Saddam is purging Kirkuk at this very moment.

[Axis Kast]

I think that if Israel were to find itself in a situation where it would be necessary to destroy its Arab neigbors with WMD, Palestine would probably be the first to go.

It'd have to be conventional genocide.

At that point, Israel would be both isolated and devastated on all levels.

No viable state left even into the future when the dust finally settles.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I think that if Israel were to find itself in a situation where it would be necessary to destroy its Arab neigbors with WMD, Palestine would probably be the first to go.

Palestine is too close. Actually, Damascus and Amman are unpleasantly close, for that matter - So's Beirut, but Beirut isn't a concern. Jordan can be handled conventionally, though, and there are high-value targets in areas of Syria other than around Damascus.

Five nuclear bombs and twenty conventional strikes would exterminate the populace of the KSA and screw up the ecology enough to probably send the surrounding desert states into a tailspin - It's all about water (Though Oman might not be as severely effected, so Muscat would probably get one as well) - while hitting Baghdad and the dams on the Tigris and the Euphrates with a mix of conventional and nuclear weaponry would finish off Iraq, if hardly do the same sort of damage as to the KSA.

Egypt gets a single bomb to Lake Nasser. That destroys the Aswan High Dam and probably kills 65 million people; it also prevents the North African States from realistically reinforcing any attack on Israel. Put one into the capital of Eritrea and another into Djibouti, and then the rest are left over for Iran, and Turkey and Azerbaijan if necessary.

[Darth Wong]

If Israel did all of that in retaliation for one of those states attacking it, then it would finally drop any pretense of civility and become a true international pariah state. And a grand coalition of Arab armies to invade Israel is about as likely as my dog learning to code C++.

[Axis Kast]

Eritrea? In order to prevent retaliation? I'd be more concerned with the Sudan. Eritrea is perhaps the best chance in East Africa to endenger any African - as opposed to Muslim - identity.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

If Israel did all of that in retaliation for one of those states attacking it, then it would finally drop any pretense of civility and become a true international pariah state. And a grand coalition of Arab armies to invade Israel is about as likely as my dog learning to code C++.

I was laying out a maximal war plan for defence against a grand coalition of Arab armies.

That coalition would cease to exist when Israel did that, Mike. The Arab world would cease to exist.

Israel's 200 nukes can put very nearly the whole of the Arab world back into the stone age - and outright exterminate large parts of it. They can also totally devastate Turkey and Iran.

Obviously Israel doing that without provocation would be beyond comprehension - But if pressed, the Israeli State will not be driven into the sea.

[Axis Kast]

That's debatable, Marina.

The effect of laying waste to the Middle East will be massive.

Assuming Israel goes far enough to destroy the whole region, it's going to be on the brink of collapse itself.

And after any attack, the resulting Palestinian uprising and cooredinated terrorism would be massive. So massive in fact that the Israelis would probably turn to genocide. The Israeli State as we know it would be gone, a veritable wasteland of smoke and rubble.

[Edi]

Aaaahh hahahahahahahahaaaaa!!!

This is priceless, I go away for the weekend and come back to see how both of our resident jingoists have had their arguments torn to shreds and then turning on each other in their feeding frenzy. And given how even the resident right-wing gun nut (sorry, Shep, but you are) has been liberally firing full-auto on both of them too, this is just absolutely hilarious!

I'll just add that if Israel were to do all that maximum retaliation against other countries, they'd be immediately censored by the rest of the world. It is in fact quite conceivable that much of the rest of the world would be of the opinion that it was time to isolate Israel and starve them to death, and that would be justified if Israel committed such genocide. At that point Holocaust II would be completely justified whereas the first one was utterly despicable.

Edi

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Aaaahh hahahahahahahahaaaaa!!!

This is priceless, I go away for the weekend and come back to see how both of our resident jingoists have had their arguments torn to shreds and then turning on each other in their feeding frenzy. And given how even the resident right-wing gun nut (sorry, Shep, but you are) has been liberally firing full-auto on both of them too, this is just absolutely hilarious!

I'll just add that if Israel were to do all that maximum retaliation against other countries, they'd be immediately censored by the rest of the world. It is in fact quite conceivable that much of the rest of the world would be of the opinion that it was time to isolate Israel and starve them to death, and that would be justified if Israel committed such genocide. At that point Holocaust II would be completely justified whereas the first one was utterly despicable.

Edi

So it shows its true colours. And you call me a monster. Despicable, disgusting thing. How can you think of yourself as human?

A holocaust is never justifiable except in self defence. The Israeli action would be justifiable only if the alternative was for them to be driven into the sea and slaughtered down to the last survivor. And that's what they have that contigency for.

For you to propose the world starving them all to death in retaliation for that?

It proves you are morally equal to a Nazi.

A pity the Soviets didn't overrun your country and reconstruct it like all allies of the Third Reich should have been after the Second World War, because it's clear that you're every bit as much of an anti-semite as a Swastika wearing member of the Nazi party.

[Stuart Mackey]

If a dictatorship will ever arise in Washigton DC,your average citizen will remain on the armchair watching happily/indifferently the TV propaganda broadcast showing the US Army going after the few partisans in the woods while the anchorman makes the rebels look like Al Quaeda.

Even that might be problematic.

http://www.mosbymuseum.org/

John Singleton Mosby, buried in the cemetery behind my dad's backyard in
Warrenton, Virginia.

He raised holy hell for the Union troops in that area of Virginia, leading
to that part being known as Mosby's Confederacy.

Counter Insurgency, or COIN, is a very hard task, even with
a professional army.

Gurrila operations tend only to be of use when activly supported with weapons and training, access to R&R medical help etc. Deny those things and a gurrila movement dies out after being no more than a minor itch.

[Darth Wong]

It proves you are morally equal to a Nazi.

This is precisely why an Israel/Palestine debate moratorium was declared. Just this slight tangent into that territory and IMMEDIATELY the "anti-semite" bullshit comes out. Give it a fucking rest, Marina. It is not anti-semitic to oppose Israel, this has nothing to do with Nazis, and all Edi said was that if Israel nuked the entire fucking Middle East and annihilated tens of millions of people, retaliatory genocide in Israel would be perfectly understandable. Don't get your panties in a knot over this excuse to claim moral superiority over someone.

A pity the Soviets didn't overrun your country and reconstruct it like all allies of the Third Reich should have been after the Second World War, because it's clear that you're every bit as much of an anti-semite as a Swastika wearing member of the Nazi party.

Yadda yadda yadda ... maybe I should send this flamebait to the HOS.

[MKSheppard]

So it shows its true colours. And you call me a monster. Despicable, disgusting thing. How can you think of yourself as human?

Funny coming from the head psycho of them all. At the very least,
after wiping out most of the Arab world in Hellfire, Israel would then
choke itself to death on a cocktail of fallout. Much less the international
pariah status that would then follow.

We used the Atomic Bombs against a justified enemy in WWII, to
give the japanese SOMETHING to surrender against, and save
face, and we're reviled and hated for it sixty years later...

And either way, I don't think the United States, or Russia, would
want an unstable state with 200~ nuclear warheads capable of
devastating the entire middle east on it's own, and contaminating
a goodly portion of the world's oil supply.

It is highly probable that the US and Russia both have contigency
plans for the worst case that involves neutering Israel's nuclear
option.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

It proves you are morally equal to a Nazi.

This is precisely why an Israel/Palestine debate moratorium was declared. Just this slight tangent into that territory and IMMEDIATELY the "anti-semite" bullshit comes out. Give it a fucking rest, Marina. It is not anti-semitic to oppose Israel, this has nothing to do with Nazis, and all Edi said was that if Israel nuked the entire fucking Middle East and annihilated tens of millions of people, retaliatory genocide in Israel would be perfectly understandable. Don't get your panties in a knot over this excuse to claim moral superiority over someone.

A pity the Soviets didn't overrun your country and reconstruct it like all allies of the Third Reich should have been after the Second World War, because it's clear that you're every bit as much of an anti-semite as a Swastika wearing member of the Nazi party.

Yadda yadda yadda ... maybe I should send this flamebait to the HOS.

*sighs* Mike, from my POV, defensive genocide is acceptable - It's just like self-defence on an ethnic scale - and so the idea of punishing an entire ethnicity for this by killing them all through starvation is being morally equivlant to the Nazis; it's like aggravated murder, and it's intensely upsetting to see someone suggest it as a matter of course.

Edi probably has a totally different outlook on it - thinking about it, it probably stems from Finnish culture, where I doubt killing someone in self-defence is still in the legal code (their justice system is as different from the USA's as night is from day), and so the idea of applying self-defence on an ethnic scale simply becomes even more atrocious.

So I can understand that, now. But when I first read it - Well, it was quite disgusting, and hardly something that could go unanswered.

[MKSheppard]

*sighs* Mike, from my POV, defensive genocide is acceptable - It's just like self-defence on an ethnic scale

So I guess my suggestion of your title to be the "Otto Ohlendorf of SDN" was
correct after all.

FYI: Ohlendorf was the "head priest" of Nazism in the SS, and everyone,
even RF-SS Himmler, considered Ohlendorf a crackpot. He kept coming
up with bizaare ideas and constructs, etc, and later, he was assigned to
command Einsatzgruppen D in Russia, commiting what he viewed as "defensive genocide."

Bitch.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

So I guess my suggestion of your title to be the "Otto Ohlendorf of SDN" was
correct after all.

FYI: Ohlendorf was the "head priest" of Nazism in the SS, and everyone,
even RF-SS Himmler, considered Ohlendorf a crackpot. He kept coming
up with bizaare ideas and constructs, etc, and later, he was assigned to
command Einsatzgruppen D in Russia, commiting what he viewed as "defensive genocide."

Bitch.

Mark, there is a difference between fantasy and reality. If the Israeli State was literally being pushed into the sea and its citizenry slaughtered enmasse by invading Arab armies, and their only chance to stop this would be to lash out with their full nuclear arsenal, then, yes, that would be morally acceptable.

Creating a bizzare fantasy ideology in which Jews have caused all of the world's problems - which is true only in the heads of the people who believe in it - and then slaughtering Jews to defend yourself in the context of that ideology, is obviously not moral.

[Darth Wong]

*sighs* Mike, from my POV, defensive genocide is acceptable - It's just like self-defence on an ethnic scale - and so the idea of punishing an entire ethnicity for this by killing them all through starvation is being morally equivlant to the Nazis; it's like aggravated murder, and it's intensely upsetting to see someone suggest it as a matter of course.

You just casually described the massacre of tens of millions of people as a matter of course. Don't throw stones from glass houses.

Besides, you are STILL beating on this anti-semitic strawman. If Israel had to be wiped out because it had gone insane and started nuking tens of millions of people, this would destroy a nation, not an ethnicity. Jews living in New York or California would be fine.

Edi probably has a totally different outlook on it - thinking about it, it probably stems from Finnish culture, where I doubt killing someone in self-defence is still in the legal code (their justice system is as different from the USA's as night is from day), and so the idea of applying self-defence on an ethnic scale simply becomes even more atrocious.

No one said anything about an ethnic scale; if you had a lunatic state with hundreds of nuclear weapons and no compunctions about genocide, you would have to treat them accordingly.

So I can understand that, now. But when I first read it - Well, it was quite disgusting, and hardly something that could go unanswered.

Frankly, your eagerness to tar people with the overused anti-Semite brush reflects poorly on you, not Edi.

[Darth Wong]

Mark, there is a difference between fantasy and reality. If the Israeli State was literally being pushed into the sea and its citizenry slaughtered enmasse by invading Arab armies, and their only chance to stop this would be to lash out with their full nuclear arsenal, then, yes, that would be morally acceptable.

You forgot to mention that this is about as likely as George Bush receiving a doctorate in particle physics.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

You just casually described the massacre of tens of millions of people as a matter of course. Don't throw stones from glass houses.

How can you deal with human tragedy on such a scale otherwise? It must be reduced to mere numbers or the human mind will be unable to cope with it.

Besides, you are STILL beating on this anti-semitic strawman. If Israel had to be wiped out because it had gone insane and started nuking tens of millions of people, this would destroy a nation, not an ethnicity. Jews living in New York or California would be fine.

The scenario postulated does not assume Israeli insanity.

No one said anything about an ethnic scale; if you had a lunatic state with hundreds of nuclear weapons and no compunctions about genocide, you would have to treat them accordingly.

Well, you couldn't - Not until they used the weapons, anyway. Even then, unless the arsenal was fully expended, you couldn't attack them unless they attacked you, since they could still respond.

In Israel's case the primary thing is a rather callous willingness on Edi's part to wipe out about half of the Israeli people simply because they'd defended themselves from genocide, which in that case required genocide.

Frankly, your eagerness to tar people with the overused anti-Semite brush reflects poorly on you, not Edi.

I admit that it's an automatic perception stateside to assume anyone with anti-Israeli feelings is anti-semitic, and hard to avoid. The Israeli State is the defined homeland for the Jewish people and the average American accepts it as that; replying off-the-cuff like that I didn't really pause to consider any differential.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

You forgot to mention that this is about as likely as George Bush receiving a doctorate in particle physics.

The Israelis have a plan for it, though. Of course, you plan for everything in the military. It was mostly idle speculation by this point on the capabilities of the Israeli military - I was actually thinking of posting a thread where we could calculate the energy of the wave that would be released from the breaking of the Aswan High Dam. It's so out there that I wasn't seriously discussing it in moral terms.

[MKSheppard]

Well, you couldn't - Not until they used the weapons, anyway. Even then, unless the arsenal was fully expended, you couldn't attack them unless they attacked you, since they could still respond.

30~ minutes for a Peacekeeper to arrive from Barksdale AFB is quick enough.

[Edi]

Mike, sorry about disturbing this hornet's nest. I would like to make a reply despite the moratorium, if that's okay. If you deem it too inflammatory, just nix it or split and HoS it, the rest of this thread shouldn't suffer that fate.

So it shows its true colours. And you call me a monster. Despicable, disgusting thing. How can you think of yourself as human?

A holocaust is never justifiable except in self defence. The Israeli action would be justifiable only if the alternative was for them to be driven into the sea and slaughtered down to the last survivor. And that's what they have that contigency for.

I'm glad we partially agree on that holocaust part, and I wouldn't even go that far with the justifications. Annihilation of the immediate threat is justified, not wholesale genocide. Besides, in this case that is not an alternative that would even come to play, as you have said yourself several times during the weekend.

For you to propose the world starving them all to death in retaliation for that?

I said that it is conceivable that most people and states in the world would be disgusted enough with Israel to censor them. If they got placed under a total embargo of everything, I fail to see how they would not starve to death, and I wouldn't have a problem with it if they killed tens of millions of people over in retaliation to an attack that cannot hope to destroy them in the way you described. Of course, if it was just some nutjob or a small group of them who pushed the buttons, I'd expect them to face the consequences and die before a firing squad prior to the state of Israel being subjected to total UN control in order to prevent a reoccurrence of the incident.

It proves you are morally equal to a Nazi.

I believe Mike already addressed this.

A pity the Soviets didn't overrun your country and reconstruct it like all allies of the Third Reich should have been after the Second World War, because it's clear that you're every bit as much of an anti-semite as a Swastika wearing member of the Nazi party.

Interesting that you should call me an anti-Semite when I have more than once voted for an openly Jewish politician and have no tolerance whatsoever for the resident neo-nazis and other anti-semites here in Finland. Criticism of Israel is not anti-semitism, while bashing Jews for just being Jews is. As for being overrun by the Soviets, I did not find that comment amusing. You have no possible idea of the horror of the scenario you casually bandy about. I've seen its fallout in Estonia, and my parents have seen what happened to the homes their families had lived in for decades (both sides of my family hail from the ceded territories). I've talked with people who lived through the Soviet oppression in Estonia and elsewhere. Take a good look at what Finland is like now and what the former Soviet satellites are like, and honestly tell me that you wish that because I made a comment that is somewhat inflammatory, but far less so than many things you have said. Do you really wish that had happened?

Edi

[Xisiqomelir]

It proves you are morally equal to a Nazi.

This is precisely why an Israel/Palestine debate moratorium was declared. Just this slight tangent into that territory and IMMEDIATELY the "anti-semite" bullshit comes out. Give it a fucking rest, Marina. It is not anti-semitic to oppose Israel, this has nothing to do with Nazis, and all Edi said was that if Israel nuked the entire fucking Middle East and annihilated tens of millions of people, retaliatory genocide in Israel would be perfectly understandable.

He said said it would be justified, DW. And saying that genocide is justifiable against Jews is quite clearly anti-semitism to me.

[Darth Wong]

He said said it would be justified, DW. And saying that genocide is justifiable against Jews is quite clearly anti-semitism to me.

Except that no one said that. It was only said that genocide against Israel after it nuked tens of millions of fucking people would be justifiable. Stop replacing the word "Israel" with "Jew"; I am really fucking tired of the way people rely on this strawman.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I'm glad we partially agree on that holocaust part, and I wouldn't even go that far with the justifications. Annihilation of the immediate threat is justified, not wholesale genocide. Besides, in this case that is not an alternative that would even come to play, as you have said yourself several times during the weekend.

Right, which is why this is silly - I was discussing it more for the technical aspects than anything else. I owe you an apology for jumping on you when you came into the thread from a different angle.

The immediate threat in the case of Israel would be impossible to annihilate due to those technical aspects. They would just have to remove the supply it has - IE, blow up the homelands those armies come from - and hope they can then defeat it conventionally.

I said that it is conceivable that most people and states in the world would be disgusted enough with Israel to censor them. If they got placed under a total embargo of everything, I fail to see how they would not starve to death, and I wouldn't have a problem with it if they killed tens of millions of people over in retaliation to an attack that cannot hope to destroy them in the way you described. Of course, if it was just some nutjob or a small group of them who pushed the buttons, I'd expect them to face the consequences and die before a firing squad prior to the state of Israel being subjected to total UN control in order to prevent a reoccurrence of the incident.

Well, we have different views in context of the defence. I would note, however, that it depends on the damage done to Israeli agriculture. 80% of their food production is exported, so they're hardly reliant on foreign food to survive. In fact, depending on how many casualties they took, they could handle the destruction of more than 80% of their agricultural infrastructure and still be self-sufficient.

Interesting that you should call me an anti-Semite when I have more than once voted for an openly Jewish politician and have no tolerance whatsoever for the resident neo-nazis and other anti-semites here in Finland. Criticism of Israel is not anti-semitism, while bashing Jews for just being Jews is. As for being overrun by the Soviets, I did not find that comment amusing. You have no possible idea of the horror of the scenario you casually bandy about. I've seen its fallout in Estonia, and my parents have seen what happened to the homes their families had lived in for decades (both sides of my family hail from the ceded territories). I've talked with people who lived through the Soviet oppression in Estonia and elsewhere. Take a good look at what Finland is like now and what the former Soviet satellites are like, and honestly tell me that you wish that because I made a comment that is somewhat inflammatory, but far less so than many things you have said. Do you really wish that had happened?

Edi

To be honest, yes, I do, Edi. Your nation was allied to Nazi Germany in WWII and in being a Nazi ally, helped perpetuate the horrors of that regime. It deserved in the very least to be occupied and reconstructed, and since the Soviets were the only ones who could get the job done, I wish they'd done it. I think your nation would be a better place - Wiser to the cost of freedom - had it endured a few decades of Soviet occupation, instead of what it is today, the one Nazi satellite that escaped retribution.

[Enlightenment]

He said said it would be justified, DW. And saying that genocide is justifiable against Jews is quite clearly anti-semitism to me.

Just why do you believe that any ethnic group or country with a majority population of a specific ethnic group should be immune to countervalue strikes launched in response to a nation's indiscriminate use of nuclear weapons?

[Edi]

Edi probably has a totally different outlook on it - thinking about it, it probably stems from Finnish culture, where I doubt killing someone in self-defence is still in the legal code (their justice system is as different from the USA's as night is from day), and so the idea of applying self-defence on an ethnic scale simply becomes even more atrocious.

I have a huge problem with genocides committed by anyone. I favor eliminating the immediate threat and the capacity to threaten, instead of blanket annihilation. I can very well envision such an embargo that would result in starvation, in fact there is one in place right now that places the Iraqi people in similar straits, though not in quite as serious ones as a similar one would be for Israel.

As for killing in self-defense being justified, yes it is. You just need a lot of justification. If you shoot someone who breaks into your house out of hand, you'll get charged with 2nd degree murder (possibly with extenuating circumstances). If somebody comes at you with a baseball bat trying to kill you and you dodge and then shove the ravening maniac in front of a car and he gets run over and killed, you don't (assuming it's the only feasible way you can stop him). It's always evaluated on a case by case basis and whether use of less lethal means could have been sufficient and realistically feasible in a given situation. The same is true of all self-defense situations that end up in court (fatalities or not), and imo the standards are too heavily slanted in favor of the assailant and against the victim. The majority of the population is in agreement with me.

There was one case where woman who had a black belt in jujutsu killed a would-be rapist by tearing his throat out with her hands when he pinned her down on the ground. She was acquitted completely, because she had panicked and snapped and did the first thing that came to mind in blind desperation. There have been other cases, but most often when a person gets killed, the use of lethal force for self-defense was not necessary. In dicey situations even of you do get convicted, the sentence is short and shortened more by several applications of extenuating circumstances.

Edi