naraburns nihil supernum
1yr ago
(text post)
30377 thread views
Israel-Gaza Megathread #2
This is a refreshed megathread for any posts on the conflict between (so far, and so far as I know) Hamas and the Israeli government, as well as related geopolitics. Culture War thread rules apply.
Tentatively, I can maybe chalk it up to "If it bleeds, it leads." A hospital blowing up and killing 500 people is a hell of a story regardless of which side caused it, you get a lot of clicks/eyeballs publishing that.
And my priors are that Israel's weaponry is MUCH more likely to cause that sort of devastation than Palestine's.
In fact, I remember thinking "it's pretty freaking implausible that a rocket just happens to blow up a hospital and kill hundreds RIGHT when Hamas needs a massive PR win."
But I also couldn't imagine a Hamas rocket leveling a building even with a direct hit.
Turns out the simple explanation was the true one: It didn't.
But I also couldn't imagine a Hamas rocket leveling a building even with a direct hit.
Perhaps a result of my own ignorance with respect to explosives and my observation of 9/11, I find this surprising. I would have thought that it wouldn't take much to take down a building, even one as big as a hospital, as long as it hit the load-bearing parts, and I figured that hitting those load-bearing parts wasn't particularly unlikely in the crapshoot of battle. I suppose buildings, possibly especially in Gaza, must be hardier structures than I'd initially thought.
(Properly constructed) Buildings don't want to fall down; the bigger they are the less they want to fall.
It takes a truly stupendous explosion to actually level a building. The thing that really fucks up a structure is water or fire damaging the footings/weakening enough of the steel that it starts to get wobbly; then the buildings own weight.
That's why bursting/firebombing mix is the trad way to destroy a city: The bursting bombs blow open lots of shit and spread burnable material; the firebombs set everything off and start a firestorm that kills lots of people and makes buildings unsafe after the fact.
That's why houses get totalled by even medium fires, actually.
Structural steel is amazingly strong stuff. I’d expect skyscrapers like the WTC to be the upper end of vulnerability, if only because of the lower cross-section.
Oh yes, I remember being in grade school when that happened. I suppose 9/11 must have left a bigger impression on me (which is probably unsurprising), because I recall being impressed that the building was still standing and seemed mostly fine except for that 1/3 that was obliterated.
My priors are based on the fact that I've never heard of a rocket fired by Palestine doing any significant damage to a structure upon impact.
And the whole problem is that a rocket without a decent guidance system is probably not going to hit the loadbearing structural elements by chance.
I'm going to try to find a source on the lack of destruction from the rockets but uh, googling "Palestine Rocket" won't be helpful right now for obvious reasons.
Edit: Here's a source from 2009. Capabilities could have changed since then but I doubt it.
Hamas has done some development over the last decade, both with newer and heavier variants of the homemade Qassam, and with more imports with much larger payloads. I don't know enough on the matter to say whether the larger payloads of a Fajir5 or M302 could take down a building without being a golden bb, but they're large enough to start hitting the 'evacuate nearby barricaded structures' part of the ATF bingo card.
My priors are based on the fact that I've never heard of a rocket fired by Palestine doing any significant damage to a structure upon impact.
Thanks for the link, and this is also a very good point. If buildings were as fragile as I'd believed, I would expect to hear about buildings being leveled all the time both by terrorists and by armies. The fact that such events are notable rather than banal was a sign that I could have noticed.
The best way to level a building, short of a nuke, is to fill it with an explosive mixture and ignite it. But that's hard to do with a missile, a bit more practical for a terrorist, and eminently achievable for someone working on natural gas lines without knowing what they're f---ing doing (usually trying to steal gas).
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Tentatively, I can maybe chalk it up to "If it bleeds, it leads." A hospital blowing up and killing 500 people is a hell of a story regardless of which side caused it, you get a lot of clicks/eyeballs publishing that.
And my priors are that Israel's weaponry is MUCH more likely to cause that sort of devastation than Palestine's.
In fact, I remember thinking "it's pretty freaking implausible that a rocket just happens to blow up a hospital and kill hundreds RIGHT when Hamas needs a massive PR win."
But I also couldn't imagine a Hamas rocket leveling a building even with a direct hit.
Turns out the simple explanation was the true one: It didn't.
Perhaps a result of my own ignorance with respect to explosives and my observation of 9/11, I find this surprising. I would have thought that it wouldn't take much to take down a building, even one as big as a hospital, as long as it hit the load-bearing parts, and I figured that hitting those load-bearing parts wasn't particularly unlikely in the crapshoot of battle. I suppose buildings, possibly especially in Gaza, must be hardier structures than I'd initially thought.
(Properly constructed) Buildings don't want to fall down; the bigger they are the less they want to fall.
It takes a truly stupendous explosion to actually level a building. The thing that really fucks up a structure is water or fire damaging the footings/weakening enough of the steel that it starts to get wobbly; then the buildings own weight.
That's why bursting/firebombing mix is the trad way to destroy a city: The bursting bombs blow open lots of shit and spread burnable material; the firebombs set everything off and start a firestorm that kills lots of people and makes buildings unsafe after the fact.
That's why houses get totalled by even medium fires, actually.
More options
Context Copy link
Another comparison. >2500 lbs of explosives basically scooped 1/3 of the building away, but the rest stayed up.
Structural steel is amazingly strong stuff. I’d expect skyscrapers like the WTC to be the upper end of vulnerability, if only because of the lower cross-section.
Oh yes, I remember being in grade school when that happened. I suppose 9/11 must have left a bigger impression on me (which is probably unsurprising), because I recall being impressed that the building was still standing and seemed mostly fine except for that 1/3 that was obliterated.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
IIRC the 9/11 impacts would not have brought down the towers without the subsequent fires (from lots of aviation fuel) weakening the building frame.
More options
Context Copy link
My priors are based on the fact that I've never heard of a rocket fired by Palestine doing any significant damage to a structure upon impact.
And the whole problem is that a rocket without a decent guidance system is probably not going to hit the loadbearing structural elements by chance.
I'm going to try to find a source on the lack of destruction from the rockets but uh, googling "Palestine Rocket" won't be helpful right now for obvious reasons.
Edit: Here's a source from 2009. Capabilities could have changed since then but I doubt it.
https://www.hrw.org/report/2009/08/06/rockets-gaza/harm-civilians-palestinian-armed-groups-rocket-attacks
Hamas has done some development over the last decade, both with newer and heavier variants of the homemade Qassam, and with more imports with much larger payloads. I don't know enough on the matter to say whether the larger payloads of a Fajir5 or M302 could take down a building without being a golden bb, but they're large enough to start hitting the 'evacuate nearby barricaded structures' part of the ATF bingo card.
More options
Context Copy link
Thanks for the link, and this is also a very good point. If buildings were as fragile as I'd believed, I would expect to hear about buildings being leveled all the time both by terrorists and by armies. The fact that such events are notable rather than banal was a sign that I could have noticed.
The best way to level a building, short of a nuke, is to fill it with an explosive mixture and ignite it. But that's hard to do with a missile, a bit more practical for a terrorist, and eminently achievable for someone working on natural gas lines without knowing what they're f---ing doing (usually trying to steal gas).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link