Gaza and the West Bank have way more of a claim on dead babies than Israel does. But that's OK because it's "collateral damage" according to "LOAC."
Without a limit, the same standard would fully justify Hiroshima and any potential use of nuclear bombs.
Which raises the question, how many innocent people is it acceptable to kill to get to one combatant? The Israelis have an AI program handling a large segment of their killchain, so they know the answer. But nobody will ever talk about it.
It would probably be better to just say it would justify the routine use of nuclear bombs in warfare. Mixed feelings about Hiroshima/Nagasaki persist, though.
You're downvoted but correct. One thing that I always found weird is that the allies insisted on unconditional surrender, which was unacceptable to the Japanese because they would brook no threat to the Emperor. Then they ultimately didn't touch the position anyway.
Gaza and the West Bank have way more of a claim on dead babies than Israel does. But that's OK because it's "collateral damage" according to "LOAC."
Without a limit, the same standard would fully justify Hiroshima and any potential use of nuclear bombs.
Which raises the question, how many innocent people is it acceptable to kill to get to one combatant? The Israelis have an AI program handling a large segment of their killchain, so they know the answer. But nobody will ever talk about it.
Probably one of the worse examples to use given the alternative options.
It would probably be better to just say it would justify the routine use of nuclear bombs in warfare. Mixed feelings about Hiroshima/Nagasaki persist, though.
Not when you remember that one of the alternative options was to accept a conditional surrender.
You're downvoted but correct. One thing that I always found weird is that the allies insisted on unconditional surrender, which was unacceptable to the Japanese because they would brook no threat to the Emperor. Then they ultimately didn't touch the position anyway.