Nuclear terrorism

[Loren Pechtel]

The line has been crossed.


What should happen to the perpetrators?

 

[NobleSavage]

Are you talking about Hamas deliberately aiming warheads at nuclear reactors?

 

[Jayjay]

The line has been crossed.

What should happen to the perpetrators?

Are you referring to Hamas unsuccessfully firing rockets at general direction of the Dimona reactor? If that counts as nuclear terrorism, then so does Israel targeting nuclear facilities in Syria and Iraq. What do you think should be done to the perpetrators?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Good ole Loren, always the first with the Hyperbole Strike. And to do so without even parsing a link to explain what in the heck he is talking about.

The line has been crossed.

What should happen to the perpetrators?

Are you referring to Hamas unsuccessfully firing rockets at general direction of the Dimona reactor? If that counts as nuclear terrorism, then so does Israel targeting nuclear facilities in Syria and Iraq. What do you think should be done to the perpetrators?

Technically there would be a world of difference between trying to stop the develop of a nuclear weapon and firing on a nuclear plant. Much like how firing on a nuclear plant is a world of difference from nuclear terrorism.

That said, targeting a nuclear power plant shouldn't typically be done, nor should one aim at civilian infrastructure. But Hamas isn't exactly playing by Queensberry rules.

And what exactly should be done that Israel hasn't tried before (IE try and wipeout Hamas, until the Israeli population tires of it?). Use nuclear weapons as a response (probably not the wisest course of action)? How about sanctions (well more sanctions)? I've got it! Let the response be pretending that there is a simple singular solution and we should do whatever that is!

 

[laughing dog]

The line has been crossed.

That line was crossed years ago. Why the sudden interest?

 

[Keith&Co.]

The line has been crossed.

That line was crossed years ago. Why the sudden interest?

Has it?

terrorism:
ter·ror·ism/ˈtɛrəˌrɪzəm/ noun
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.

Oh, come on, just because the whole point of the Cold War's MAD policy is to support a political purpose to limit the spread and severity of war by the threat of nuclear violence, and widespread horrors, a promise that WWIII would be so fearfully terrible that nothing made a worse alternative doesn't make it terrorism.
At least, you know, as long as the good guys were doing it.

 

[KeepTalking]

The line has been crossed.


What should happen to the perpetrators?

1. Don't negotiate with them, because we don't negotiate with terrorists.
2. When we do negotiate with them, make sure we do it on the down-low, and use any profits to fund another war somewhere else.
3. Make up some fake connection with some other group that is entirely not connected with the terrorism, but has some nice oil reserves, and attack them instead. I nominate Iraq for this one.
4. Did I mention not to negotiate with them, because we certainly don't negotiate with terrorists.
5. Jack Bower.

 

[Frikki]

The line has been crossed.


What should happen to the perpetrators?

I think you should sign up and go after the terrorists.

 

[Jarhyn]

Yes. A line has been crossed. The solution is to engage the entire rest of the nuclear armed world, and demand israel and gaza adopt a two state solution, and if they start fighting ever again, the civilians will get a week to vacate before we turn the whole thing into a glassed crater.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The line has been crossed.

What should happen to the perpetrators?

Are you referring to Hamas unsuccessfully firing rockets at general direction of the Dimona reactor? If that counts as nuclear terrorism, then so does Israel targeting nuclear facilities in Syria and Iraq. What do you think should be done to the perpetrators?

Yes. It meets the definition of nuclear terrorism. As does their threat to fire more rockets at it.

Israeli attacks on the Syrian and Iraqi reactors were not nuclear terrorism because they hit the reactors before they ever went critical. Splattering them didn't cause a radiation problem.

 

[laughing dog]

Are you referring to Hamas unsuccessfully firing rockets at general direction of the Dimona reactor? If that counts as nuclear terrorism, then so does Israel targeting nuclear facilities in Syria and Iraq. What do you think should be done to the perpetrators?

Yes. It meets the definition of nuclear terrorism. As does their threat to fire more rockets at it.

Israeli attacks on the Syrian and Iraqi reactors were not nuclear terrorism because they hit the reactors before they ever went critical. Splattering them didn't cause a radiation problem.

Oh, those attacks were just regular terrorism?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'm not surprised that nobody on here cares even when Hamas crosses this line.

As for whether the line was crossed:

https://treaties.un.org/doc/db/Terrorism/english-18-15.pdf

Article 2
1. Any person commits an offence within the meaning of this Convention
if that person unlawfully and intentionally:
...
(b) Uses in any way radioactive material or a device, or uses or
damages a nuclear facility in a manner which releases or risks the release of
radioactive material:
(i) With the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury; or
(ii) With the intent to cause substantial damage to property or to the
environment; or
(iii) With the intent to compel a natural or legal person, an
international organization or a State to do or refrain from doing an act

- - - Updated - - -

Yes. It meets the definition of nuclear terrorism. As does their threat to fire more rockets at it.

Israeli attacks on the Syrian and Iraqi reactors were not nuclear terrorism because they hit the reactors before they ever went critical. Splattering them didn't cause a radiation problem.

Oh, those attacks were just regular terrorism?

Get a dictionary. Look up the word terrorism.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Am I the only one who'd be completely unconcerned if Israel and Palestine both got vapourized in a nuclear explosion and would just change the channel away from the news to see what else was on if I heard it?

 

[Jayjay]

Are you referring to Hamas unsuccessfully firing rockets at general direction of the Dimona reactor? If that counts as nuclear terrorism, then so does Israel targeting nuclear facilities in Syria and Iraq. What do you think should be done to the perpetrators?

Yes. It meets the definition of nuclear terrorism. As does their threat to fire more rockets at it.

Israeli attacks on the Syrian and Iraqi reactors were not nuclear terrorism because they hit the reactors before they ever went critical. Splattering them didn't cause a radiation problem.

Which court do you think is the right instance to determine that?

Oh that's right, Israel is not subject to any international laws or courts. So I ask you, if Israel is immune from any kind of legal action, why do you think Hamas shouldn't be? They could argue that their intent was not to commit nuclear terrorism, but to merely disrupt a power plant.

 

[bilby]

Yes. It meets the definition of nuclear terrorism. As does their threat to fire more rockets at it.

Israeli attacks on the Syrian and Iraqi reactors were not nuclear terrorism because they hit the reactors before they ever went critical. Splattering them didn't cause a radiation problem.

Which court do you think is the right instance to determine that?

Oh that's right, Israel is not subject to any international laws or courts. So I ask you, if Israel is immune from any kind of legal action, why do you think Hamas shouldn't be? They could argue that their intent was not to commit nuclear terrorism, but to merely disrupt a power plant.

Given that a nuclear power plant is a fucking solid block of concrete and steel, built like a brick shithouse; and given that Hamas is firing weedy half-arsed rockets that rarely hit what they were aimed at, and that are barely able to knock over the walls of an ordinary domestic dwelling when they do hit it, it seems unlikely in the extreme that there is the slightest risk of a loss of containment as a result of these rocket attacks on Dimona. The worst that is likely to happen is that Israel will be forced to shut down the plant for a while, and perhaps patch up a few bits of ancillary equipment that might get damaged outside the containment.

Referring to this as 'nuclear terrorism' is stretching the definition to breaking point.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

One minor note, the actual nuclear terrorism would involve a plot that had a chance to work or did work.

I'm not surprised that nobody on here cares even when Hamas crosses this line.

As for whether the line was crossed:

https://treaties.un.org/doc/db/Terrorism/english-18-15.pdf



- - - Updated - - -

Yes. It meets the definition of nuclear terrorism. As does their threat to fire more rockets at it.

Israeli attacks on the Syrian and Iraqi reactors were not nuclear terrorism because they hit the reactors before they ever went critical. Splattering them didn't cause a radiation problem.

Oh, those attacks were just regular terrorism?

Get a dictionary. Look up the word terrorism.

Actually, do care. The problem is, WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU WANT TO DO ABOUT IT?! I think you want to go the "Pretend there is a single and relatively simple solution and it'll work, so let's do it" option that doesn't actually exist.

 

[Jayjay]

I'm not surprised that nobody on here cares even when Hamas crosses this line.

But you don't care if Israel crosses the line. The treaty by the way is cleverly crafted to exclude states so by definition, Israel would be off the hook. But that's just legal mumbo jumbo. Israel has bombed two nuclear facilities, with presumption that they did not contain nuclear material, and who are they accountable to if there had been nuclear contamination? No one. The US and its coalition partners bombed an active reactor during Gulf War in 1991 and nobody gave two shits about it. So given these precedents, why should anyone be outraged by Hamas shooting three rockets that hit nowhere near the Dimona reactor, and couldn't have damaged it even if they had?

The line has been crossed already, there is nothing new here except your desire to have one more thing to be outraged about Hamas and therefore justify Israel killing civilians.

 

[laughing dog]

Get a dictionary. Look up the word terrorism.

You could have said the attacks were not even terrorism, but you didn't. Probably because you looked in a dictionary and found that terrorism is defined as

The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

Source: Oxford Dictionary, and

The use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal

Source: Merriam-Webster dictionary.

Terrorism is not defined as the use of violent acts to frighten only people _________ (fill in the blank with anyone) supports.

 

[Keith&Co.]

One minor note, the actual nuclear terrorism would involve a plot that had a chance to work or did work.

Would it?
Terrorism is less about the damage and more about spreading the fear. Maybe they're hoping that in the minds of their enemies, it just looks like a credible threat.
Or an outrageous threat.

If they fired fireworks at a nuclear plant in New Jersey, our media would be screaming about how close we're coming to the entire Eastern seaboard being a glow-in-the-dark wasteland.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Am I the only one who'd be completely unconcerned if Israel and Palestine both got vapourized in a nuclear explosion and would just change the channel away from the news to see what else was on if I heard it?

Nope. This thing has been going on for generations. In fact this is the first Israel thread I've probably opened in years. I suspect many others opened this thread and saw the word, "Israel" or "Palestine" and just closed it out.