'acts of war' are created equal.

[Ghostbear]

Ah yes, I remember how the US launched a massive air-strike across the CCCP, destroying all Russia's nuclear reactors, killing hundreds of civilians and the Soviets did nothing.

Oh wait, that never happened because not all 'acts of war' are created equal.

I actually took the statement to be somewhat in defense of our side of the argument: even though the US did it as an act of defense, it was still a valid causus belli for the Soviet Union, had they wished to use it. Just like how Israel attacking Iran would be a valid causus belli for them, should they wish to use it. Especially since an Israeli strike would, as you are noting, require a far larger amount of aggression than US actions during the missile crisis.

@ Torchship & Panonadin: Just give up guys, he might as well be trolling you at this point. We can't have a real serious discussion on this topic if it always devolves into sourmilk.

[LaserGuy]

Iran could not very easily take out 100,000 Israelis next week: the Israeli military and even the American military would get in the way long before they were able to do significant damage on Israel's civilian population. And Iran can stop being the active instigator of hostilities: they can defund Hezbollah and Hamas, and they can dismantle their nuclear facilities. Arguably this isn't a guarantee that they won't be attacked, but it's substantially less dangerous than their current route, which is to actively piss off Israel and the United States. Israel doesn't have the option not to attack because Israel can't simply submit to the will of one of their largest enemies. Israel needs to ensure it will be safe, and a nuclear Iran is one of the most dangerous things possible for Israel.

Sorry, you're saying that Iran could completely capitulate to the countries that are threatening it with war, and hope and pray that they don't attack anyway? That's your answer? Seriously, think about this from Iran's point of view for a moment. How on Earth could any government agree to those terms? I think Iran probably learned the lessons of WWII as well as we did. Appeasement is a really bad idea. It just means that they're going to ask for more.

[BattleMoose]

In bringing up the Cuban Missile Crisis, I am just giving a historical precedent, that nations have interfered in the way that Israel is possibly considering.

If Iran is only acquiring nuclear weapons for defensive purposes, then they should say so.

In the absence of such a statement it is reasonable to assume that Iran might use such weapons for offensive purposes.

Acquiring nuclear weapons is going to significantly disrupt the balance of power in the region and pretty much by definition that causes conflict.

[Torchship]

Recall where I said "with no guarantee of success."

What makes you think Iran's nuke has any guarantee of success, either? First-generation nukes are notoriously unreliable; the delivery platform could malfunction, the missile could be shot down, the warhead itself could be a dud. A nuclear missile is essentially as unreliable as any of the other options available to the Iranian state, meaning that it changes precisely nothing about your internally contradictory argument.

They were right in the middle of peace talks. If Japan wanted the trade embargoes eliminated then they should have continued with the peace talks.

Peace talks which were historically going precisely nowhere fast. By the time such talks would have concluded, the Japanese state would have been a hollow husk, completely vulnerable to American aggression. Therefore a strike was necessary for the survival of the Japanese state, and therefore the US is entirely to blame for the ensuing escalation into open war.

[yurell]

If Iran is only acquiring nuclear weapons for defensive purposes, then they should say so. In the absence of such a statement it is reasonable to assume that Iran might use such weapons for offensive purposes. Acquiring nuclear weapons is going to significantly disrupt the balance of power in the region and pretty much by definition that causes conflict.

Spacing modified. Why would we believe them when they say that? We don't believe them when they say they're not getting them at all, and if they do say they are getting them you can pretty much guarantee they'll be invaded, so they have every reason to continue denying it until they finally do end up with nukes.

@ Torchship & Panonadin: Just give up guys, he might as well be trolling you at this point. We can't have a real serious discussion on this topic if it always devolves into sourmilk.

You have no idea how much more rational it seems when you block him.

[natraj]

I suppose that the US didn't explicitly tell the Japanese they'd nuke them when working on the Manhattan project, but would it have been somehow inappropriate for Japan to try and stop it anyways?

If they tried and stopped it by assassinating civilians who were working on it, then yes, that would not be "somehow inappropriate", that would be an act of terrorism.

[Ghostbear]

If Iran is only acquiring nuclear weapons for defensive purposes, then they should say so.

In the absence of such a statement it is reasonable to assume that Iran might use such weapons for offensive purposes.

No it isn't. Only one nation has ever used nuclear weapons offensively, and that was the inventor. Since then, everybody has used them defensively, even the most aggressive states possessing them. Also, as Yurell said, would anyone actually believe them if they said so? I can't possibly imagine anyone would change their mind, and instead they'd just say Iran is lying. Fuck, didn't Iran say their nuclear program was solely for civilian power? That's not even weaponized, as per their own statements.

You have no idea how much more rational it seems when you block him.

The "This post has been blocked, blah blah" stuff always grabs my attention more than a normal post, so I just scroll a little bit faster instead.

[sourmìlk]

If they tried and stopped it by assassinating civilians who were working on it, then yes, that would not be "somehow inappropriate", that would be an act of terrorism.

No, as I explained last page.

What makes you think Iran's nuke has any guarantee of success, either? First-generation nukes are notoriously unreliable; the delivery platform could malfunction, the missile could be shot down, the warhead itself could be a dud. A nuclear missile is essentially as unreliable as any of the other options available to the Iranian state, meaning that it changes precisely nothing about your internally contradictory argument.

Who said anything about a missile?

Peace talks which were historically going precisely nowhere fast. By the time such talks would have concluded, the Japanese state would have been a hollow husk, completely vulnerable to American aggression. Therefore a strike was necessary for the survival of the Japanese state, and therefore the US is entirely to blame for the ensuing escalation into open war.

Except the sanctions were imposed in response ot violent action and I've yet to see evidence that they were as dramatic as you say.

Sorry, you're saying that Iran could completely capitulate to the countries that are threatening it with war, and hope and pray that they don't attack anyway? That's your answer? Seriously, think about this from Iran's point of view for a moment. How on Earth could any government agree to those terms? I think Iran probably learned the lessons of WWII as well as we did. Appeasement is a really bad idea. It just means that they're going to ask for more.

Our threats of attack are conditional and appropriate. If Iran makes it so that reality does not meet those conditions, there's no need for us to attack. And it's only appeasement if you're allowing bad behaviour. If you're conceding reasonable requests, then it's just being reasonable. And by this justification, any country could start and continue with a nuclear program because the US might invade them. The US is actively trying to avoid a military strike on Iran, so it's silly to suggest that Iran has a reason to think that it will be more safe when developing its nuclear program than otherwise. The only person that's currently threatening to strike them is Israel, and Iran has the power to make that strike unnecessary.

Iran isn't simply a victim of circumstance: it's the one creating this tension and its the one initiating hostilities. It and it alone has the power to change that.

And anyways its irrelevant: Israel has to take action necessary to defend itself and a military strike targeting Iranian nuclear facilities constitutes that action.

[Panonadin]

If Iran is only acquiring nuclear weapons for defensive purposes, then they should say so.

They have "said so"

They have said, multiple times they aren't even going to use the enrichment for WEAPONS at all. Much less defensive nukes. Everyone is just calling them liars.

[LaserGuy]

Sorry, you're saying that Iran could completely capitulate to the countries that are threatening it with war, and hope and pray that they don't attack anyway? That's your answer? Seriously, think about this from Iran's point of view for a moment. How on Earth could any government agree to those terms? I think Iran probably learned the lessons of WWII as well as we did. Appeasement is a really bad idea. It just means that they're going to ask for more.

Our threats of attack are conditional and appropriate. If Iran makes it so that reality does not meet those conditions, there's no need for us to attack. And it's only appeasement if you're allowing bad behaviour. If you're conceding reasonable requests, then it's just being reasonable.

There is nothing reasonable at all about what you are suggesting Iran do. They have the right to nuclear energy, and the right to enriched nuclear fuel. And again, as you yourself stated, this is not guarantee that we wouldn't just invade them anyway, especially once we were certain that they didn't have a good way to defend themselves. There is literally no reason for them to accede to our threats, and they would be utter morons to do so.

And by this justification, any country could start and continue with a nuclear program because the US might invade them.

I agree. I believe there is a good argument to be made that every state should have the right to nuclear weapons for defensive purposes. But that said, the United States is not currently threatening most countries with war (not that that necessarily matters, historically speaking), but It has explicitly threatened Iran with war on several occasions.

And anyways its irrelevant: Israel has to take action necessary to defend itself and a military strike targeting Iranian nuclear facilities constitutes that action.

I think I've said this before, but it bears repeating: Preemptive war is a terrible policy.

[natraj]

If they tried and stopped it by assassinating civilians who were working on it, then yes, that would not be "somehow inappropriate", that would be an act of terrorism.

No, as I explained last page.

As people have tried to tell you many times, stating your position does not automatically mean you are now correct.

According to the UN Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism, a terrorist act has been committed if someone causes death or serious injury to a person when the purpose of the conduct, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population, or to compel a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act. (cite)

That pretty much covers murdering civilians to stop Iran from continuing its nuclear program.

[yoni45]

As people have tried to tell you many times, stating your position does not automatically mean you are now correct.

According to the UN Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism, a terrorist act has been committed if someone causes death or serious injury to a person when the purpose of the conduct, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population, or to compel a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act. (cite)

That pretty much covers murdering civilians to stop Iran from continuing its nuclear program.

Er, that would only be covered if the civilians are being killed in order to intimidate a population nor to 'compel' a government to do something.

This is being done to damage their capabilities -- not to 'compel' them from following through on their capabilities.

[Ghostbear]

As people have tried to tell you many times, stating your position does not automatically mean you are now correct.

According to the UN Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism, a terrorist act has been committed if someone causes death or serious injury to a person when the purpose of the conduct, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population, or to compel a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act. (cite)

That pretty much covers murdering civilians to stop Iran from continuing its nuclear program.

Er, that would only be covered if the civilians are being killed in order to intimidate a population nor to 'compel' a government to do something.

This is being done to damage their capabilities -- not to 'compel' them from following through on their capabilities.

Emphasis mine. It's an attempt to compel them to stop, because if they don't, then Iran's scientists (you know, fucking civilians) will keep being murdered. Do you think people are jumping at the bit to join Iran's nuclear science teams right now? I expect not, and that's because they're being intimidated away from it with the threat of murder. That is being done to damage Iran's capacity, sure, but it's being done through terrorism.

[yoni45]

Emphasis mine. It's an attempt to compel them to stop, because if they don't, then Iran's scientists (you know, fucking civilians) will keep being murdered. Do you think people are jumping at the bit to join Iran's nuclear science teams right now? I expect not, and that's because they're being intimidated away from it with the threat of murder. That is being done to damage Iran's capacity, sure, but it's being done through terrorism.

You're conflating consequences with intent. I'd imagine that Israel's purpose behind the assassinations is to cripple Iran's capabilities -- not to compel Iran to do one thing or another.

The idea of classifying terrorism and such is to prohibit arbitrary, deliberate, attacks against targets that are otherwise unrelated to the government's military capabilities in order to "terrorize" the populace or country into submission.

This isn't the case here: the targets are not arbitrary or unrelated. The targets are not only part of the military force being attacked, but are essential to it. It's the difference between bombing a tank production plant and bombing a residential block in suburban Calgary.

Now, it often will come to a fine line, but this is nowhere close to that line.

[Ghostbear]

This isn't the case here: the targets are not arbitrary or unrelated. The targets are not only part of the military force being attacked, but are essential to it.

No, they're fucking civilians. They aren't uniformed soldiers, they don't have a combat role, they probably aren't even employed by the Iranian military directly. You can't possibly argue that they're part of the military, because as civilians they are by definition not part of the military. Don't say they're part of the military, because they aren't, they weren't, and they never will be.

As for intent, I'll requote myself:

Do you think people are jumping at the bit to join Iran's nuclear science teams right now? I expect not, and that's because they're being intimidated away from it with the threat of murder.

[Torchship]

Except the sanctions were imposed in response ot violent action and I've yet to see evidence that they were as dramatic as you say.

You've already asserted that a 0.1% chance of major damage to a state is enough for a state to start a major war, therefore I do not need to provide such evidence. By your own arguments, a state needs only an incredibly remote threat to justify military action, and thus the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbour was perfectly justified. Thus America is entirely to blame for the ensuing war.
As to your first point, the Israeli assassination of Iranian scientists is the analogous action. You can yell and wave your arms all you like about how such action is not terrorism, but it is undeniably violent.

[sourmìlk]

LaserGuy, if you have a strategy other than preemptive war which you know will prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons, I'd love to hear it. Until then, Israel is stuck with a preemptive strike. It's not like Israel or the US would choose a preemptive strike over another option: contrary to popular belief, Israelis don't actually like engaging in war and the US is expending a lot of political capital in attempts to delay an Israeli strike. If Israel chooses to engage in a preemptive strike, and particularly if America supports them, it means that some very advanced intelligence agencies decided, for military rather than political reasons, that this was the best option.

Iran would not be stupid to give into our requests. Our requests are perfectly reasonable and give it a much higher guarantee of safety from future attacks than it has now. There is no downside to Iran making friends with Israel and the US: it makes them safer, it doesn't really make them any new enemies, and they may even get to restart their nuclear program if we don't think they're going to use it to blow Israel up.

I think yoni is doing an excellent job addressing the accusations of terrorism against the assassinations of Iranian scientists, so as my arguments there I'm going to refer you to yoni.

Ghostbear, the scientists are working towards creating weapons for Iran. How are they not a valid military target? We're throwing definitions around so much that I think we've rather missed the point, that being the following: what moral problem do you have with the assassination of scientists in Iran's nuclear program as a means of inhibiting the progress of that program?

Torchship, you misunderstand my arguments. Read them argain.

All of the arguments you all have been making have the specific effect of disabling Israel's ability to defend itself. This points to what is perhaps a fundamental disagreement: do you not recognize that a country defending itself is non-optional for that country? And do you not recognize that it is morally obligatory for that country to hold the defense of its citizens above other countries' interests?

If you do recognize those things, then we agree Israel must defend itself. And while I recognize the proposed actions aren't ideal, they may be the only options available. So, do you have an effective way that Israel can ensure it is not the victim of a nuclear strike?

[LaserGuy]

LaserGuy, if you have a strategy other than preemptive war which you know will prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons, I'd love to hear it.

Diplomacy!

That said, we don't know that a preemptive war will prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons. It honestly doesn't even seem likely that it will prevent Iran from getting them.

If Israel chooses to engage in a preemptive strike, and particularly if America supports them, it means that some very advanced intelligence agencies decided, for military rather than political reasons, that this was the best option.

That doesn't mean that it is morally defensible. Intelligence agencies also have a bad habit of overstating risk because they don't want to be wrong. See: Iraq war.

Iran would not be stupid to give into our requests. Our requests are perfectly reasonable and give it a much higher guarantee of safety from future attacks than it has now. There is no downside to Iran making friends with Israel and the US: it makes them safer, it doesn't really make them any new enemies, and they may even get to restart their nuclear program if we don't think they're going to use it to blow Israel up.

Oh, I agree that there is no downside to Iran making friends with us. I think that is the best possible outcome. I just don't believe that they are likely to have an interest in making friends as long as we are threatening them and making ridiculous demands.

All of the arguments you all have been making have the specific effect of disabling Israel's ability to defend itself. This points to what is perhaps a fundamental disagreement: do you not recognize that a country defending itself is non-optional for that country? And do you not recognize that it is morally obligatory for that country to hold the defense of its citizens above other countries' interests?

I don't believe that preemptive war constitutes defending yourself. Therefore, none of my arguments hinder Israel's ability to defend itself in any way, as far as I am concerned. What I am saying is that it would be better for Israel to stop threatening or attacking other countries, because doing so is not defensive action anyway, and because such behaviours increase the overall risk of harm coming back to Israel at some later date.

So, do you have an effective way that Israel can ensure it is not the victim of a nuclear strike?

Nuclear peace/mutually assured destruction is one option. Normalizing diplomatic relations with their neighbours is another.

[sourmìlk]

That said, we don't know that a preemptive war will prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons. It honestly doesn't even seem likely that it will prevent Iran from getting them.

I don't see how Iran is going to develop nuclear weapons with destroyed reactors. It would take years to recover, and enough can change in years that another strike might not be necessary. This one is.

That doesn't mean that it is morally defensible. Intelligence agencies also have a bad habit of overstating risk because they don't want to be wrong. See: Iraq war.

My understanding was that intelligence didn't think that Iraq had nukes, but that Bush cherry picked evidence in an attempt to say they did.

Oh, I agree that there is no downside to Iran making friends with us. I think that is the best possible outcome. I just don't believe that they are likely to have an interest in making friends as long as we are threatening them and making ridiculous demands.

I don't see why our demands are ridiculous. We're asking Iran to stop action that heavily threatens our allies, or else we will make them stop. And if Iran has the power to make friends with us, then it should do that. If it doesn't do that, then any action necessitated by Iran's refusal to do that is Iran's fault. And, if Iran doesn't make friends with us, it means they're not pursuing the ideal course of action and thus are not behaving rationally.

I don't believe that preemptive war constitutes defending yourself. Therefore, none of my arguments hinder Israel's ability to defend itself in any way, as far as I am concerned. What I am saying is that it would be better for Israel to stop threatening or attacking other countries, because doing so is not defensive action anyway, and because such behaviours increase the overall risk of harm coming back to Israel at some later date.

Iran is already an enemy of Israel and is already attacking Israel. Attacking Iran can't increase harm at a later date. And I've given you scenarios in which preemptive war constitutes self-defense, e.g. this one. Or, for example, if Israel had preempted in the Yom Kippur war when they'd received intelligence that the Arab armies were about to attack.

Nuclear peace/mutually assured destruction is one option. Normalizing diplomatic relations with their neighbours is another.

First, mutually assured destruction doesn't work well when Iran displays self-destructive tendencies. Second, normalizing diplomatic relations with Iran isn't something Israel can do while Iran is attacking Israel.

[yoni45]

No, they're fucking civilians. They aren't uniformed soldiers, they don't have a combat role, they probably aren't even employed by the Iranian military directly. You can't possibly argue that they're part of the military, because as civilians they are by definition not part of the military. Don't say they're part of the military, because they aren't, they weren't, and they never will be.

I'd say being directly responsible for and vital to the primary weaponry in question here makes you part of the military force. How exactly is a uniformed scientist substantively different from a non-uniformed scientist in terms of contribution to Iran's military capabilities?

As for intent, I'll requote myself:

Do you think people are jumping at the bit to join Iran's nuclear science teams right now? I expect not, and that's because they're being intimidated away from it with the threat of murder.

Alright, so that makes twice that you've conflated repercussions with intent? Once after being called out on it?

[LaserGuy]

That said, we don't know that a preemptive war will prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons. It honestly doesn't even seem likely that it will prevent Iran from getting them.

I don't see how Iran is going to develop nuclear weapons with destroyed reactors. It would take years to recover, and enough can change in years that another strike might not be necessary. This one is.

I already pointed out that Iran probably has the capacity for gas centrifuge technology. If this is the case, they can get enough nuclear fuel to make about one bomb per year, per centrifuge, and these things are relatively small and virtually undetectable. You're also assuming that the strike is completely successful. As was mentioned earlier by, I think it was GhostBear, this is by no means guaranteed: Iran's nuclear facilities are relatively well defended, they have some level of anti-aircraft capability of their own, and the logistics of the attack are a bit of a nightmare for Israel unless they get significant American support. If Israel doesn't win the war decisively, it could be a disaster for them.

That doesn't mean that it is morally defensible. Intelligence agencies also have a bad habit of overstating risk because they don't want to be wrong. See: Iraq war.

My understanding was that intelligence didn't think that Iraq had nukes, but that Bush cherry picked evidence in an attempt to say they did.

It's was a combination of things. Here's what the Senate report found on at least one issue:

The report's first conclusion points to widespread flaws in the October 2002 NIE, and attributes those flaws to failure by analysts in the intelligence community:
Most of the major key judgments in the Intelligence Community’s October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), Iraq’s Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction, either overstated, or were not supported by, the underlying intelligence reporting. A series of failures, particularly in analytic trade craft, led to the mischaracterization of the intelligence.

Subsequent conclusions fault the intelligence community for failing to adequately explain to policymakers the uncertainties that underlay the NIE's conclusions, and for succumbing to "group think," in which the intelligence community adopted untested (and, in hindsight, unwarranted) assumptions about the extent of Iraq's WMD stockpiles and programs. The committee identified a failure to adequately supervise analysts and collectors, and a failure to develop human sources of intelligence (HUMINT) inside Iraq after the departure of international weapons inspectors in 1998. It also cited the post-9/11 environment as having led to an increase in the intensity with which policymakers review and question threat information.

Oh, I agree that there is no downside to Iran making friends with us. I think that is the best possible outcome. I just don't believe that they are likely to have an interest in making friends as long as we are threatening them and making ridiculous demands.

I don't see why our demands are ridiculous. We're asking Iran to stop action that heavily threatens our allies, or else we will make them stop. And if Iran has the power to make friends with us, then it should do that. If it doesn't do that, then any action necessitated by Iran's refusal to do that is Iran's fault. And, if Iran doesn't make friends with us, it means they're not pursuing the ideal course of action and thus are not behaving rationally.

Iran has the right to nuclear energy under the NPT. It is under no obligation to give it up. Moreover, it is particularly hypocritical to be slapping sanctions on them at behest of a country (Israel) that openly flouts the principles of the NPT.

I don't believe that preemptive war constitutes defending yourself. Therefore, none of my arguments hinder Israel's ability to defend itself in any way, as far as I am concerned. What I am saying is that it would be better for Israel to stop threatening or attacking other countries, because doing so is not defensive action anyway, and because such behaviours increase the overall risk of harm coming back to Israel at some later date.

Iran is already an enemy of Israel and is already attacking Israel. Attacking Iran can't increase harm at a later date. And I've given you scenarios in which preemptive war constitutes self-defense, e.g. this one. Or, for example, if Israel had preempted in the Yom Kippur war when they'd received intelligence that the Arab armies were about to attack.

I disagree that either case would be an appropriate circumstance for preemptive war. I have already described elsewhere my reasons for why I do not feel it is appropriate in this circumstance.

Nuclear peace/mutually assured destruction is one option. Normalizing diplomatic relations with their neighbours is another.

First, mutually assured destruction doesn't work well when Iran displays self-destructive tendencies. Second, normalizing diplomatic relations with Iran isn't something Israel can do while Iran is attacking Israel.

Citation needed on both counts.

[Ghostbear]

I'd say being directly responsible for and vital to the primary weaponry in question here makes you part of the military force.

Funny, I thought we defined members of a military force as people who are, oh, I dunno, members of it. Silly me.

Would you consider employees of BAE, Raytheon, Boeing, etc., to be members of the US military (hint: they aren't)? They're "directly responsible for and vital to the primary weapons" of the US. I consider them to be civilians. Zamfir argued this more eloquently than I in another thread, but the Geneva Convention disagrees. The important quotation:

3. Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this section, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.

Until those scientists pick up a gun or drive a tank or a plane or similar, they are civilians and not valid military targets. They are not valid military targets, no matter how selfish the government murdering them is. For non-military personnel, until or unless they directly involve themselves in actual hostilities, they are civilians, they are afforded the protection of being a civilian, and can not be targeted, no matter how vital their role is to military purposes. Otherwise you could go around killing farmers during war, because they're vital to keeping the army fed. You could kill people working at clothes factories, because they're vital to keeping soldiers clothed. You could kill entertainers and postal employees, because they're vital to keeping soldiers' morale up. You can't do that, because they are civilians.

Also, as far as I know, not all of the scientists being murdered are even involved in the nuclear program. Where do they come in, do they not count? Do we say "well, they totally could have been a threat"? Or do we just not give a shit about them?

How exactly is a uniformed scientist substantively different from a non-uniformed scientist in terms of contribution to Iran's military capabilities?

How many uniformed scientists do you know of? I don't know of any. Why? Because scientists are civilians. The lack of a uniform indicates "Hey, I'm not part of the military". So the difference is that one (those without a uniform) are civilians (because they aren't part of the military) while another (those with a uniform) aren't civilians (because they are part of the military).

Alright, so that makes twice that you've conflated repercussions with intent? Once after being called out on it?

Do you think Israel is ignorant of that outcome, and that they haven't planned their actions around that fact? They know that Iran can just keep hiring more nuclear scientists if they need to. What Iran can't do is convince people to work on or study nuclear physics in Iran when they have a very real chance of being murdered. Intimidation.

[Torchship]

Torchship, you misunderstand my arguments. Read them argain.

I did, and they made no more sense the second time. You have asserted that it is legitimate for Israel to attack Iran for a .1% chance of a significant threat or greater; America's embargo was undoubtedly greater than a 0.1% threat to Japan, thus the Japanese strike was perfectly legitimate. Furthermore, you have asserted that the nation that escalates a conflict into open warfare is the one that bears the blame for the ensuing casualties, regardless of any gigantic military strikes which may have occurred before the formal declaration of war (if not, why have you asserted that any ensuing war would be Iran's fault). Combining these two facts, we must therefore conclude that the US is to blame for the Pacific front in WW2.

All of the arguments you all have been making have the specific effect of disabling Israel's ability to defend itself. This points to what is perhaps a fundamental disagreement: do you not recognize that a country defending itself is non-optional for that country? And do you not recognize that it is morally obligatory for that country to hold the defense of its citizens above other countries' interests?

I brought up this precise point several pages ago and you totally failed to agree with it then, so I have no idea why you're agreeing with it now.
I'm sure you have gathered my stance on any kind of absurd country-variable moral value by now, though.

So, do you have an effective way that Israel can ensure it is not the victim of a nuclear strike?

I have no way to meet your absurdly tight requirements for national security, because one does not exist. I do have a method for not risking half your airforce, the lives of hundreds of thousands of your own soldiers and the existence of your nation itself on a foolhardy mission, though.

I asked this before, but you never really answered: how is a strike preferable to inaction, even from a national security standpoint? The vast majority of Israel's airforce will be strung out across thousands of kilometres of unfriendly territory for weeks on end. Iran will easily have time to move the majority of its AA weaponry into position from across the country before the strike is finished. The inevitable Israel-Iran war will kill hundreds of thousands of Iranian and Israeli soldiers, and potentially millions of their civilians, even if the war goes favourably. Israel is risking everything on this strike and failure means that hundreds of thousands of Israeli civilians will die and the Israeli military will be destroyed. Even if everything goes well, Iran's nuclear program will only be pushed back a few years, so the whole rigmarole will have to be repeated again in 2020 with all the attendant massive casualties and risk of national destruction. How is risking everything on a throw of the dice preferable to risking relatively little on a throw of the dice?

[Jonesthe Spy]

I'm certainly not going to go back and reread this whole thread, but it's obvious to me that the best way to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons would be for Israel to disarm its own illegal nukes and offer to open it's own nuclear facilities for inspection if Iran is willing to do the same.

[yoni45]

I'd say being directly responsible for and vital to the primary weaponry in question here makes you part of the military force.

Funny, I thought we defined members of a military force as people who are, oh, I dunno, members of it. Silly me.

Circular reasoning is circular?

Would you consider employees of BAE, Raytheon, Boeing, etc., to be members of the US military (hint: they aren't)? They're "directly responsible for and vital to the primary weapons" of the US...

Quite possibly -- as I said, there's plenty of grey area here. But if you're a vital part of the war machine, then yeah -- you're gonna be a target.

You don't get to offload your military capabilities onto "civilians" and then claim that they can't be touched.

Also, as far as I know, not all of the scientists being murdered are even involved in the nuclear program. Where do they come in...

That's a potentially reasonable argument that you haven't yet made.

How many uniformed scientists do you know of? I don't know of any. Why?

Because you didn't run a basic google search prior to making that post?

Do you think Israel is ignorant of that outcome, and that they haven't planned their actions around that fact?

Alright, that's a step further. Now you're conflating knowledge of repercussions with intent.

Is killing soldiers terrorism now too because it intimidates the general populace from joining the military?

[Ghostbear]

Circular reasoning is circular?

It's not circular when "members of the military" is defined by people who are employed or serve as part of it, and "nuclear physicists" is defined as "not employed by or directly serving the military". You are saying that people who aren't part of a military are magically part of it, and I contest that only people who are actually members of a military can be defined as part of it.

Quite possibly -- as I said, there's plenty of grey area here. But if you're a vital part of the war machine, then yeah -- you're gonna be a target.

And the absolutely horrible implications of such reasoning that I gave? The declarations of the Geneva Convention? Non military personnel are presumed civilians by default, and it is up to you to prove that they are a valid military target. The Geneva Convention indicates that having a role in military output is not valid reasoning for such, and I concur with them, because once you assume that, it's ridicuously easy to define anyone as having that role. Such as the farmers, clothiers, entertainers, and postal workers I mentioned before. Those are all vital to the war machine, are they valid targets too? In the 100 years war, women would have been vital to the war machine for their ability to give birth to future generations of soldiers: are they valid targets? I linked you to a good post saying why this is all bulls- fuck it, I'll just requote it here:

There's specific clause on this issue in the first protocol to the Geneva convention, from 1977. It's short, but a lot of debate went into that exact phrasing. It's clause 51(3), I left the surrounding context in place. The term direct was explicitly intended to exclude effort that helps to sustain the war, on the grounds that in a modern society most members of the population can be considered as indirectly helping to sustain the war effort. Also not ethe "for such time", which means that civilians go back to being protected, if they stop to take part in hostilities. Part of the rationale behid that is to make sure that even when there is disagreement on what constitutes "direct part", you don't get to target civilians when they are at home doing civilian things.

People who work in arms production, no matter how important, are considered civilians. Clause 51(2) is very explicit on them: The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack.

Note that this doesn't mean that they are protected under all circumstances. It's allowed to kill civilians as side effect of a valid military action, like destroying a factory. But they can;t be the target in themselves.

Emphasis mine.

You don't get to offload your military capabilities onto "civilians" and then claim that they can't be touched.

No military capacity is being "offloaded" here, they aren't soldiers, they aren't involved in any actual combat actions. How is military capacity being "offloaded" to them? They literally have zero combat roles.

That's a potentially reasonable argument that you haven't yet made.

It's too bad that I didn't make that argument in that very part you quoted. Oh, wait...

Because you didn't run a basic google search prior to making that post?

As per the first paragraph of the very page you linked to: "According to experts interviewed by Science Careers, all share one characteristic: They are military first, scientists second."

Alright, that's a step further. Now you're conflating knowledge of repercussions with intent.

Knowledge of intentional repercussions that carry out the intent.

Is killing soldiers terrorism now too because it intimidates the general populace from joining the military?

There's a large gap between the ability to force someone to be part of the military and to be a nuclear physicist. Beyond that, there is a large difference between civilians and soldiers, namely that soldiers are acceptable military targets. So no, because it's accepted that you can kill soldiers from the very start.

[yoni45]

You are saying that...

I'm saying that individuals that significantly contribute to a military's capabilities are part of that military force.

Whether or not that's "officially" the case. As noted: offloading military components onto "civilians" doesn't magically make them ineligible to target.

And the absolutely horrible implications of such reasoning that I gave?...

In providing them, you lost the ridiculous implications of the converse. We just need to subcontract all activities of the military onto civilian bodies, and then nobody can attack us while we're launching cruise missiles at them. That totally makes sense, right?

Interestingly enough, neither Israel nor Iran ratified the protocol cited by Zamfir from what you quoted of him.

No military capacity is being "offloaded" here...

Nuclear weaponry (and related R&D) is clearly a military capacity, which was clearly "offloaded" onto civilians if civilians are working on it.

It's too bad that I didn't make that argument in that very part you quoted. Oh, wait...

Not sure what you're waiting for: you've yet to make that argument. To make that argument, you'd need a citation of certain assassinated scientists having nothing to do with Iranian military capabilities.

And chances are, I'd agree with you on that argument -- but feel free to make it.

As per the first paragraph of the very page you linked to: "According to experts interviewed by Science Careers, all share one characteristic: They are military first, scientists second."

Yes, and this changes the fact that they're nevertheless scientists, how? Which brings back the prior question: How exactly is a uniformed scientist substantively different from a non-uniformed scientist in terms of contribution to Iran's military capabilities?

Knowledge of intentional repercussions that carry out the intent...

Now you're back to circular reasoning: you're trying to prove Israel's intent by... presupposing that that was Israel's intent?

There's a large gap between the ability to force someone to be part of the military and to be a nuclear physicist. Beyond that, there is a large difference between civilians and soldiers, namely that soldiers are acceptable military targets. So no, because it's accepted that you can kill soldiers from the very start.

a. Noone said anything about "forcing" someone to be part of the military. Killing soldiers "intimidates" people from joining a certain profession, just as killing scientists does.
b. The definition of terrorism you cited was about killing "people" -- in that regard, there's no large difference between civilians and soldiers.

[Zamfir]

I linked you to a good post saying why this is all bulls- fuck it, I'll just requote it here:

A few posts later, I added that neither Iran nor Israel nor the US has ratified this protocol. They don't necesarrily disagree with this part of it, but they haven't formally accepted it either, possibly because they disagree with other parts. Though I think Iran mostly hasn't signed because Iraq hasn't, and this might change with the current Iraqi government.

So the quotes are at best evidence for an internationally widely supported principle. It's not a formal obligation that Israel and Iran agreed to.

[Zamfir]

Also, less quote-sniping please

[Ghostbear]

A few posts later, I added that neither Iran nor Israel nor the US has ratified this protocol. They don't necesarrily disagree with this part of it, but they haven't formally accepted it either, possibly because they disagree with other parts. Though I think Iran mostly hasn't signed because Iraq hasn't, and this might change with the current Iraqi government.

So the quotes are at best evidence for an internationally widely supported principle. It's not a formal obligation that Israel and Iran agreed to.

I didn't mean to imply it as an obligation for either party, merely as evidence of how a large international body has determined when a person is a valid military target. The ratification is an official agreement to abide by it, but it doesn't change the morality of the action itself (though it does influence the morality of you abiding by agreements you made). I was just using the "Civilians aren't a valid military target, even if they contribute to military capacity, because..." reasoning. I knew before hand that neither party had signed it, I just felt it wasn't relevant to the point I was making (or trying to make) with it.

Trying my best to reduce the quote sniping (had to redo most of my 90% finished post when I saw that after hitting preview )

I'm saying that individuals that significantly contribute to a military's capabilities are part of that military force.
[...]
Nuclear weaponry (and related R&D) is clearly a military capacity, which was clearly "offloaded" onto civilians if civilians are working on it.

You can contribute to something without being part of it. I "contributed" to some politician's victories in 2008 and 2010 by voting for them, but that did not make me part of their party, did it? My parents even donated money to one of them: does that mean they're part of that person's party, due to them contributing to their political capabilities?

As for the R&D: it's research. How much damage can you do with only weapons, and no people? It's the military members that fulfill the military capacity, because without them, you'd have none, no matter how fancy your toys are.

In fact, do you have any evidence that Iran's nuclear program is currently being weaponized? All I've seen are back and forth claims by nations: Iran says it's civilian, Israel says it isn't.

Searching wikipedia gives me some choice quotes:

Spoiler:

In August 2005, with the assistance of Pakistan[86] a group of US government experts and international scientists concluded that traces of bomb-grade uranium found in Iran came from contaminated Pakistani equipment and were not evidence of a clandestine nuclear weapons program in Iran.

We have information that there has been maybe some studies about possible weaponization. That's why we have said that we cannot give Iran a pass right now, because there is still a lot of question marks ... . But have we seen Iran having the nuclear material that can readily be used into a weapon? No. Have we seen an active weaponization program? No.

The IAEA remains unable to draw a conclusion on whether Iran has a secret nuclear weapons program.

A 2009 U.S. congressional research paper said that U.S. intelligence believed Iran ended "nuclear weapon design and weaponization work" in 2003.

On 8 January 2012, U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta acknowledged on Face the Nation that Iran was not trying to develop a nuclear weapon, but was trying to develop a nuclear capability.

If there is no actual evidence that they're working on weaponization, are they still valid targets? Sure, they might eventually weaponize it, no doubt, but I also might eventually weaponize a car factory to make tanks- that doesn't mean (even if you accept killing tank factory workers as acceptable) you can kill the people working on the factory before hand.

Interestingly enough, neither Israel nor Iran ratified the protocol cited by Zamfir from what you quoted of him.

Which makes murdering them right, how? They aren't legally obligated to it, sure, I won't challenge that. Moral obligations don't go away, the Geneva Convention was meant to declare the best and least horrible ways to practice war. Signing it merely says you agree to be obligated to it. If a country lacks a law against murder, that doesn't make murder acceptable.

Regardless, the point was the reasoning used: anyone can be argued to be part of the military machine if you limit yourself to people who are vital to keep it functioning, because just about everyone in a nation does so in some way or another. Does that make them valid military targets, yes or no?

Not sure what you're waiting for: you've yet to make that argument. To make that argument, you'd need a citation of certain assassinated scientists having nothing to do with Iranian military capabilities.

No, to defend that argument against criticisms that it isn't validated with facts I would need a citation. I can make an argument without citations. If you need a citation to make an argument, then you've made exactly one (and a more or less tangential one at that) on this page. Which is a rather silly claim to make, wouldn't you say?

As for evidence, here you go.

[yoni45]

You can contribute to something without being part of it. I "contributed" to some politician's victories in 2008 and 2010 by voting for them, but that did not make me part of their party, did it?
...
As for the R&D: it's research...

It most definitely made you part of their coming to power. And research is most definitely part of a weapons program.

In fact, do you have any evidence that Iran's nuclear program is currently being weaponized?

That's not for me to decide, and it's outside the scope of the argument I got into. If that wasn't clear, my argument is whether scientists part of a military project are fair game.

Which makes murdering them right, how?

You were using the protocols as relevant evidence of terms the parties may be obligated to. The point is it wasn't relevant evidence -- don't attempt to strawman that into a positive proof on my part.

Regardless, the point was the reasoning used: anyone can be argued to be part of the military machine if you limit yourself to people who are vital to keep it functioning, because just about everyone in a nation does so in some way or another. Does that make them valid military targets, yes or no?

It makes them increasingly and decreasingly valid military targets, depending on their proximity and vitality to the military 'machine'. You're trying to argue based on an absurdity while ignoring the absurdity of your own position: by your reasoning, any military personnel can be "offloaded" onto civilian bodies. Any military personnel can be argued to be civilian if we just offload them onto civilian bodies. Does that negate them as military targets?

I can make an argument without citations. If you need a citation to make an argument, then you've made exactly one (and a more or less tangential one at that) on this page. Which is a rather silly claim to make, wouldn't you say?

If you must be pedantic, your "argument" did exist, but it was out of scope since I was discussing the scientists that were part of the program (if that wasn't clear).

But on more reasonable terms: your argument was predicated on "what about those scientists that weren't part of the program" -- that's not something anyone other than you really agreed upon at that point, and it's completely useless unless we actually know such scientists to exist.

As for evidence, here you go.

Alright, well, if he was assassinated by Israel as part of this war and he had nothing to do with the nuclear program, then I'm inclined to agree that wasn't a legitimate attack.

Still can't say it was terrorism: it was a specifically targeted attack; but the former holds regardless.

[Zamfir]

Yoni, I asked you both to reduce the quote sniping. Ghostbear made an effort at least, I expect the same from you

[Maurog]

Wait, if we can't assume Iran is building nuclear weapons because they're not admitting it, why are are we assuming Israel assassinates Iran's nuclear physicists if they're not admitting it either?

[Ghostbear]

Wait, if we can't assume Iran is building nuclear weapons because they're not admitting it, why are are we assuming Israel assassinates Iran's nuclear physicists if they're not admitting it either?

Two things:
One, I'm not assuming that they don't have a nuclear weapons program because they're not admitting to it. I'm saying that we (as far as I can ascertain) have zero proof of a nuclear weapons program (as stated by the International Atomic Energy Association, US intelligence services, international scientists, and the head of the US department of defense). Since we lack that proof, we are unable to say- even if you accept that weapon designers (or similar) are valid military targets (which I don't)- that you can target those scientists, because we have nothing besides suspicion to say that they are weapons designers (or similar).

Two, it doesn't matter if Israel or the US or anyone else is murdering them, if they just happen to be the oddest string of coincidences, or something else entirely. The debate is over whether it'd be acceptable for them to be murdered for that association- whether that covers past suspected deaths or only potential future deaths is another debate.

Cutting this down to one major part and one smaller reply cause that seems to be all that actually matters:

It most definitely made you part of their coming to power. And research is most definitely part of a weapons program.

The point was that you can assist a group without being a member of it. To be more specific for the example, my parents donated to Obama in 2008. That did not make them members of the democratic party (they're independents), my voting to re-elect my democratic governor did not make me a member of the democratic party (I'm a registered independent too!). When I bought, say, The Witcher 2, I assisted CDProjekt, but it'd be ridiculous to say I was part of the company.

The point with research is that the results of an action are determined by the person that uses it. Alfred Nobel can not be blamed for any non-peaceful uses of dynamite. Former employees of Smith & Wesson and Winchester are not responsible for murders done with guns chambered with a .357 round. Wernher von Braun isn't guilty of murder because rocket technology has been used to kill people. A nuclear scientist is not responsible for someone else using it as a weapon. Let's say someone does use a nuclear weapon, for a moment, and that it kills a bunch of people: would you hold Oppenheimer or Einstein responsible for those deaths? What about the over 120,000 people that worked on the Manhattan Project to make it happen? Their research would have been a huge part, directly or not, in that weapon's eventual development, and the other workers on the Manhattan Project would be responsible for ensuring that that research happened.

Any possible "evil" (for lack of a better word) for the use of a weapon falls under the person that used it. Otherwise you open yourself up to a long list of people, many completely unaffiliated, that are guilty.

You were using the protocols as relevant evidence of terms the parties may be obligated to. The point is it wasn't relevant evidence -- don't attempt to strawman that into a positive proof on my part.

It makes them increasingly and decreasingly valid military targets, depending on their proximity and vitality to the military 'machine'. You're trying to argue based on an absurdity while ignoring the absurdity of your own position: by your reasoning, any military personnel can be "offloaded" onto civilian bodies. Any military personnel can be argued to be civilian if we just offload them onto civilian bodies. Does that negate them as military targets?

As I explained (twice), the protocols are not examples of what Iran or Israel are specifically limited to. I brought it up as an example of how an international body has decided to define the separation between a legitimate military target and an untargetable civilian, and use their reasoning to further my argument, because I think it's good reasoning.

Attempting to restate it briefly: If someone does not serve a combat role and they are not member of the armed forces, they are not a valid military target. You can not say that because they are necessary to the military machine they are valid targets, because you can make a strong case that every member of a nation's civilian population is necessary for it's military machine to remain functional, and then civilians have zero protection. Once you start saying "well, yeah, but this person, they're definitely a valid target", you've opened yourself up to saying that about anybody because it's true about everybody!

You can't say that any military personnel can be handed down to a civilian, because in the end, you're going to actually need people to fight in the event of combat. Once those people start fighting, they are combatants, either of the lawful or unlawful type, but combatants none the less, and are thus acceptable to fight. This is covered in the protocol: while you engage in hostilities, you lose your special protections. So you can't "sneak" out of the protections by declaring everyone to be a civilian, because direct combat actions open yourself up to being targeted.

[yoni45]

The point was that you can assist a group without being a member of it...

Then you clearly missed the point, which was that you're very much part of the effort even if you're not "officially" part of the group.

Whether not you're officially a member of the democratic party makes you no less a part of the process that got them elected.

The point with research is that the results of an action are determined by the person that uses it...Any possible "evil" (for lack of a better word) for the use of a weapon falls under the person that used it... Otherwise you open yourself up to a long list of people, many completely unaffiliated, that are guilty...

You're trying to set these ridiculous absolutes based on a limited scope of the facts. The results of an action are determined by everything that led to that action, with increasing or decreasing involvement based on proximity and vitality of the actions. A nuclear bomb can't be used without the nuclear technology having been developed, just as it can't be used without someone actually using it.

You're sidestepping the question: How exactly is a uniformed scientist substantively different from a non-uniformed scientist in terms of contribution to Iran's military capabilities?

(and you're also shifting the scope again: this isn't about whether these people are "guilty" [although increasingly and decreasingly, they would be]; it's about whether they're legitimate targets.)

As I explained (twice), the protocols are not examples of what Iran or Israel are specifically limited to. I brought it up as an example of how an international body has decided to define the separation between a legitimate military target and an untargetable civilian, and use their reasoning to further my argument, because I think it's good reasoning.

Attempting to restate it briefly: If someone does not serve a combat role and they are not member of the armed forces, they are not a valid military target. You can not say that because they are necessary to the military machine they are valid targets, because you can make a strong case that every member of a nation's civilian population is necessary for it's military machine to remain functional, and then civilians have zero protection. Once you start saying "well, yeah, but this person, they're definitely a valid target", you've opened yourself up to saying that about anybody because it's true about everybody!

You can't say that any military personnel can be handed down to a civilian, because in the end, you're going to actually need people to fight in the event of combat. Once those people start fighting, they are combatants, either of the lawful or unlawful type, but combatants none the less, and are thus acceptable to fight. This is covered in the protocol: while you engage in hostilities, you lose your special protections. So you can't "sneak" out of the protections by declaring everyone to be a civilian, because direct combat actions open yourself up to being targeted.

No it doesn't -- "fighting" is much less vital these days. You can easily wage a war by just having "civilians" pushing buttons instead of "fighting". They'll be pushing buttons in labs, pushing buttons in control rooms, pushing buttons in airplanes... In fact, you don't even need to be in an airplane to control it with buttons.

In fact, even people who would otherwise be "soldiers" can't be targeted unless they're actually, at that moment, engaged in combat, because otherwise they're just civilians with guns.

@ Zam -- I generally try to avoid it altogether; I just found the points to be separate.

[sourmìlk]

Ghostbear, you're hiding behind definitions. What is morally wrong with the targeted assassination of nuclear scientists as a means of inhibiting the progress of the Iranian nuclear program?

I'm certainly not going to go back and reread this whole thread, but it's obvious to me that the best way to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons would be for Israel to disarm its own illegal nukes and offer to open it's own nuclear facilities for inspection if Iran is willing to do the same.

Israel's nuclear weapons aren't illegal because Israel didn't sign the NPT, and thus is under no obligation to adhere to it. Also, that's appeasement.

Torchship, think of how I arrived at the .1% number. It wasn't totally arbitrary.

Also, I'm not creating a different form of morality for countries and individuals. The IDF has the moral responsibility to do its job because people have a moral responsibility to do their jobs, particularly when those jobs involved protecting peoples lives. Neither people nor countries should be blamed if they do what's necessary to defend themselves. Are those principles you disagree with?

A strike is preferable to inaction because most any consequences of a strike are going to be better than the consequences of a nuclear weapon. I really don't think that hundreds of thousands of people are going to die even in a war: there's not going to be an invasion, and if there would be, that's not an action I'd support and thus doesn't really affect my stance.

[Iulus Cofield]

Hamas leaders resolve dispute over unity deal

Top Hamas leader publicly supports Syrian protesters

Hamas is my new hero, perhaps?