We are Doomed! DOOOOOMMED I say!

CKay · Post by **CKay** » Sat Feb 25, 2012 12:57 pm

hanelyp wrote:If open war breaks out between Iran and Israel, I would not be the least surprised if Egypt joins in.

What's in it for Egypt? They're no great friend of Iran - if anything they're both competing for regional super power status.

An attack from either country that threatened Israel's existence would go nuclear - see The Samson Option.

ladajo · Post by **ladajo** » Sat Feb 25, 2012 1:48 pm

I don't know. There is currently no army that can go toe-to-toe with the Israeli forces in the region. Turkey may be the best bet, but they are not going to go to war with Israel no matter the silly rhetoric you may see in the news.

The onyl way the Israeli's would go nulcear is if they are losing sovreign territory (not likely), or if someone pulls off a large WMD attack, and even then it would require significant casualties.

They are not nuclear trigger happy. The Israelis understand well the true value of having nuclear weapons. Two key points: 1) The other guy is never actually exactly sure what will trigger your use of them, and 2) There is no feasible known way to prevent the strike.

What is funny, is that if you are actually in the nuclear business, you know that there are some constraints and restraints to both statements, that a non-nuclear guy doesn't get.

CKay · Post by **CKay** » Sat Feb 25, 2012 3:22 pm

ladajo wrote:The onyl way the Israeli's would go nulcear is if they are losing sovreign territory

Which is why I was careful to say:

"An attack from either country that threatened Israel's existence would go nuclear"

What is funny, is that if you are actually in the nuclear business, you know that there are some constraints and restraints to both statements, that a non-nuclear guy doesn't get.

Go one, what are you trying to say there?

ladajo · Post by **ladajo** » Sat Feb 25, 2012 5:06 pm

When you have nuclear weapons in your mitt, they exist in a much different manner for you, than how the other guy who doesn't have them sees them.

Part of his perception is founded in the ignorance of not knowing actually what you can and can't do with them, but thinking that he does know these things.

Nuclear weapons are not what most folks tend to think of them. The exist in a somewhat mythical realm of perception. Once you have them, and have tested and studied them first hand, this mythical realm is dispersed by reality, and also an understanding where the divide is. That in itself can be used to great advantage in some cases when dealing with folks who view them as the mythical realm objects.

Have you not considered that a great measure of secrecy around nuclear weapons and effects is to keep folks guessing at what they can really do? Sometimes you want them to underestimate, sometimes overestimate, but in any event, the mystery can be used to advantage if carefully managed.

CKay · Post by **CKay** » Sat Feb 25, 2012 5:44 pm

I'm still non the wiser.

You said:

> 1) The other guy is never actually exactly sure what will trigger your use of them, and 2) There is no feasible known way to prevent the strike.

Fair enough. But then you say:

>What is funny, is that if you are actually in the nuclear business, you know that there are some constraints and restraints to both statements, that a non-nuclear guy doesn't get.

What do yo mean by "constraints and restraints to both statements"? Do you mean the statements aren't true? If so, why not just say that, rather than using this somewhat tautological phrase "constraints and restraints"? In this context, how is a constraint different to a restraint?

Take the first stament:

> The other guy is never actually exactly sure what will trigger your use of them

What precisely are the constraints/restraints with regard to that statement? If you mean that the statement is not true, explain why and also why a 'non-nuclear guy' would not get it?

-

CKay · Post by **CKay** » Sat Feb 25, 2012 5:50 pm

Nuclear weapons are not what most folks tend to think of them. The exist in a somewhat mythical realm of perception. Once you have them, and have tested and studied them first hand, this mythical realm is dispersed by reality, and also an understanding where the divide is. That in itself can be used to great advantage in some cases when dealing with folks who view them as the mythical realm objects.

What?

In this context, who are the folks who view nuclear weapons as "mythical realm objects"?

ladajo · Post by **ladajo** » Sat Feb 25, 2012 7:28 pm

What do yo mean by "constraints and restraints to both statements"? Do you mean the statements aren't true? If so, why not just say that, rather than using this somewhat tautological phrase "constraints and restraints"? In this context, how is a constraint different to a restraint?

Well, in my world there is a clear difference between a restraint and a constraint. It is not surprising you do not know the difference. Even other folks in my world sometimes do not get the difference, especially the young ones. You are not in my world (no offense), so I understand you don't get it.
Constraint: What you must do.
Restraint: What you can't do.

Try here: www.dtic.mil/doctrine/new_pubs/jp1_02.pdf

I think you may be over complicating the whole thing.
Folks who DO NOT have nuclear weapons, tend not to have a reality based perception of what they can and cannot do. Folks who do have them, do.

In regard to the two values:
1) Trigger for use.
Those who have understand where their own triggers are. They also understand that triggers are circumstantial as well. In this, they base these triggers on what the weapons actually can and cannot do.
Thos who do not have them, try to guess where there holder's trigger points are. They can never be sure for many reasons, first and foremost, the non-holder's judgement is clouded by not actually knowing what the weapons can and cannot do, and thus do not understand nor know the constraints and restraints associated with. They can only guess, and the guesses tend to be based on the mythological weapon, not the real weapon. This can be used to great advantage.

2) There is no feasible way to prevent the strike.
In the world of warfare, real military groups split up the ability to prevent an attack into essentially three groupings. a.) Prevent the ability to target, b.) prevent use of the launcher (common term is archer), and lastly c.) prevent the weapon (arrow) itself from hitting the target once launched. For those that have nuclear weapons, they are fully aware of what it takes to target, launch, and get the weapon to the terminal point. They are also very aware of its potential effects on target. This knowledge drives the constraints and restraints of use. Those who DO NOT have them, make determinations about strike prevention via the mythical weapon model. This is also a factor in why some folks who DO NOT have them want them. The mythical perception. Those that do have them, are not 'burdened' by the mythical perception, they are 'burdened' by reality. And thus, those that do have them, tend to be very realistic and aware of the associated constraints and restraints of use. Those who DO NOT have them are not. Again, this can be of great advantage to those who have them.

CKay · Post by **CKay** » Sat Feb 25, 2012 8:49 pm

ladajo wrote:I think you may be over complicating the whole thing.

I think that's down to your using ambiguous language...

You are not in my world (no offense), so I understand you don't get it.

The idea when communicating with another person is to get them to understand what you're saying - using words that have a particular technical meaning in one select context when talking to someone who won't have heard them used in that context just doesn't make sense.

Folks who DO NOT have nuclear weapons, tend not to have a reality based perception of what they can and cannot do.

I don't have any nuclear weapons. I have a fair idea of what they can and can not do. And if I didn't, there is a huge amount of information in the public domain through which I could reach a 'reality based perception'.

And anyway, how was any of this a pertinent response to my original statement that:

An attack from either country that threatened Israel's existence would go nuclear - see The Samson Option.

?

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Sat Feb 25, 2012 9:30 pm

CKay wrote: The idea when communicating with another person is to get them to understand what you're saying - using words that have a particular technical meaning in one select context when talking to someone who won't have heard them used in that context just doesn't make sense.

Yes. This is a rhetorical fallacy (as opposed to a logical fallacy) known as "abuse of jargon". Anytime someone uses highly technical or otherwise information laden language when they know their audience is not familiar with that jargon, is obviously failing to communicate properly. Doctors and lawyers are famous for trying to impress with technical language rather than trying to communicate effectively with their clients and patients. So much for the ego that often goes with those career choices.

The distinction between a "constraint" and a "restraint" is however, not a technical one, its just an easily ignored one. I think formally, the former relates to bottlenecks within a system, and the latter with bottlenecks from outside a system. Most people use the terms interchangeably, so no harm, no foul.

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Sat Feb 25, 2012 9:32 pm

Doctors and lawyers are famous for trying to impress with technical language rather than trying to communicate effectively with their clients and patients. So much for the ego that often goes with those career choices.

Throwing arround assumptions again, are we? Maybe that is your personal experience, or maybe doctors in the US are more like that than doctors here, but I generally believe that you are talking out of your behind here.

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Sat Feb 25, 2012 9:40 pm

How then Skippy, would you explain that doctors and lawyers are used as the prime example of rhetorical fallacy in college texts in critical thinking?

I didn't make this stuff up. It comes up in medical ethics as well, when discussing how doctors tread a thin line at times between respecting a patient's wishes and providing paternalistic action.

That aside, I'm very good friends with my doctor, and my twin brother is a lawyer. I don't hate people for their career choices. I'm just stating the facts. Doctors and lawyers are commonly found guilty of abuse of jargon. This is a FACT.

CKay · Post by **CKay** » Sat Feb 25, 2012 9:47 pm

GIThruster wrote:Doctors and lawyers are famous for trying to impress with technical language rather than trying to communicate effectively with their clients and patients.

One, likely apocryphal, case I heard involved a man who went to his doctor complaining of a pain between the ribs. The doctor examined him and announced, 'You're suffering from Intercostal Neuralgia'. The man, who happened to be a Latin teacher, replied "Yes, that's what I just said!".

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Sat Feb 25, 2012 10:02 pm

How then Skippy, would you explain that doctors and lawyers are used as the prime example of rhetorical fallacy in college texts in critical thinking?

Well, I wouldnt necessary argue about the lawyers part

But having not just one but several close relatives that are MDs, who are definitely not like that, I do take a bit of offense there.

ladajo · Post by **ladajo** » Sun Feb 26, 2012 2:54 am

I don't have any nuclear weapons. I have a fair idea of what they can and can not do. And if I didn't, there is a huge amount of information in the public domain through which I could reach a 'reality based perception'.

Nope, you do not have a fair idea what they can and cannot do. Your idea is based purely on what is in the public domain. What is in the public domain is controlled. They do not put accurate information in the public domain, if they did, there would be no point to it all being classified. If you think they do, then I would guess that you think Jane's is accurate. You would be wrong. Just as wrong as you are in thinking you "have a fair idea" about nuclear weapons. The idea you have is not fair, because it is based on information that is controlled and managed by others in secret, and you have actually no idea what is accurate or not. You merely think you do, and this is based on information that you can not validate.

How all this relates to your original post, is that my point is there is no way that you would ever know when Israel, or for that matter, any nuclear armed state is going to use nuclear weapons, or how. And, if they did, in the post event analysis, you would still not be clear what the actual trigger was, and, it would also not be clear to you which weapon(s) were used or how they were used. You would only know what you were told. I guarantee you that they would not tell you everything and, what they did say, would be very controlled.

For example, folks still argue and debate why the US used the two weapons in Japan, and also what those weapons actually accomplished (or not). However, that is the public debate. Inside the nuclear circle of the US government and nuclear military, folks do know what the trigger for use was, why we hit the targets we did, as well as, why we used two (not just one, not more), and, amazingly, they also have a really good idea what the weapons did and did not do. The documentation for a good bit of that stuff remains classified, even after 60+ years. What has been released, does not tell the whole story.

You are (again no offense intended) very niave if you think you understand contemporary US Nuclear Strategy, the arsenal at hand or the histories and policies that they are based on. You certainly do not know what the arsenal can and can not do, and you also certainly do not know what the triggers for use are. You may think you have a "fair idea", but I assure you, you do not. "Fair idea". Hah! Not even. You continue to miss the central point in why states bother to have nuclear weapons. The other guy is not suppossed to understand what will trigger your use, and what you can actually do with what you have. That is what makes them so powerful, the mystery and mythos. If that did not exist, they would not be nearly as useful. Don't you get it?

CKay · Post by **CKay** » Sun Feb 26, 2012 12:51 pm

ladajo wrote:They do not put accurate information in the public domain, if they did, there would be no point to it all being classified.

For all sorts of reasons, plenty of officially classified info is also public domain - the one does not cancel the other.

How all this relates to your original post, is that my point is there is no way that you would ever know when Israel, or for that matter, any nuclear armed state is going to use nuclear weapons, or how.

That is the same for *any* weapon. And even if you possess that weapon yourself you can not be certain what your enemy's "triggers" will be for using theirs.

For example, folks still argue and debate why the US used the two weapons in Japan, and also what those weapons actually accomplished (or not). However, that is the public debate. Inside the nuclear circle of the US government and nuclear military, folks do know what the trigger for use was, why we hit the targets we did, as well as, why we used two (not just one, not more), and, amazingly, they also have a really good idea what the weapons did and did not do.

Yes, there is still a great deal of debate about the strategic decisions made by all sides during WWII. But this mechanistic process of constraints, restraints and triggers that you suggest is not the whole story - in 1945 the decision to use atomic weapons had an obviously political dimension. The final decision was that of the chief executive, not the Generals'.

The documentation for a good bit of that stuff remains classified, even after 60+ years. What has been released, does not tell the whole story.

There is a huge amount of published data about the effects of the bombs, much of it from the Japanese themselves. And even were all of your classified information released it would still not tell "the whole story", it would just tell a different story.

You are (again no offense intended) very niave if you think you understand contemporary US Nuclear Strategy, the arsenal at hand or the histories and policies that they are based on.

So where did I claim to "understand contemporary US Nuclear Strategy"... strawman.

You certainly do not know what the arsenal can and can not do, and you also certainly do not know what the triggers for use are.

So let's go back and look at the post of mine that you were responding to. In answer to a previous post, in which it was suggested that Egypt might join Iran in a war against Israel, I said:

"An attack from either country [Iran or Egypt] that threatened Israel's existence would go nuclear - see The Samson Option."

Note the phrase "that threatened Israel's existence". I think it a more than reasonable deduction that an attack that threatened Israel's existence (ie the highly unlikely circumstance that Israel was on the verge of being overrun by its enemies) would trigger Israel's use of its nuclear weapons. Do you disagree?

You may think you have a "fair idea", but I assure you, you do not. "Fair idea". Hah!

I assure you that that rather depends upon what I meant by a "fair idea" (= reasonable idea, a good approximation, not perfect access to the absolute truth) "Hah!" indeed.

BTW, I guess Israel, not having conducted battlefied testing (with the possible exception of a high altitude test over the Indian Ocean in 1979) has about as much knowledge as I do of the effects of nuclear weapons in use - so for the Israelis they are as much "mythical realm objects" as they are for Iran?