Nuclear terrorism

[Keith&Co.]

No. Widespread violence and suffering do not make terrorism. The key aspect of terrorism is that the attacks are of minimal military usefulness, the primary objective is scaring people.

I thought the key aspect of terrorism is the terrorists are forced to scare people exactly because they lack the means to cause widespread suffering violence.
They would love to spread violence and suffering upon their enemy, but their budgets force them to smaller targets.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Terrorism as a term is pointless during war. War always includes an element of terror. Your argument that somehow, mildly scaring people is always worse than wholesale killng of civilians as long as the latter is conducted by a state actor is patently false.

The issue is whether the attack has military value, not whether it is scary.

- - - Updated - - -

No. Widespread violence and suffering do not make terrorism. The key aspect of terrorism is that the attacks are of minimal military usefulness, the primary objective is scaring people.

So attacking your enemy's power generating infrastructure would not be terrorism then? Firing rockets at a nuclear plant has almost zero chance of causing a terrifying breach of containment; but it has a very good chance of causing a strategically valuable interruption of power supply to your enemy. Sounds to me like you are absolutely correct Loren - this was, by your definition, clearly NOT terrorism.

You should tell the guy who started this thread that; I am sure he would listen to you, even though he apparently won't listen to reason from anyone else.

If it doesn't harm the reactor it's not of much use.

Furthermore, the odds of a nuclear breach have nothing to do with the intent.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No. Widespread violence and suffering do not make terrorism. The key aspect of terrorism is that the attacks are of minimal military usefulness, the primary objective is scaring people.

I thought the key aspect of terrorism is the terrorists are forced to scare people exactly because they lack the means to cause widespread suffering violence.
They would love to spread violence and suffering upon their enemy, but their budgets force them to smaller targets.

Smaller targets need not be civilian targets.

Sneak through a border crossing (military target) to bomb civilians--clearly terrorism.

 

[bilby]

The issue is whether the attack has military value, not whether it is scary.

- - - Updated - - -

No. Widespread violence and suffering do not make terrorism. The key aspect of terrorism is that the attacks are of minimal military usefulness, the primary objective is scaring people.

So attacking your enemy's power generating infrastructure would not be terrorism then? Firing rockets at a nuclear plant has almost zero chance of causing a terrifying breach of containment; but it has a very good chance of causing a strategically valuable interruption of power supply to your enemy. Sounds to me like you are absolutely correct Loren - this was, by your definition, clearly NOT terrorism.

You should tell the guy who started this thread that; I am sure he would listen to you, even though he apparently won't listen to reason from anyone else.

If it doesn't harm the reactor it's not of much use.

Of course it is - any damage to ancilliary gear outside the containment is likely to force a shutdown.

Furthermore, the odds of a nuclear breach have nothing to do with the intent.

Your baseless assertions as to intent are meaningless; if the effect is strategically valuable, then it is a legitimate act of war. You don't know what the intent was - you are just guessing, and using your massive bias to colour your guess.

 

[angelo]

Bias? My gawd they talk of bias! Poor Hamas are the victims here it would seem.

 

[Jayjay]

Terrorism as a term is pointless during war. War always includes an element of terror. Your argument that somehow, mildly scaring people is always worse than wholesale killng of civilians as long as the latter is conducted by a state actor is patently false.

The issue is whether the attack has military value, not whether it is scary.

For Hamas, and actually in war in general, scaring civilians may have military value. It can induce your opponent to surrender or withdraw due to political pressure, or harm the economy and therefore war-making capability of your opponent.

Terrorism is a useless concept in context of two peoples who are already working their best to kill the other side. And this particular "terror" of shooting a few missiles that have very low probability of hitting their target, and even lower probability of causing enough damage to result in actual leak of radioactive material, pales in comparison to the other acts of terror committed by both sides. It's pathetic to try to consider this a particular, largely inconsequential act a red line when 100+ kids are dead as collateral damage due to the conflict.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The issue is whether the attack has military value, not whether it is scary.

For Hamas, and actually in war in general, scaring civilians may have military value. It can induce your opponent to surrender or withdraw due to political pressure, or harm the economy and therefore war-making capability of your opponent.

Terrorism is a useless concept in context of two peoples who are already working their best to kill the other side. And this particular "terror" of shooting a few missiles that have very low probability of hitting their target, and even lower probability of causing enough damage to result in actual leak of radioactive material, pales in comparison to the other acts of terror committed by both sides. It's pathetic to try to consider this a particular, largely inconsequential act a red line when 100+ kids are dead as collateral damage due to the conflict.

That still does not justify going after civilians.

 

[laughing dog]

For Hamas, and actually in war in general, scaring civilians may have military value. It can induce your opponent to surrender or withdraw due to political pressure, or harm the economy and therefore war-making capability of your opponent.

Terrorism is a useless concept in context of two peoples who are already working their best to kill the other side. And this particular "terror" of shooting a few missiles that have very low probability of hitting their target, and even lower probability of causing enough damage to result in actual leak of radioactive material, pales in comparison to the other acts of terror committed by both sides. It's pathetic to try to consider this a particular, largely inconsequential act a red line when 100+ kids are dead as collateral damage due to the conflict.

That still does not justify going after civilians.

Actually, using your own logic, it does - which was the entire point of that post.

 

[J842P]

For Hamas, and actually in war in general, scaring civilians may have military value. It can induce your opponent to surrender or withdraw due to political pressure, or harm the economy and therefore war-making capability of your opponent.

Terrorism is a useless concept in context of two peoples who are already working their best to kill the other side. And this particular "terror" of shooting a few missiles that have very low probability of hitting their target, and even lower probability of causing enough damage to result in actual leak of radioactive material, pales in comparison to the other acts of terror committed by both sides. It's pathetic to try to consider this a particular, largely inconsequential act a red line when 100+ kids are dead as collateral damage due to the conflict.

That still does not justify going after civilians.

So, would you decry the Allied Powers, and particularly the USA in Japan, for targeting civilians? Were they acting as terrorists?

 

[Jarhyn]

Bias? My gawd they talk of bias! Poor Hamas are the victims here it would seem.

They are. Feel free to call them the aggressors when they attack, unprovoked, after getting a sovereign state.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That still does not justify going after civilians.

So, would you decry the Allied Powers, and particularly the USA in Japan, for targeting civilians? Were they acting as terrorists?

Targeting civilians?

More like bombing cities because we couldn't target accurately enough to hit the things in the cities we wanted to hit.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I thought the key aspect of terrorism is the terrorists are forced to scare people exactly because they lack the means to cause widespread suffering violence.
They would love to spread violence and suffering upon their enemy, but their budgets force them to smaller targets.

Smaller targets need not be civilian targets.

Sneak through a border crossing (military target) to bomb civilians--clearly terrorism.

So, Doolittle's Raid on Tokyo? Aimed at a civilian population for the express purpose of attacking a civilian population?

"The Japanese people had been told they were invulnerable ... An attack on the Japanese homeland would cause confusion in the minds of the Japanese people and sow doubt about the reliability of their leaders. There was a second, and equally important, psychological reason for this attack ... Americans badly needed a morale boost"

So THAT was terrorism.

 

[beero1000]

Smaller targets need not be civilian targets.

Sneak through a border crossing (military target) to bomb civilians--clearly terrorism.

So, Doolittle's Raid on Tokyo? Aimed at a civilian population for the express purpose of attacking a civilian population?

"The Japanese people had been told they were invulnerable ... An attack on the Japanese homeland would cause confusion in the minds of the Japanese people and sow doubt about the reliability of their leaders. There was a second, and equally important, psychological reason for this attack ... Americans badly needed a morale boost"

So THAT was terrorism.

But not the BAD kind. Obviously.

Most people use the kind of definition where the non-state character of the perpetrators is unconsciously shoehorned in. In fact, one of the proposals listed on the wiki page has "perpetrated by a subnational group or non-state entity" tacked on at the end. Because everyone knows countries can't commit acts of terrorism, amirite?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Ah.
So if Hamas had an aircraft carrier and bombed a major city center, and did little physical damage, most of it for morale purposes, and lost all the aircraft involved, it'd be terrorism.
When the US did it, it was part of the war effort.
And bombing cities in order to hit military targets, which is like firing into the crowed in order to shoot a robber, that's okay because how else were we going to hit the military targets?

 

[Keith&Co.]

So, would you decry the Allied Powers, and particularly the USA in Japan, for targeting civilians? Were they acting as terrorists?

Targeting civilians?

More like bombing cities because we couldn't target accurately enough to hit the things in the cities we wanted to hit.

So... as long as we're intending to hit military targets, with the full knowledge that we're going to hit civilians, that's acceptable, as long as we don't choose to hit civilians with our inaccurate payload delivery system.

Um. Either way, we fire or drop a weapon, knowing it's going to hit civilians and not calling off the attack because of that fact. What's the moral difference, there? What makes it NOT be terrorism?

 

[beero1000]

Ah.
So if Hamas had an aircraft carrier and bombed a major city center, and did little physical damage, most of it for morale purposes, and lost all the aircraft involved, it'd be terrorism.
When the US did it, it was part of the war effort.
And bombing cities in order to hit military targets, which is like firing into the crowed in order to shoot a robber, that's okay because how else were we going to hit the military targets?

Exactly. It's one of the (de facto) perks of being recognized as a state by the international community.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Exactly. It's one of the (de facto) perks of being recognized as a state by the international community.

"It's not an atrocity. It can't be. I have a seat at the UN!"

 

[laughing dog]

Targeting civilians?

More like bombing cities because we couldn't target accurately enough to hit the things in the cities we wanted to hit.

So... as long as we're intending to hit military targets, with the full knowledge that we're going to hit civilians, that's acceptable, as long as we don't choose to hit civilians with our inaccurate payload delivery system.

Um. Either way, we fire or drop a weapon, knowing it's going to hit civilians and not calling off the attack because of that fact. What's the moral difference, there? What makes it NOT be terrorism?

When the victims are Palestinian civilians.

 

[J842P]

Straight from the horse's mouth:

We burned to death 100,000 Japanese civilians in Tokyo – men, women, and children… [U.S. General] Lemay recognized that what he was doing would be thought immoral if his side had lost … But what makes it immoral if you lose and not immoral if you win? LeMay said ‘if we’d lost the war, we’d all have been prosecuted as war criminals’. And I think he’s right – and I’d say – we were behaving as war criminals. (Robert S. McNamara to interviewer Errol Morris, The Fog of War).

 

[Keith&Co.]

And I think he’s right – and I’d say – we were behaving as war criminals. (Robert S. McNamara...).

Boy, good think we won. That guy's just primed to be a witness for the prosecution, isn't he?