NYT Confirms Israel Killed an Iranian Nuclear Scientist with a Robot Sniper(futurism.com)
futurism.com
NYT Confirms Israel Killed an Iranian Nuclear Scientist with a Robot Sniper
https://futurism.com/the-byte/nyt-israel-robot-sniper
140 comments
I am simultaneously in awe of the tech that it would take to pull this off and in complete revulsion at what was done.
It was interesting when I was in college to see which degrees required ethics classes and which ones didn't. Computer Science required us to take ethics classes. I assume because of the effects technology can have.
It is really subtle too. As one of my professors noted: "I'm sure none of you would write a 'BombJerusalem()' function, but you might write a 'Target(city)' function without realizing the implications."
It was interesting when I was in college to see which degrees required ethics classes and which ones didn't. Computer Science required us to take ethics classes. I assume because of the effects technology can have.
It is really subtle too. As one of my professors noted: "I'm sure none of you would write a 'BombJerusalem()' function, but you might write a 'Target(city)' function without realizing the implications."
What is the point of Ethics classes? Do they actually make people more ethical (and if so, is it ethical brain wash people?), or are they mostly used to pad out classes so that the philosophy department also gets some money?
I took an ethics class in college taught by the computer science department. It definitely wasn't an ethical indoctrination, as much of "here is what ethics is, here are the basic frameworks, and here's why it matters to programming."
I took one for bioengineering
It was more so that we all understood that the people who used the fruits of our labor were trusting our knowledge of engineering with their own lives, in the hopes of preventing tragedies such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therac-25
but yes if you failed the class, you didn't get the degree
It was more so that we all understood that the people who used the fruits of our labor were trusting our knowledge of engineering with their own lives, in the hopes of preventing tragedies such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therac-25
but yes if you failed the class, you didn't get the degree
They teach and discuss what ethics are, to me it was an invaluable series of courses (psychology in general). As was Critical Thinking and Journalism. I highly recommend them all.
flyinglizard(1)
I really struggle to be impressed by this as it’s a gross violation of national sovereignty, similar to US aggression in the Middle East. Imagine the other way around - headline: Iranian military shoot Israeli nuclear scientists on way home from work. It would likely cause WW III!
This kind of intervention is wrong and should be condemned by the international community, not celebrated.
The middle east is a jungle. If I had to make a choice between living close to a nuclear Iran - a fundamentalist regime commits horrendous acts, like public hangings of gay men *or* violating international law, I would choose the latter without hesitation.
Laws are great when there's someone who enforces them. When there's no entity that makes sure those rules are obeyed they mean nothing.
Laws are great when there's someone who enforces them. When there's no entity that makes sure those rules are obeyed they mean nothing.
One wonders how Iran would be today if the US had not eliminated the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran in favor of religious monarchy, and whether they would've continued their progressive trajectory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27état
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27état
> The middle east is a jungle
I wonder why? It couldn't have anything to do with Western colonialism and meddling could it? Nah.
I wonder why? It couldn't have anything to do with Western colonialism and meddling could it? Nah.
I mean, Israel and Iran have both been quietly blowing holes in each other's ships for the last several years, and there's been no war.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/06/world/middleeast/israel-i...
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/06/world/middleeast/israel-i...
Does that mean it's okay?
Not trying to put words in your mouth, but it feels like you're saying the rest of the world isn't allowed to care because this is what they do.
We sanction Iran for aggressive behaviour in the region. Our national reactions to this seem a little one-sided.
Not trying to put words in your mouth, but it feels like you're saying the rest of the world isn't allowed to care because this is what they do.
We sanction Iran for aggressive behaviour in the region. Our national reactions to this seem a little one-sided.
>We sanction Iran for aggressive behaviour in the region.
You're making their actions out to be equivalent. Iran is fomenting unrest in a whole region. Israel is trying to neutralize (not eliminate) an enemy that has vowed repeatedly to eliminate it from the planet.
You're making their actions out to be equivalent. Iran is fomenting unrest in a whole region. Israel is trying to neutralize (not eliminate) an enemy that has vowed repeatedly to eliminate it from the planet.
> an enemy that has vowed repeatedly to eliminate it from the planet.
Ah, just like how Israel is doing that to the Palestinians.
Ah, just like how Israel is doing that to the Palestinians.
[deleted]
Arguably, Israel has fomented unrest in the ME as well with a continued history of genocide against Palestinians. I do not understand how assassination will in any way “neutralize” an enemy. I guarantee if Iran assassinated a high-ranking Israeli or American official, the response would be far from neutral. Just look at the inciting incident for WWI.
I've been noticing the framing "imagine if the roles had been reversed... the reaction would be totally different!" more and more, especially around contentious issues.
I've never found it compelling. The argument seems like a variant of begging the question: we just saw that X caused Y reaction, but the argument asserts (generally without any evidence) that if the roles were reversed, then X' would cause a massively different Y'. Would it? Why? If we agree that it would, what does that demonstrate?
I've never found it compelling. The argument seems like a variant of begging the question: we just saw that X caused Y reaction, but the argument asserts (generally without any evidence) that if the roles were reversed, then X' would cause a massively different Y'. Would it? Why? If we agree that it would, what does that demonstrate?
So from reading the article's first couple of paragraphs my obvious question was how do you dispose of the equipment to not allow it to fall into enemy hands? And of course they didn't:
> While the pickup truck exploded after the assassination, it failed to destroy the smart rifle system beyond recognition. This allowed the Iranian Revolutionary Guard to piece together what occurred
Using remote AI-assisted seems a logical conclusion. Heck I imagine they hire somebody fresh out of high school who enjoys playing CoD to pull the trigger. It's lower casualty than drones but higher risk if you can't dispose of your tech appropriately
> While the pickup truck exploded after the assassination, it failed to destroy the smart rifle system beyond recognition. This allowed the Iranian Revolutionary Guard to piece together what occurred
Using remote AI-assisted seems a logical conclusion. Heck I imagine they hire somebody fresh out of high school who enjoys playing CoD to pull the trigger. It's lower casualty than drones but higher risk if you can't dispose of your tech appropriately
the terrifying thing will be when this type of system gets deployed at scale with drone swarms. The dream of any authoritarian government to use against citizens to keep them in line
This thread makes me wonder how many knife-missiles the USA has in stock.
(I am using the opportunity to reference the fact that the USA indeed has a “knife missile” and it is similar in principle if not in capability to the knife missile if the “Culture” series by Ian M. Banks.)
(I am using the opportunity to reference the fact that the USA indeed has a “knife missile” and it is similar in principle if not in capability to the knife missile if the “Culture” series by Ian M. Banks.)
Do you have any additional details about this knife missile?
I'm assuming this (the AGM-114R9X) is what the user was referring to: https://www.bellingcat.com/resources/how-tos/2021/08/26/the-...
Yes thanks. My bad for not putting up a link.
On one hand guns on drones are less destructive than bombs and missiles we are already using. So his wife in the car survived where a US drone strike would have killed them both.
On the other more surgical strikes may promote use.
On the other more surgical strikes may promote use.
I believe civilian drone casualties are due largely to mistaken target identification. E.g. the recent incident in Afghanistan was exactly of this type. There are also stories of A-10 pilots shooting civilians by mistake
Guns only help if you've got the right person to start with.
Guns only help if you've got the right person to start with.
This is almost exactly the plot of Captain America: Winter Soldier, for what it’s worth, except they use massive floating weapons platforms instead of drones
Part of the article makes it sound like there was no physical person close to the vehicle with the rifle, other parts make it sound like the rifle was merely AI assisted, whatever that may mean. At the very least people assembled the whole thing and probably drove it to the target location also.
At least the NYT article seems a bit better, and looking at the picture in the NYT article it seems like there were quite a few shots fired.
I wish there was some more detailed information here.
At least the NYT article seems a bit better, and looking at the picture in the NYT article it seems like there were quite a few shots fired.
I wish there was some more detailed information here.
The big difference is that with the robot, the hit team has already left the country.
How did they get the pick up truck close to him them? Put it at a stationary location that he usually drove by? Or remote/self driving? Or hired someone local that didn't know the full plot?
My understanding is that a big part of this type of operation is understanding their target, the patterns and schedule they move by, and then selecting a good spot that is going to work to take them out when they aren’t expecting it or prepared, and they have a good opportunity to escape or not get caught.
So most likely left there the night before (or even longer), they knew when he would be by (and it wasn’t going to be a one-off), and there you go.
So most likely left there the night before (or even longer), they knew when he would be by (and it wasn’t going to be a one-off), and there you go.
I think something similar happened with the Carrero Blanco assassination by the ETA in Spain. They cased him, rented an apartment and then did their thing.
Apparently it’s the ‘professional’ way to do it, and it’s pretty terrifying if you’re a potential target of someone with the resources and desire to do something like this. It is almost impossible to defend against, except perhaps by making the consequences of attempting or succeeding not worth the cost to anyone who might be interested and able. I think this is generally the US approach, but looking at the past it clearly isn’t 100% successful.
The US Secret Service has had several folks who aren’t worried about consequences sneak through and severely injure - or depending on your pet theory regarding JFK - kill presidents.
The US Secret Service has had several folks who aren’t worried about consequences sneak through and severely injure - or depending on your pet theory regarding JFK - kill presidents.
The article said he was killed "as he was driving his wife to their country home east of Tehran". So it's probable that the Israelis knew about his house in the country and found out when he'd be going, and picked out a spot on the route that would serve the purpose, maybe on a part of the road that very few people use.
Read the NYT article, it explains the whole thing
It was his regular route I believe
Asking the right questions.
Is that more or less ethical than artillery, cruise missiles, ballistic missiles, nuclear missiles, suicide bombers, ieds, weaponized drones, proxy wars, etc.?
I would say more ethical, because there was no collateral damage
From the article:
> Fakhrizadeh was shot at least four times by the smart rifle, which was hidden in a pickup truck a short distance away.
> Israeli operatives smuggled the weapon and its parts piecemeal into Iran before reassembling it.
> Fakhrizadeh was shot at least four times by the smart rifle, which was hidden in a pickup truck a short distance away.
> Israeli operatives smuggled the weapon and its parts piecemeal into Iran before reassembling it.
Reading the article (its short) it's a one ton robotic apparatus + gun, mounted, or at least transported, by a pickup truck. The gun utilized satellites to calculate its shots. This particular one wasn't much of a remote weapon deployable anywhere, but rather a weapon that replaces the requirement for an actual sniper to be competent and have a clear LOS. On some level I'd expect this thing could, for example, shoot through opaque conditions like smoke, or walls if the ballistics don't threaten it too much . It seems like it fired several shots which would help in that regard. You still, practically for a device this heavy and presumably expensive, would want a human driving it around and setting it up.
> The gun utilized satellites to calculate its shots.
highly doubtful. More likely it was something like a good quality camera fitted to a scope, outputting around 1.5 to 2 Mbps H264 or H265 4:2:0 color space video, with a data link over satellite to a remote controller. Some person staring at a screen with ability to pan and tilt the weapon.
highly doubtful. More likely it was something like a good quality camera fitted to a scope, outputting around 1.5 to 2 Mbps H264 or H265 4:2:0 color space video, with a data link over satellite to a remote controller. Some person staring at a screen with ability to pan and tilt the weapon.
The key "AI" contribution, after you dig down through all the media misunderstanding, appears to be this:
[NYT]> The time it took for the camera images to reach the sniper and for the sniper’s response to reach the machine gun, not including his reaction time, was estimated to be 1.6 seconds, enough of a lag for the best-aimed shot to go astray.
So aiming and firing was initiated by a human, but hardware and software attempted to mask the time delay in doing so against a moving vehicle. Which seems plausible: optical flow + basic vehicle vector and velocity calculations.
There's also some stuff in the various articles about facial recognition, but that sounds a bit far fetched and unreliable.
If you have a person in the loop with enough resolution to accurately aim, then why are you running facial recognition to discriminate targets?
[NYT]> The time it took for the camera images to reach the sniper and for the sniper’s response to reach the machine gun, not including his reaction time, was estimated to be 1.6 seconds, enough of a lag for the best-aimed shot to go astray.
So aiming and firing was initiated by a human, but hardware and software attempted to mask the time delay in doing so against a moving vehicle. Which seems plausible: optical flow + basic vehicle vector and velocity calculations.
There's also some stuff in the various articles about facial recognition, but that sounds a bit far fetched and unreliable.
If you have a person in the loop with enough resolution to accurately aim, then why are you running facial recognition to discriminate targets?
Pretty sure this is entirely based on classical optimal control theory. But hey good luck getting any clicks with that instead of good ol' AI.
The article states
> The gun itself was connected to an Israeli command center via a satellite communication relay. There an operative was able to control the gun and take aim at its target via a computer screen.
Seems I misread that.
> The gun itself was connected to an Israeli command center via a satellite communication relay. There an operative was able to control the gun and take aim at its target via a computer screen.
Seems I misread that.
Trying to imagine how this would feel different from a video game if you didn't know better and coming up pretty short.
I wonder if the scientist was voluntarily working on Iran’s nuclear program or if he had no other choice.
It was said he liked to read poems and enjoy everyday life pleasures, maybe this was an escape he didn’t mind.
Either way this will not stop either country’s ambitions.
It was said he liked to read poems and enjoy everyday life pleasures, maybe this was an escape he didn’t mind.
Either way this will not stop either country’s ambitions.
Many Iranians are very proud to be Iranians in the same way many Israelis are proud to be Israelis.
If those two countries could decide on peace (or rather, if the majorities in each country that want peace could push aside the warmongers), the Middle East and the entire world would be a much better place.
If those two countries could decide on peace (or rather, if the majorities in each country that want peace could push aside the warmongers), the Middle East and the entire world would be a much better place.
As a Persian Jew I agree 100%. It’s really only both govts that hate each other.
Amongst both peoples, it’s all love.
Amongst both peoples, it’s all love.
It's really so amazing to watch how humanity is spending great amounts of creative energy toward the goal of ending humanity.
Ending humanity, is trying to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons?
Is there a fundamental difference between Iran having nuclear weapons compared to Pakistan? If the government of Pakistan hasn't used them so far, then why would Iran?
If Iran has nuclear weapons, then its principal geopolitical rival, Saudi Arabia will want nuclear weapons. You have a proliferation risk that will greatly increase the risk of actual use of nuclear weapons.
I don't want anyone having those weapons. But they exist, and worse, old ones exist and are unaccounted for.
But who should judge which regime should have them, if only some should?
Most of us are born into a belief that our people are the best, the right people, and others may also be right... and many are wrong. But regardless, we are most right. As such, we often don't question some things. This is one of them.
So should we decide we are the best, most trustworthy holders of such technology and use just about any means to prevent others from getting the technology? However you narrate this, it is an ongoing history which visiting sentient beings would probably marvel at.
But who should judge which regime should have them, if only some should?
Most of us are born into a belief that our people are the best, the right people, and others may also be right... and many are wrong. But regardless, we are most right. As such, we often don't question some things. This is one of them.
So should we decide we are the best, most trustworthy holders of such technology and use just about any means to prevent others from getting the technology? However you narrate this, it is an ongoing history which visiting sentient beings would probably marvel at.
If Israel has nuclear weapons, then its principal geopolitical rival, Iran will want nuclear weapons. You have a proliferation risk that will greatly increase the risk of actual use of nuclear weapons.
/headagainstwall
/headagainstwall
In the case of Pakistan, the principal geopolitical rival is India. Despite the fact that both have nuclear arsenals and have had skirmishes over Kashmir, a couple of which after they both made public their nuclear capability, neither of them have tried to use those weapons.
What makes it any different if Saudi Arabia, Iran and Israel have them instead?
What makes it any different if Saudi Arabia, Iran and Israel have them instead?
Iran is in an open state of warfare with Israel.
Dig a little.
Why?
Why is anyone at war with anyone else? Usually the answer is, "because they did this first". But if you follow all the trails, you ultimately come to the conclusion that the real answer is either, "well, they're not us". Or "they look different".
Or sadly amusingly, because "they claim they invented hummus, but WE invented hummus". Or "they wear their little caps differently from how we do".
But if you put two people from opposing sides together at a dinner table, or with musical instruments, or in a crisis situation, you may be surprised to see that they not only can get along but can become friends.
Why?
Why is anyone at war with anyone else? Usually the answer is, "because they did this first". But if you follow all the trails, you ultimately come to the conclusion that the real answer is either, "well, they're not us". Or "they look different".
Or sadly amusingly, because "they claim they invented hummus, but WE invented hummus". Or "they wear their little caps differently from how we do".
But if you put two people from opposing sides together at a dinner table, or with musical instruments, or in a crisis situation, you may be surprised to see that they not only can get along but can become friends.
US companies used to put ads in US magazines bragging about how they were helping Iran build nuclear power plants.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-PFHs3qhA6Hs/TwxioL65IxI/AAAAAAAAEg...
Of course Iran had a secular, non-communist, anti-colonial parliament and government in the early 1950s. The UK and US supported the mullahs as a base and had Mossadegh overthrown and put a dictator in. The CIA then worked to help SAVAK kill off the secular left. In the late 1970s Iran cast off its colonial shackles, but as the US had empowered the mullahs and killed off the secular left, they took over.
The US and Israel have nuclear weapons. The US has waged nuclear war. The US was helping Iran become a nuclear power. Now that colonialism has ended, they can't pursue the nuclear energy the US and Europe and China have? The only nuclear power in the Middle East allowed is one mostly made up of non-Muslims, most of whom are not even from the Middle East but from the west?
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-PFHs3qhA6Hs/TwxioL65IxI/AAAAAAAAEg...
Of course Iran had a secular, non-communist, anti-colonial parliament and government in the early 1950s. The UK and US supported the mullahs as a base and had Mossadegh overthrown and put a dictator in. The CIA then worked to help SAVAK kill off the secular left. In the late 1970s Iran cast off its colonial shackles, but as the US had empowered the mullahs and killed off the secular left, they took over.
The US and Israel have nuclear weapons. The US has waged nuclear war. The US was helping Iran become a nuclear power. Now that colonialism has ended, they can't pursue the nuclear energy the US and Europe and China have? The only nuclear power in the Middle East allowed is one mostly made up of non-Muslims, most of whom are not even from the Middle East but from the west?
Yet it’s ok for the US and Israel to have nuclear weapons, but others can’t have them?
You're presenting a false choice between OK and not-OK. In reality it's a spectrum.
I am less concerned about the prospect of South Korea having nukes than North Korea if we are forced to choose. And I am less concerned about Israel having nukes than Iran, given the genocidal intentions the latter has expressed combined with the fact it's a theocratic dictatorship make it less than guaranteed that the MAD doctrine would apply.
I'd much, much, much prefer for Israel to also not have nukes, but those two situations aren't equally as bad.
I am less concerned about the prospect of South Korea having nukes than North Korea if we are forced to choose. And I am less concerned about Israel having nukes than Iran, given the genocidal intentions the latter has expressed combined with the fact it's a theocratic dictatorship make it less than guaranteed that the MAD doctrine would apply.
I'd much, much, much prefer for Israel to also not have nukes, but those two situations aren't equally as bad.
The goal is not to end humanity, though.
The goal is to be respected on a geopolitical basis. Much easier to bully a nation militarily if they can't respond with a nuke.
The goal is to end humans.
The stated goal of Iran's government is to end a specific group of humans that identify themselves as Israelis by using nuclear or conventional weapons.
Of course that's not the goal in most cases (but it obviously is the case where warfare is involved - at least ending a subset of humanity).
But if you look at food/diet changes, lifestyle changes, warfare changes, energy source/consumption changes, and so on, you can see we are working toward the end of humanity. Hopefully it will take a very long time, but there will be a tipping point where it becomes _very_ unpleasant.
Let's extrapolate with some current technologies a bit. We have these pretty cool gunshot locator systems; we have AI or robotic attack systems; we have broader control systems which can disable power and water from target zones. Heck we can control and overload industrial systems, potentially causing mass casualties.
No one sets out to end humanity. Well, most people don't. But degree by degree (pun not initially intended) we get closer to self-induced extinction.
But if you look at food/diet changes, lifestyle changes, warfare changes, energy source/consumption changes, and so on, you can see we are working toward the end of humanity. Hopefully it will take a very long time, but there will be a tipping point where it becomes _very_ unpleasant.
Let's extrapolate with some current technologies a bit. We have these pretty cool gunshot locator systems; we have AI or robotic attack systems; we have broader control systems which can disable power and water from target zones. Heck we can control and overload industrial systems, potentially causing mass casualties.
No one sets out to end humanity. Well, most people don't. But degree by degree (pun not initially intended) we get closer to self-induced extinction.
Mmm, believe the goal here is saving humanity.
That's the justification used for the thousands of drone strikes the US has performed in the last decade.
I suspect depending on where you live, your definition of "goal" will be different.
I suspect depending on where you live, your definition of "goal" will be different.
Much easier to be human if you don’t run the risk of being turned into a smoking crater at a moments notice.
flyinglizard(2)
A very good article trying to answer the question "How efficient is it to assasinate nuclear scientists?":
https://thebulletin.org/premium/2020-11/overview-nuclear-sci...
https://thebulletin.org/premium/2020-11/overview-nuclear-sci...
It just seems so dumb and a waste to kill people like that without pretty much any shock or scrutiny.
I value intelligence, and people who aren't demonstrating intelligence get to live through the most absurd circumstances. So it is really disturbing for me to see these meticulous targeted assassinations that at best only serves to delay the nuclear program, and at worst accelerates the irradiated glass theme park they're trying to avoid.
I value intelligence, and people who aren't demonstrating intelligence get to live through the most absurd circumstances. So it is really disturbing for me to see these meticulous targeted assassinations that at best only serves to delay the nuclear program, and at worst accelerates the irradiated glass theme park they're trying to avoid.
I wonder why the gun is not aiming on its own, like a human would do.
There would not be a problem of laatency, you would just state the expected result (shot the head you would point to first, or shot in the windshield, ...) and let the gun do it on autopilot.
There would not be a problem of laatency, you would just state the expected result (shot the head you would point to first, or shot in the windshield, ...) and let the gun do it on autopilot.
I know nothing about guns, but assuming someone is walking at a typical pace, what kind of latency would you need for a robot to actually (remotely control and) shoot someone via a robot?
The article mentions a 1.6 second transmission delay. You can imagine how much someone could potentially move in 1.6 seconds, regardless of other factors.
Distance is the largest normal factor, and is not mentioned in the article. Under 100 meters bullet drop and time to target are negligible; with a stabilized rifle (as in this case), it would just be a matter of putting the crosshairs over the target. The communications latency, however, would make even such a short shot extremely challenging. I wonder how the AI mentioned compensated for that. They imply the vehicle may have been moving during the shot. So during a 1.6 second (presumably round trip) delay, you would need to account for movement of the vehicle during that time, movement of the target during that time, movement of the target after firing (for longer distances), wind effects on the bullet (for longer distances), and bullet drop (usually trivial, but still).
I don't know what kind of help the AI provided, but I wouldn't want to be the one with my hand on the button (normal ethical questions of assassination aside).
Distance is the largest normal factor, and is not mentioned in the article. Under 100 meters bullet drop and time to target are negligible; with a stabilized rifle (as in this case), it would just be a matter of putting the crosshairs over the target. The communications latency, however, would make even such a short shot extremely challenging. I wonder how the AI mentioned compensated for that. They imply the vehicle may have been moving during the shot. So during a 1.6 second (presumably round trip) delay, you would need to account for movement of the vehicle during that time, movement of the target during that time, movement of the target after firing (for longer distances), wind effects on the bullet (for longer distances), and bullet drop (usually trivial, but still).
I don't know what kind of help the AI provided, but I wouldn't want to be the one with my hand on the button (normal ethical questions of assassination aside).
The article says there was a 1.6 second delay between what the operator saw and what the gun saw, but it's going to depend a lot on distance and angle.
I think a lot would depend on whether the target was approaching you in a near linear straight line, or traveling sideways across your field of view in azimuth.
As described in the NY times article it sounds like the gun was set up to shoot straight down the road into the windshield of the approaching car.
As described in the NY times article it sounds like the gun was set up to shoot straight down the road into the windshield of the approaching car.
[deleted]
This makes me sad.
While I think we ideally shouldn’t build any more nuclear weapons, I don’t think we should prevent any country from doing so.
It’s so hypocritical.
Aside from that, this machine is disturbing, but not more so than a reaper drone. I’m not quite sure why they’d go through the trouble.
While I think we ideally shouldn’t build any more nuclear weapons, I don’t think we should prevent any country from doing so.
It’s so hypocritical.
Aside from that, this machine is disturbing, but not more so than a reaper drone. I’m not quite sure why they’d go through the trouble.
It’s not hypocritical at all, as the whole point is to maintain an imbalance of power and capability in one’s own favor. The public reasoning and ceremony around why we prevent others from getting this capability may be run through with hypocrisy, but the real reason isn’t.
> the whole point is to maintain an imbalance of power and capability in one’s own favor
That’s one strategy. Another, once the nuclear cat is out of the bag, is mutual assured destruction (MAD). If that’s your strategy then it is hypocritical because then the point is that everyone has enough power to destroy everyone else so no one will make a move.
I personally think that both strategies are stupid. The former will just breed current and future resentment and the latter is vulnerable to one unstable person with authority to use the weapons.
But I don’t have any sort of alternative so it seems like preventing others from getting nukes and then falling back to MAD is just the way the world is working.
That’s one strategy. Another, once the nuclear cat is out of the bag, is mutual assured destruction (MAD). If that’s your strategy then it is hypocritical because then the point is that everyone has enough power to destroy everyone else so no one will make a move.
I personally think that both strategies are stupid. The former will just breed current and future resentment and the latter is vulnerable to one unstable person with authority to use the weapons.
But I don’t have any sort of alternative so it seems like preventing others from getting nukes and then falling back to MAD is just the way the world is working.
MAD is about having sufficient alliance networks with enough power to guarantee mutual destruction, not having everyone with lots of nukes. And usually “alliance networks” meant the old US/Soviet divide.
The whole point of nukes is that any given nation can take responsibility for its own defense and is not dependent on allies who may throw them under the bus if it is useful to do so.
Alliance networks are what gave us WW1.
Alliance networks are what gave us WW1.
I mean, might makes right and all that, I agree.
The point is that the reason given is to protect the free world, when it is doing anything but. It’s just keeping the same people comfortably in power, capable of stepping on their enemies at will.
The point is that the reason given is to protect the free world, when it is doing anything but. It’s just keeping the same people comfortably in power, capable of stepping on their enemies at will.
Our foreign policy incentivizes gaining access to nuclear weapons and WMDs. It's one of the best ways to guarantee your continuing sovereignty. Nuclear countries are powerful enough that even the US is reticent to invade or destabilize them. Gaddafi gave up Libya's weapons programs and was dead within a decade. Iran gave up theirs, and the US reneged on the treaty almost immediately.
Every country's primary purposes are to guarantee continued sovereignty & obtain military superiority (or at least credible deterrence).
This is why major nuclear power invasions of non-nuclear powers are incredibly dangerous: they incentivize nuclear weapons development and disincentivize adhering to the NPT.
Where the NPT really failed was in handling actors with expansive, violent regional influence aspirations like Iran and Pakistan.
If you're inevitably going to come in conflict with the US and/or international community, your obvious move is to develop nuclear weapons. The NPT provides no carrot to balance out that reality.
This is why major nuclear power invasions of non-nuclear powers are incredibly dangerous: they incentivize nuclear weapons development and disincentivize adhering to the NPT.
Where the NPT really failed was in handling actors with expansive, violent regional influence aspirations like Iran and Pakistan.
If you're inevitably going to come in conflict with the US and/or international community, your obvious move is to develop nuclear weapons. The NPT provides no carrot to balance out that reality.
Iran in particular has stated repeatedly, unequivocally that their goal is to annihilate Israel.
So of course Israel wants to do what it can to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear state. This would be in its top 3 foreign policy goals.
So of course Israel wants to do what it can to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear state. This would be in its top 3 foreign policy goals.
> I don’t think we should prevent any country from doing so.
Even countries ruled by theocratic leaders who promote hate and obscurity ?
Even countries ruled by theocratic leaders who promote hate and obscurity ?
If those in power are the qualifier for if a country should have nuclear weapons or not, then the US should immediately destroy their entire stockpile. Giving power to launch nuclear weapons, to someone who is clearly not mentally well, is insane.
Given that there are a few nuclear powers that could meet that criteria, I really don't see a reason why Iran is a special case, especially when comparing it to Pakistan, for example.
Iran is a special case for Israel. Israel isn't directly threatened by Pakistan having nuclear weapons.
Israel isn’t directly threatened by Iran having nuclear weapons either unless the leaders are willing to give up their lives and country for their goal.
If I was Israel, I wouldn't bet that they aren't.
The problem with populist-leveraging theocracies with bad economies is that you need a shared national boogie man. For decades, Iraq, Israel, and the US have been that for Iran.
The problem with populist-leveraging theocracies with bad economies is that you need a shared national boogie man. For decades, Iraq, Israel, and the US have been that for Iran.
Exactly. You need the boogie man. You can’t exactly nuke it .
It’s like NK and the US. They keep bellowing about their rockets, but they’ll never fire them.
It’s like NK and the US. They keep bellowing about their rockets, but they’ll never fire them.
Well, you need the boogie man if you're the dog and your goal is to keep your country under control.
But if the tail gets ideas about wagging you? And your populace demands you eliminate the boogie man threat with all means at hand, because you've spent decades inculcating hatred in them and blaming ills on the man?
Well... better the boogie man's head than yours on the chopping block.
But if the tail gets ideas about wagging you? And your populace demands you eliminate the boogie man threat with all means at hand, because you've spent decades inculcating hatred in them and blaming ills on the man?
Well... better the boogie man's head than yours on the chopping block.
I think if people had been able to at the time, they would have stopped Pakistan getting nukes.
> Even countries ruled by theocratic leaders who promote hate and obscurity
Does not seem that different from the past 4 years in the US? If NK can have nukes, I don’t see who can’t.
Does not seem that different from the past 4 years in the US? If NK can have nukes, I don’t see who can’t.
Not sure obscurity was the word you were looking for?
> Aside from that, this machine is disturbing, but not more so than a reaper drone. I’m not quite sure why they’d go through the trouble.
If I understood the article correctly, it's because the Mossad didn't want to reveal it was them, which is why the gun attempted to self-destruct after use.
If I understood the article correctly, it's because the Mossad didn't want to reveal it was them, which is why the gun attempted to self-destruct after use.
[deleted]
Who need nukes when you can assasinate a single person in any country. From the same people who brought you Pegasus spyware (tm).
pirate787(2)
Are Iranian nuclear scientists civilian or military?
The guy was a brigadier general. A fact weirdly not mention in any article on the issue, but at least mentioned in the wiki page.
mc32(6)
This seems pretty terrorist and illegal to me. Is it not a violation of Iran's sovereignty?
100%. Not dissimilar to when US carry out drone strikes randomly in Iran or send in marines to catch Bin Laden, in complete violation of sovereignty.
"Looking forward to seeing how this technology makes it into domestic situations. It's just like space and other military technology. It'll benefit us all in the end."
//////supervomit
//////supervomit
Mirror: https://archive.is/mPBhk