Pictured: Smol Bean DEFENSIVE weapons

  • purpleworm [none/use name]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    1 day ago

    Maybe if Israel didn’t feel immortal, they’d actually negotiate.

    Incidentally, this is not an important issue, but if you hold the lives of Israeli citizens as being that much more important than those of Palestinians, it still makes sense to undermine the Iron Dome. The dome is the reason Hamas has long resorted to the tactic of launching scattershot missiles all over the place, because it’s something of a counter to what the dome is good at, and this is a major source of the (relatively sparse) civilian casualties on the Israeli side. Without the dome, or with it in a very reduced state, Hamas would be in a better position to use missiles in a much more targeted way.

    • Assian_Candor [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      1 day ago

      I think her tweet is bullshit, but like, if it isn’t and you give them $500m for iron dome that’s $500m they don’t have to spend on iron dome and can spend elsewhere 🤔

      • purpleworm [none/use name]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        1 day ago

        Yes, that’s a much more important point, I just wanted to add what I mentioned to advance the point that there is no level at all on which her argument makes sense unless you are prioritizing the lives of IOF soldiers over Palestinian children.

  • TheRogueKitten [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    2 days ago

    Has… Has she actually read history?

    Iron Dome is as destabilizing for the region as any offensive weapon.

    If you dont believe me, look up SDI in 1983.

    The same reasons SDI was a destabilizing forse applies to Iron Dome.

    • quarrk [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      17 hours ago

      In general, there is no meaningful difference between a “defensive” arms race and an “offensive” one. George W Bush’s exit from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty led directly to nuclear proliferation and acute risk of war. When one side has a more effective missile defense system, the other side gets nervous, making things more dangerous for everyone, not less. Russia probably wouldn’t have hypersonic missiles today if it weren’t for the US advancing its missile defenses.