Israel/Palestine discussion

[Radical_Initiator]

Hamas leaders resolve dispute over unity deal

Top Hamas leader publicly supports Syrian protesters

Hamas is my new hero, perhaps?

I'd put it under "even a broken clock is right twice a day."

[Iulus Cofield]

But three times a day?

[Radical_Initiator]

But three times a day?

That's a talented clock.

[Iulus Cofield]

Or a terrorist group that might have stopped being a terrorist group!

...that is also a clock.

[yurell]

But three times a day?

That's a talented clock.

A 24-hour clock is right once a day.
A 12-hour clock is right twice.
So Hamas must be an 8-hour clock!

[Radical_Initiator]

It's a good sign, and it makes me a little more hopeful, but there's a long way to go between there and here. Things like

The crowd cheered when Haniyeh said Hamas would not recognize Israel. Hundreds chanted "Hey, Haniyeh, do not leave the gun" and "To Jerusalem, we march in the millions.

That makes me blink a little hard. So, they're still about the armed struggle, and I doubt that they'll be leaving terrorism behind as a tactic in the near future.

But three times a day?

That's a talented clock.

A 24-hour clock is right once a day.
A 12-hour clock is right twice.
So Hamas must be an 8-hour clock!

Either that, or Hamas is a 36-hour day with 12-hour periods of "a.m.", "p.m.", and "still can't sleep".

[sourmìlk]

That makes me blink a little hard. So, they're still about the armed struggle, and I doubt that they'll be leaving terrorism behind as a tactic in the near future.

Terrorists gonna terrorize.

A fusion of the Gaza and West Bank governments could be very good or very bad. If it's good, Hamas will be pressured into stopping terrorism because the more moderate Fatah doesn't want to deal with the consequences of that. If it's bad, Hamas is going to derail the peace process via violence. I don't know how it will turn out.

[Iulus Cofield]

Well, they did renounce violence (as their primary tool) recently and they didn't mention destroying Israel some months back when they announced the first stage of their reunification with Fatah. I'm taking these as good signs and hoping Netanyahu doesn't do anything to provoke them into relapsing. Hamas rose to power, after all, when Israel and Fatah couldn't get anywhere in peace talks, so if Netanyahu can make an easy concession, like, I don't know, swearing not to approve any additional settlements, and get negotiations happening, Hamas won't have much a reason to do anything violent.

[sourmìlk]

Hamas never had a reason to do anything violent. At least, not a rational reason. Again, you're suggesting appeasement. And not approving any additional settlements isn't actually an easy concession, as it would necessitate that thousands of Israelis move across the country where they could have stayed in their own city. It's essentially letting Hamas displace people.

[sardia]

I'm surprised that Hezbollah's support of Syria is ongoing. You would think that even loyal dogs of the Iranian state would know better than to stay aboard a sinking ship.

[sourmìlk]

I'm surprised that Hezbollah's support of Syria is ongoing. You would think that even loyal dogs of the Iranian state would know better than to stay aboard a sinking ship.

Yeah, but if no other ship is going to take them...

[Iulus Cofield]

Hamas never had a reason to do anything violent. At least, not a rational reason. Again, you're suggesting appeasement. And not approving any additional settlements isn't actually an easy concession, as it would necessitate that thousands of Israelis move across the country where they could have stayed in their own city. It's essentially letting Hamas displace people.

Have you been feeling alright recently, my friend?

Hamas rose to power during a campaign of suicide bombings that clearly and directly resulted in Israeli concessions at the negotiating table (which Hamas was not even present at). Rational, as it is usually defined (acting in your or your group's own perceived best interests), is certainly applicable to that situation. They thought violence would get them something they wanted, ergo it was rational.

Paul Kennedy defines [appeasement] as "the policy of settling international quarrels by admitting and satisfying grievances through rational negotiation and compromise, thereby avoiding the resort to an armed conflict which would be expensive, bloody, and possibly dangerous." It is also a dirty word used to discredit people who would avoid violence.

Not approving additional settlements is easy because new approved settlements wouldn't begin to be built for months, wouldn't be finished for years, and could easily be put off for a year. Israel's apartments aren't going to pop open like a zit due to overcrowding in the next year.

You may have also thought I was saying Netanyahu could evict the residents and evacuate the current settlements,

so this is probably just a misunderstanding.

[sourmìlk]

Oh, well for a few months that would be an easy and meaningless concession, but I don't even know that Hamas would buy it.

Let me rephrase my criticism of Hamas' actions: Hamas never had a reason to do anything violent if their goal was to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I suppose it wasn't, but that's just another reason not to appease Hamas.

[Iulus Cofield]

Unless their idea of resolution is the end of the polity known as Israel. But of course that is not reasonable, even if it is rational.

[sourmìlk]

I think it's not rational even then because their attacks don't actually work towards accomplishing that goal.

[Greyarcher]

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!

Roughly speaking...you draw a dichotomy between "military target" and "non-military target" and use a slippery slope to counter defining targets differently? Regardless of anything else, I can't agree with that method.

"Valid military targets" is a list, a set, a category. You speak of "necessity to the military machine" as if there is a slippery slope danger, but you probably know clearly the problems with slippery slope arguments. There is no necessity to the slipping.

Once the category's members are clearly listed (i.e. the members are specific and not vaguely broad), then slipping is not an issue no matter what initial reasoning is used to decide the category's members. At most, there's a danger with ease of modifying the category's members. But that's tangential and exists regardless of how one decides members in the category.

However, if one used reasoning like "necessity to the military machine" to decide valid targets directly, rather than using it when creating a category, then yes there would be a danger of slippery slope that would be essentially similar to the "ease of modifying the category's members" issue.

"Weapons researchers" or "nuclear technology researchers" or "people with dyed blue hair" could have easily been included in the category of "valid military targets" back then. At no time would anyone need to say, "Well, that must mean all civilians are acceptable targets then!", and if people did say that we wouldn't need to agree with them.

[Torchship]

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

Funny, because you said:

Spoiler:

Torchship: I don't care too much about your relatively minor tweaks for the ratio of consequences of nuclear weapon use : consequences of Iranian strike, because ultimately they're unimportant. .1% wasn't intended to be an exact number, but an approximate to illustrate how unlikely it would need to be that Iran were going to use nuclear weapons. The thing is, even if you multiply that number by two or three, there's still such a substantial disparity between the consequences of an Iranian nuclear strike and an Israeli strike on Iran that Israel needs to act.

And if we're weighting probabilities by number of casualties involved, then (assuming that an Iranian response to an Israeli air strike wouldn't kill more than a few hundred people), we only need a .1% chance that Iran is going to use a nuclear weapon. Are you here to tell me that, through their statements of genocide, funding of groups whose purpose is to commit genocide, and programs to acquire the means to better commit genocide that there is not even a .1% chance that Iran is going to use a nuclear weapon?

Both of which strongly imply that the number was arbitrary and designed only to illustrate a point. Furthermore, you state:

And one in a thousand is about right, for reasons I discussed before.

I've looked through all of your posts on page 98 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10) where original 0.1 figure was brought up and I cannot find a trace of any justification. Many assertions that the number is (approximately) correct, and lots of 'Iran is crazy, so they'll nuke us', but no justifications for the 0.1 figure in particular. Can you point out where they are*?

Basically, it's an arbitrary, non-arbitrary number which you claim to have substantiated but never have.

Putting aside your inconsistent argument for a moment, I'm quite sure I do know where the number comes from; it was created as an arbitrary value designed to show that even if the chance of an attack were remote, Israel would still be justified in striking first (as the first two paragraphs I quoted imply). Using this precise logic, the threat of America's embargoes on Japan were enough to legitimise a strike, and thus that the US is to blame for escalating the conflict. If there is an alternate explanation for your 0.1 figure, I'd like to hear it, but I fail to see how it would invalidate my analogy in any meaningful way.

*were you instead referring to the 3 sigma number that you raised before that? I've read through the relevant discussion on that topic as well and can find nary a hint of any justification for the chosen value, merely assertions that it is an acceptable estimate.

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?

Absolutely. One's job has precisely no relevance to the morality of one's actions; the lives of the people who pay you do not take precedence over the lives of others.

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.

So, you believe that Iran (or any of its allies) is not going to respond in any major way to a massive, protracted violation of Iranian airspace, nor do you believe that there is any significant chance of the Israeli military being crippled as a result of the aforementioned massive, protracted strike with insufficient logistics? What justification do you have for these beliefs?

[yurell]

Funnily enough, a few pages ago we had the exact same discussion:

And until you can show that explanation is either totally ludicrous or necessarily false, the probability that Iran will use a nuclear weapon is simply too high for Israel, who has hundreds of thousands of lives at stake here, to ignore.

Really? What is this probability? Who came up with it? What criteria did they use? If you're going to be quoting probabilities, I want to see them and the assumptions behind creating them.

Naturally, Sourmilk refused to answer then as well.

[sourmìlk]

The Japanese had nonviolent options available to them and you've yet to show that the sanctions were even as crippling as you say they were. And you haven't shown that the estimated consequences of a Japanese war with America wouldn't be worse than the sanctions.

And I don't understand how you can read those posts and still not understand my reasoning, because I state it quite explicitly:

And if we're weighting probabilities by number of casualties involved, then (assuming that an Iranian response to an Israeli air strike wouldn't kill more than a few hundred people)

Absolutely. One's job has precisely no relevance to the morality of one's actions; the lives of the people who pay you do not take precedence over the lives of others.

That's not true if the people are paying you to protect their lives. Otherwise it would be acceptable for bodyguards to simply not do their job because they're worried about hurting an assailant, and it would be acceptable for a hospital to kick a sick person out on the street because they're full and feel like saving somebody else, and it would be acceptable for armies to leave their country defenseless because they don't want to fight the attackers. The practical upshot of your philosophy is that people can decide to let those they are tasked with protecting die.

So, you believe that Iran (or any of its allies) is not going to respond in any major way to a massive, protracted violation of Iranian airspace, nor do you believe that there is any significant chance of the Israeli military being crippled as a result of the aforementioned massive, protracted strike with insufficient logistics? What justification do you have for these beliefs?

I never stated any of those beliefs.

[Iulus Cofield]

Funnily enough, a few pages ago we had the exact same discussion:

Yes, let's continue to have this discussion over a series of PMs so we don't need to bother Zamfir.

[Torchship]

The Japanese had nonviolent options available to them and you've yet to show that the sanctions were even as crippling as you say they were. And you haven't shown that the estimated consequences of a Japanese war with America wouldn't be worse than the sanctions.

And I don't understand how you can read those posts and still not understand my reasoning, because I state it quite explicitly:

And if we're weighting probabilities by number of casualties involved, then (assuming that an Iranian response to an Israeli air strike wouldn't kill more than a few hundred people)

But even if Japan pursued these non-violent means, there would still be a remote chance of the state of Japan falling and causing hundreds of thousands of casualties (civilians starving as the internal food distribution lines broke down due to lack of oil and invasions from irate or opportunistic neighbours). Since the strike on Pearl Harbour involved only two thousand-ish casualties and was intended to destroy the US's naval power in the Pacific (thus preventing any war, since the US would have had no means to fight back), Pearl Harbor was a perfectly legitimate operation by your own definition. The decision to escalate that single strike to open warfare was the US's, and thus the US bares responsibility for casualties in the ensuing war.

That's not true if the people are paying you to protect their lives. Otherwise it would be acceptable for bodyguards to simply not do their job because they're worried about hurting an assailant, and it would be acceptable for a hospital to kick a sick person out on the street because they're full and feel like saving somebody else, and it would be acceptable for armies to leave their country defenseless because they don't want to fight the attackers. The practical upshot of your philosophy is that people can decide to let those they are tasked with protecting die.

And the damage done by violating contract law (of all things) is infintessimal compared to the disparity of morality in the situations which we are considering. The damage done by violating contract law in stopping a contracted assassin, for example, is incomparable to the damage done by allowing the assassin to succeed.

[sourmìlk]

But even if Japan pursued these non-violent means, there would still be a remote chance of the state of Japan falling and causing hundreds of thousands of casualties (civilians starving as the internal food distribution lines broke down due to lack of oil and invasions from irate or opportunistic neighbours). Since the strike on Pearl Harbour involved only two thousand-ish casualties and was intended to destroy the US's naval power in the Pacific (thus preventing any war, since the US would have had no means to fight back), Pearl Harbor was a perfectly legitimate operation by your own definition. The decision to escalate that single strike to open warfare was the US's, and thus the US bares responsibility for casualties in the ensuing war.

There was a remote chance of Japan falling either way, the strike wouldn't have (and clearly didn't) affect that. If the only way Japan was able to ensure its continued survival was to attack Pearl Harbor then yeah, that was justified, but you'd have a very tough time arguing that to be the case, particularly considering how badly it turned out.

And the damage done by violating contract law (of all things) is infintessimal compared to the disparity of morality in the situations which we are considering. The damage done by violating contract law in stopping a contracted assassin, for example, is incomparable to the damage done by allowing the assassin to succeed.

You're missing the point. This isn't mere contract law, this is somebody entrusting you with his life. If somebody entrusts you with his life, you have a moral obligation prioritize that person's life. Thus an army, being entrusted with the lives of its citizens, is morally obligated to prioritize the lives of its citizens.

[Iulus Cofield]

And that is exactly why it is so important to have civilian heads of state.

[sourmìlk]

I'm not surely precisely to what you're referring there.

[Torchship]

There was a remote chance of Japan falling either way, the strike wouldn't have (and clearly didn't) affect that. If the only way Japan was able to ensure its continued survival was to attack Pearl Harbor then yeah, that was justified, but you'd have a very tough time arguing that to be the case, particularly considering how badly it turned out.

Why does Japan have to meet a stronger requirement than Israel in order to strike? Israel is only required to demonstrate significant potential harm (i.e. a hundred thousand casualties from a nuke), while Japan must demonstrate an existential threat? Why is this?

You're missing the point. This isn't mere contract law, this is somebody entrusting you with his life. If somebody entrusts you with his life, you have a moral obligation prioritize that person's life. Thus an army, being entrusted with the lives of its citizens, is morally obligated to prioritize the lives of its citizens.

I doubt we're ever going to reach agreement due to the aforementioned fundamental moral differences. I firmly believe that the trust placed in the Israeli army does not give Israel any permission to perform acts which would be otherwise immoral.

[sourmìlk]

Why does Japan have to meet a stronger requirement than Israel in order to strike? Israel is only required to demonstrate significant potential harm (i.e. a hundred thousand casualties from a nuke), while Japan must demonstrate an existential threat? Why is this?

You don't think that the potential to be attacked by nuclear weapons poses an existential threat to Israel?

I doubt we're ever going to reach agreement due to the aforementioned fundamental moral differences. I firmly believe that the trust placed in the Israeli army does not give Israel any permission to perform acts which would be otherwise immoral.

Again you misunderstand what I'm saying. I'm not saying that an army gets to do immoral things under certain circumstances, I'm saying that an entity whose responsibility it is to take care of another person's life must prioritize that person's life. For example, a parent couldn't refuse to feed her own children so she could give away her food to other children who were hungry.

[yurell]

Yes, let's continue to have this discussion over a series of PMs so we don't need to bother Zamfir.

Sorry, it's just when someone is outright lying in a discussion that is based entirely on arguing in good faith I feel it important to point it out. Especially when that person's argument is defended only by this lie (and in this case I say this word without reservation — it's not a misunderstanding or a poor source, but an outright lie on Sourmilk's part).

However, the main point is that arguing about the probability of Iran attacking Israel (which is pertinent to the current conversation), is unknown beyond the fact that it's 'low', and any maths involving it are essentially pulled out of one's arse.

On a separate note, anyone know anything about the conflict at the al-Asqa mosque? As far as I can tell the Palestinians are rioting because of rumours that some Jewish activists may enter (not do anything, just enter). Is there an actual reason behind the rioting, or is it as bluntly stupid as it sounds? I mean, so long as they don't desecrate the place or attempt to cause a riot (e.g. by spouting hate speech), I don't see anything wrong with them entering.

[sourmìlk]

From what I can tell, the riots began from worries just that Haredi would enter.

I would very much like you to substantiate your claim that I'm lying.

[Torchship]

You don't think that the potential to be attacked by nuclear weapons poses an existential threat to Israel?

Nope. While a hundred thousand casualties would be devastating to the city of Tel Aviv, Israel is itself a strong nation well prepared for a nuclear attack and is backed up by the strongest nation on earth. US troops would be lined up thousands thick along Israel's borders in the wake of any attack and the main danger to survivors would be drowning in the vast piles of aid money.
Even if by some bizarre chance, a nuclear missile posed an existential threat to Israel, the US's trade embargoes against Japan stood a similar (i.e. tiny) chance of destroying the state of Japan. Therefore the nations are still on an equivalent footing, even if you continue to insist on your bizarre claim that Iran's likely nuclear capability poses an existential threat to Israel. Therefore I ask again, why would blame for the ensuing war lie on Iran's shoulders in one case, but not the US's in the other?

Again you misunderstand what I'm saying. I'm not saying that an army gets to do immoral things under certain circumstances, I'm saying that an entity whose responsibility it is to take care of another person's life must prioritize that person's life. For example, a parent couldn't refuse to feed her own children so she could give away her food to other children who were hungry.

Again, your example concerns a situation where the relative moral weightings are the same. This is quite explicitly different from the situation at hand, where the moral weightings are significantly different. I have provided calculations and justifications supporting my moral weighting, while you simply continue to insist that the relative moral weighting is the same without providing a hint of evidence as to why.

[sourmìlk]

People can often use more than one nuclear weapon. But anyways: even given that the US' embargoes had a chance to destroy Japan (something you have not proven), you also have to show that the alternative doesn't have a greater chance.

Again, your example concerns a situation where the relative moral weightings are the same. This is quite explicitly different from the situation at hand, where the moral weightings are significantly different. I have provided calculations and justifications supporting my moral weighting, while you simply continue to insist that the relative moral weighting is the same without providing a hint of evidence as to why.

Okay, so is it okay if a parent refuses to feed her two children because her money can feed four other children?

[natraj]

Okay, so is it okay if a parent refuses to feed her two children because her money can feed four other children?

I don't think that is analogous. More like, is it okay if a parent kills four other children because doing so can help her feed her two children.

[FrancisDrake]

It amazes me how consistently you all forget or disregard all of my arguments.

We just can't see Iran actually attempting to kill all the Jews. Sure, some of their politicians have made such an outlandish claim. Politicians lie. Politicians lie often. Why might an Iranian politician, from a Persian country unpopular with Arabs, say something that many Arabs want to hear? If they were being honest, why haven't they made good on their threat? If Iran had any intention of actually annihilating Israel, don't you think they would have done more than half heartedly supported groups that at best could kill a few thousand Israelis?

What if they were just trying to get some much needed credibility as the protector of Arabs they so desperately want to be?

But no. You will not accept this line of thought, you will reject it yet again. And that is why we will ignore you when you yet again insist Iran will start Holocaust 2 as soon as they get a nuke.

I have many problems with your statement, one of which being your politicians lie example. yes politicians lie, but you seem to be implying that Iran has the same political system the democratic west has. Last time I checked, the democratic west doesn't have a supreme leader, or a fanatic theological law system, like Sharia Law.
In addition, how can Iran make good on threats that they can't really accomplish till they have a nuke? I'm sorry, but I don't think Iran can attack a superior army coalition like Israel and the US right now, and I doubt they are stupid enough to do so. while your previous statements were stupid, this one is just cruel and indecent: "don't you think they would have done more than half heartedly supported groups that at best could kill a few thousand Israelis?" obviously someone is not pro peace when they write off a thousands lives so easily.
However, you are right on one aspect, you are right in thinking that Iran won't use the nuke on Israel. I think they will use the nuke, like the spy plane they stole from the United States, to control their growing rebellious youth and neighboring states, like Bahrain. With a nuke they won't have to worry about outside influence which is exactly how the disgusting regime of North Korea has thrived for so long. However, unlike Korea we have a country that is controlled by fanatic Mullahs. So, if you want a Mullah regime that treats women like shit, citizens like children, and outsiders as heretics to get a nuke, than why aren't you living there? Oh and while your there enjoy being protected by your Arab big brother who watches with stolen technology in the sky.

[yurell]

Welcome to the I/P thread. I strongly suggest you read at least some of it (at least the previous ~10 pages) before continuing, because your points have been recently addressed.

[Torchship]

People can often use more than one nuclear weapon. But anyways: even given that the US' embargoes had a chance to destroy Japan (something you have not proven), you also have to show that the alternative doesn't have a greater chance.

If you are willing to accept any kind of realistic nuclear bombardment as an existential threat to Israel, why are you not willing to accept the US's embargoes as an existential threat to Japan? After all, Japan depended on the US for 60-90% of its oil (depending on the precise point). Imagine what would happen if 60% of the modern US's oil supply suddenly disappeared; the destruction of the state is a possibility.
The US and Japanese empires were in direct confrontation over control of the Pacific; the chance of Japan getting the embargo lifted was no better than the chance of Israel and Iran renouncing their conflict. Therefore the Japanese strike must have been legitimate, and therefore the US must be to blame for the resulting casualties, no?

Okay, so is it okay if a parent refuses to feed her two children because her money can feed four other children?

Absolutely. Sacrificing two lives to save four is a pretty clear cut (assuming the usual absence of complicating factors, blah, blah, blah). That said, I do agree with natraj that a far more analogous situation is killing four of someone else's children to eliminate a tiny chance of two of your children dying.

[yoni45]

If you are willing to accept any kind of realistic nuclear bombardment as an existential threat to Israel, why are you not willing to accept the US's embargoes as an existential threat to Japan? After all, Japan depended on the US for 60-90% of its oil (depending on the precise point). Imagine what would happen if 60% of the modern US's oil supply suddenly disappeared; the destruction of the state is a possibility.
The US and Japanese empires were in direct confrontation over control of the Pacific; the chance of Japan getting the embargo lifted was no better than the chance of Israel and Iran renouncing their conflict. Therefore the Japanese strike must have been legitimate, and therefore the US must be to blame for the resulting casualties, no?

Why exactly are you guys so hung up on 'fault', 'blame', and such? Legitimacy of an attack does not in itself place 'blame' on the other side -- the Japanese strike was against an American military base and an act of war. There's nothing illegitimate in that, but that also doesn't lay the blame on the US. Either way, the Iranian question isn't really one of blame but one of interests.

It is against Israel's interests for Iran to get nuclear weapons. It is against the interests of the West for Iran to get nuclear weapons. The only calculation necessary here is simply whether the extent to which this conflicts with Israel's/the West's interests is reasonably sufficient to warrant the risk of intervention (the calculation itself might not prove so simple).

[Ghostbear]

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.

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?

Yes, but you said they were part of the military- not contributing to it, not part of the process of it, but part of it. There is a huge difference between contribution and membership, as my examples show, and as your own statement seems to agree with.

It's not a "ridiculous absolute": once you say that someone with "some" responsibility for it is a valid target, you're opening yourself up to anyone you want being a target. That nuclear research wouldn't have been done without any funding, so if you collapsed the nations economy (say, killed all their bankers?) you could prevent it. The nuclear program wouldn't happen without construction materials, so if you killed all the cement workers, you could prevent it. It wouldn't happen without people using those construction materials, so if you killed all the construction workers, you could prevent it. What is the difference between the scientist and the construction worker in this scenario? Neither of them have a say in how their work gets used, neither of them are part of the military, yet they're both "vital". The only practical difference is that one is harder to replace than the other.

As for uniformed vs. non uniformed scientists: you're able to to give uniformed members much more protected information, you're able to give them more free access to military personnel, hardware, or data. You're able to include them in your command structure, you're able to protect them easier, you're to control their life outside of the direct project to a higher degree. You're able to arm them for self defense and know that they will be able to properly use that armament, you're able to train them in whatever you want, you're able to dictate their studies... There's a lot of differences.

(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.)

If someone can not be held guilty for an action, executing them for their potential contribution for that action is wrong- they can't be a legitimate target, because in not finding them guilty, you're finding them not responsible.

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.

Fighting is not less vital in any full conflict- otherwise, I'd ask you to speak to the (now former) Libyan rebels who had to do the actual fighting (no amount of air power by itself would have won that conflict for them), or the approximately 100,000 (as of 2010) US troops in Afghanistan (if fighting wasn't needed, we could just keep them at other bases in other countries), or the 148,000 soldiers used in the initial invasion of Iraq. Your notion that ""fighting"" isn't vital is ridiculous.

Yes, you could have "civilian combatants" that become non-targets after they leave combat, but then if they weren't soldiers in the first place, they'd have no command structure, no provided equipment, no training... They'd be useless, and there are already ways to deal with the differences between unlawful and lawful combatants.

Roughly speaking...you draw a dichotomy between "military target" and "non-military target" and use a slippery slope to counter defining targets differently?

To start, it's not a slippery slope (what's with all the attempts at people claiming logical fallacies lately?). It's a one step process: once you say "these people are valid military targets, because they are vital to the war machine" then you open up nearly every citizen or resident of that country with the exact same logic, because they will all also be vital to the war machine, either in aggregate or individually. You don't see the problem with that?

* Slippery slope: : "Modern usage includes a logically valid form, in which a minor action causes a significant impact through a long chain of logical relationships. Note that establishing this chain of logical implication (or quantifying the relevant probabilities) makes this form logically valid. The slippery slope argument remains a fallacy if such a chain is not established."
There is a chain of relationships (though I would not call it "long", as it consists of one step) and there is logic behind that connection. The fact that it is logically valid would counter your criticism on those lines in the first case, but the fact that it is not a "long chain" also prevents it from being a slippery slope in the first place.

[Torchship]

Why exactly are you guys so hung up on 'fault', 'blame', and such? Legitimacy of an attack does not in itself place 'blame' on the other side -- the Japanese strike was against an American military base and an act of war. There's nothing illegitimate in that, but that also doesn't lay the blame on the US. Either way, the Iranian question isn't really one of blame but one of interests.

Sourmilk has contended that if a strike is legitimate and the other side escalates into open warfare, then it is the other side who is responsible for the war. The Pacific War example was designed to illustrate the absurdity of this; since Japan's attack was legitimate and the US chose to declare war as a result of Pearl Harbour, the US must therefore be responsible for the hundreds of thousands of casualties resulting from the war.

It is against Israel's interests for Iran to get nuclear weapons. It is against the interests of the West for Iran to get nuclear weapons. The only calculation necessary here is simply whether the extent to which this conflicts with Israel's/the West's interests is reasonably sufficient to warrant the risk of intervention (the calculation itself might not prove so simple).

The good of the Iranian people does not enter into this calculation at any point? Only the benefit to the West and the potential costs to the West?

[yoni45]

It's not a "ridiculous absolute": once you say that someone with "some" responsibility for it is a valid target, you're opening yourself up to anyone you want being a target. That nuclear research wouldn't have been done without any funding, so if you collapsed the nations economy (say, killed all their bankers?) you could prevent it. The nuclear program wouldn't happen without construction materials, so if you killed all the cement workers, you could prevent it. It wouldn't happen without people using those construction materials, so if you killed all the construction workers, you could prevent it. What is the difference between the scientist and the construction worker in this scenario? Neither of them have a say in how their work gets used, neither of them are part of the military, yet they're both "vital". The only practical difference is that one is harder to replace than the other.

None of that changes the fact that it's a ridiculous absolute: all you're doing is defending it by arguing against another ridiculous absolute. The fact that it's ridiculous to paint anyone that can be linked in any way to a military program as a valid target does not detract from the fact that it's ridiculous to give a free pass to anyone that's not "officially" labeled as part of said program.

How proximate is a single construction worker to a nuclear program? How vital? How replaceable? How necessary is the action?

Those answers are probably quite different for a lead scientist.

As for uniformed vs. non uniformed scientists: you're able to to give uniformed members much more protected information, you're able to give them more free access to military personnel, hardware, or data. You're able to include them in your command structure, you're able to protect them easier, you're to control their life outside of the direct project to a higher degree. You're able to arm them for self defense and know that they will be able to properly use that armament, you're able to train them in whatever you want, you're able to dictate their studies... There's a lot of differences.

That's all false -- you can do just as much with either. Especially when it comes to the points substantive to their contribution to Iran's military capabilities.

If someone can not be held guilty for an action, executing them for their potential contribution for that action is wrong- they can't be a legitimate target, because in not finding them guilty, you're finding them not responsible.

Uh, no. Soldiers are not guilty of anything just by virtue of being soldiers, or even just by virtue of being in combat (no more than a scientist working on Iran's nuclear program is guilty of anything just by virtue of that) -- that doesn't make them any less a valid target.

Fighting is not less vital in any full conflict- otherwise, I'd ask you to speak to the...

Seriously? Cherry picking much? Why in the world would you use your examples when they're clearly not the relevant ones?

Let's talk instead to the NATO pilots or the cruise missile operators who didn't have to touch a single firearm and simply pressed all kinds of buttons -- the reasoning that all we have to do is call them civilians and they'd become untouchable is ridiculous.

[yoni45]

Sourmilk has contended that if a strike is legitimate and the other side escalates into open warfare, then it is the other side who is responsible for the war. The Pacific War example was designed to illustrate the absurdity of this; since Japan's attack was legitimate and the US chose to declare war as a result of Pearl Harbour, the US must therefore be responsible for the hundreds of thousands of casualties resulting from the war...

Right -- I just don't see the point of arguing it whether it holds or not.

...The good of the Iranian people does not enter into this calculation at any point? Only the benefit to the West and the potential costs to the West?

Well, yeah -- I'm assuming this whole thing is regarding how the West should operate...? The good of the Iranian people only enters the equation once the good of the "West"-ern people is no longer in question.

[Torchship]

Right -- I just don't see the point of arguing it whether it holds or not.

I must say, I am also quickly beginning to question whether that discussion will ever actually go anywhere.

Well, yeah -- I'm assuming this whole thing is regarding how the West should operate...? The good of the Iranian people only enters the equation once the good of the "West"-ern people is no longer in question.

Shouldn't the good of the Iranian people also be a factor that the West should consider when it decides how it operates? Iranians are not subhuman monsters; their suffering matters just as much as the suffering of Westerners. I consider any moral system which allows arbitrary political divisions to give the West a "get out of jail free" card when it comes to inflicting suffering upon their opponents absolutely horrific.