naraburns nihil supernum
1yr ago
(text post)
30317 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.
Any reasonable amount of high explosive would have smashed a lot more windows just from the shock wave. And if that didn't do it, those eleventy-bajillion hypersonic fragments in an anti-personnel airburst would have. That's why I scoffed about a grenade; it's the only way you're getting an airburst munition down to little enough damage. Though that would have been TOO small and wouldn't have resulted in the roof damage. The damage doesn't match that kind of explosive. There's blast damage, but it it looks to have been from a fairly low-detonation-pressure blast. And there's shrapnel, but not enough for an anti-personnel weapon large enough to have that kind of blast. There's heat damage; tires on cars not right at the epicenter are flat, probably from melting. Also the videos show a bright fireball. It looks to me like a fairly small, slow, explosion not far off the ground (perhaps at 2nd story level, directly over the most damaged cars) which spread some sort of burning substance. I don't know if Israel has weapons which match that pattern, but it doesn't seem unreasonable for a malfunctioning rocket.
The actual orgs doing the investigation have tentatively ruled out the misfired rocket idea 'cause of the direction and angle it came in from, but it's vague now.
Re. specifics: HE needs a pretty big volume to smash windows at a distance, specially in an open area. The shockwave just isn't that powerful when it detonates in the air. Fragments from a purpose built device are direcitonal, they all go down the bottom arc. It's probably not that though because we'd see photos of swisscheese side panels on cars and such
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 -
Any reasonable amount of high explosive would have smashed a lot more windows just from the shock wave. And if that didn't do it, those eleventy-bajillion hypersonic fragments in an anti-personnel airburst would have. That's why I scoffed about a grenade; it's the only way you're getting an airburst munition down to little enough damage. Though that would have been TOO small and wouldn't have resulted in the roof damage. The damage doesn't match that kind of explosive. There's blast damage, but it it looks to have been from a fairly low-detonation-pressure blast. And there's shrapnel, but not enough for an anti-personnel weapon large enough to have that kind of blast. There's heat damage; tires on cars not right at the epicenter are flat, probably from melting. Also the videos show a bright fireball. It looks to me like a fairly small, slow, explosion not far off the ground (perhaps at 2nd story level, directly over the most damaged cars) which spread some sort of burning substance. I don't know if Israel has weapons which match that pattern, but it doesn't seem unreasonable for a malfunctioning rocket.
We'll see.
The actual orgs doing the investigation have tentatively ruled out the misfired rocket idea 'cause of the direction and angle it came in from, but it's vague now.
Re. specifics: HE needs a pretty big volume to smash windows at a distance, specially in an open area. The shockwave just isn't that powerful when it detonates in the air. Fragments from a purpose built device are direcitonal, they all go down the bottom arc. It's probably not that though because we'd see photos of swisscheese side panels on cars and such
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link