More

Edit also I'm just fucking around. I said in the first comment that a the system energy is boggling.

As more foolery, I don't think we really know the atmospheric stability impact of a 100MT detonation. I armchair believe it isn't just a linear power output issue.

They say tsar at 50. I want that bad boy at the original planned 100.

I'm nastalgic every night

I wish there was a way to know you're in the good old days before you've actually left them

Many thing suck, same time.

Not saying this would be realistic, but it's hard to believe a tsar Bomba sized detonation in the eye of a hurricane wouldn't do something to destabilize the storm.

That said it boggles the mind to consider the system energy of a large storm.

Easy.

Covfefe

I diverged from you, I'll edit to be clear.

I think semantics matter because we hope to compel nation states to act. Phrases like war crimes or terrorism have very different meanings on the global stage, and it's important that "casual" discussion reflect the proper terminology used.

Israel is certainly inspiring quite a bit of "terror" with what they are doing, but they aren't being "terrorists" in the legelese sense. They believe they are conducting security and wartime operations, and much of the global community sees it that way too. What they are increasingly accused of (and obviously guilty of) is massive collateral damage both quantitatively (the number of people hurt) and qualitatively (the way in which they are hurt). If Israel claims to be hunting militants in an ongoing military engagement, then what they are doing is a war crime.

Edit I'd also highlight that "just a warcrime" is not some slap on the wrist accusation.

Totally with you. Edit (until the end, then I have a different conclusion about semantics) They attempted a military strike, on militants. There was a ton of collateral damage, and the method inherently put non combatants at risk. That's war crime, and that's already bad enough. The semantics matter and I personally believe "war crime and wonton disregard for collateral damage" is the most effective description.

The 9/11 hijackers did something different, they explicitly tried to hunt civilians.

To be clear, I'm not condoning or defending Israel's actions one bit.

The system is incredibly expensive and purpose built.

There's no smoke and mirrors, the US is providing much, much cheaper offensive weapons. There's be no need to wire up a defensive system for that.

As context, many defensive missiles are pretty low payload, and often (but not always) use a shotgun style blast to hit the intended target. That's not well suited to ground to ground work, especially when trying to target hardened structures like concrete buildings.

It's just not the right tool.

There's tons of content to consume here. Just browse all.

Woah I never speak of lemmy