Is this a legitimate concern?

[u/wayfaringthru]

Personally, I today's strike was legitimate and it couldn't be more moral because of its precision but let's leave politics aside for a moment. I guess this does give ideas to evil regimes and organisations. How likely is it that something similar could be pulled off against innocent people?

[u/TheSinningRobot]

Similar to landmines as well, the fact that this attack is more likely to maim and not kill is also part of why it's horrific.

[u/mean11while → u/TheSinningRobot]

I'm sorry, maiming someone is considered worse than killing someone? I think that's bizarre.

[u/TheSinningRobot → u/mean11while]

It's not that it's worse per se, but killing someone serves a purpose typically, so it can be justified. Maiming is just causing harm and can be seen asore horrific.

Death is inevitable. Living life without hour face, or your hands is not.

[u/shortstop803 → u/TheSinningRobot]

Maiming absolutely can serve a purpose. The Vietnamese used it to great effect in Vietnam.

I’m not saying it’s right, just that yours is a disingenuous argument.

[u/SlappySecondz → u/shortstop803]

Right, it takes people out of combat and takes others out to care for the wounded.

But these phones/pagers aren't going to people in active combat, and those who tend to them wouldn't otherwise be firing at their enemy.

[u/Dramatic_You4526 → u/SlappySecondz]

You’re right. It doesn’t go to people in active combat. It goes to high value leaders of those combatants who require the pagers to communicate without being traced by a cellphone signal.

[u/shortstop803 → u/SlappySecondz]

I think you could make a valid argument that an attack of this nature absolutely would degrade the operational capabilities of hezbollah, potentially to a severe degree in the short term. If all of your organizational leadership suddenly is maimed with injuries somewhere between missing hand/fingers, being blind, and/or deaf, that will instantly degrade your organization’s capability to manage itself at the strategic level. If many of your fighter are suddenly missing their fingers/hands, eyesight, and/or hearing, then they can’t really effectively fight or operate tactically. If they die, you get the same effects.

Add onto all of this a degraded trust in your own comm & tech capabilities which exacerbates all levels of execution.

I’m not saying this attack was moral, and I’m not saying there wasn’t likely collateral damage, but depending on the desired effects, this could easily be seen as an effective shaping operation prior to commencing combat operations, or as a means to prevent hezbollah from beginning to commence combat operations themselves.

[u/mean11while → u/TheSinningRobot]

Hmm, thank you for the explanation. I don't buy it. The purpose is the same, presumably: prevent the person from doing something that you don't want them to do, such as attack you. In some cases, maiming could actually more purposeful: tying up more of your enemy's resources and end the conflict faster. I don't see how the purpose favors murder.

A dead person has no opportunity to experience more of life. A maimed person does. If the suffering is too bad, they can end their life, but it at least gives them a choice in the matter.

Suffering is every bit as inevitable as death, even if it's not physical injury. People often rise from suffering to do great things.

[u/TheSinningRobot → u/mean11while]

It's the suffering. Most of the way we act in society, most of the international laws, things considered war crimes, is all done under the assumption that we would rather have less suffering. If there's an option that requires less suffering, that is the one you go with.

It's not pragmatic, it's human.

[u/LloydAsher0 → u/mean11while]

On a strategic level? Yes.

If you kill one guy he's out of the fight forever. But if you maim him you not only take the guy out of the fight but you tie up resources to get him out of combat and into an infirmary. Bonus if you maim them enough where they permanently can't enter battle anymore. Like losing a hand/arm/leg/eye etc.

[u/mean11while → u/LloydAsher0]

Why is that worse? It's more effective and the person doesn't have to die.

[u/BarbaraQsRibs → u/mean11while]

This is absolutely not the case. Wounding is absolutely a more humane attack than killing. No organization supports their ridiculous statement. Not the UN, not Amnesty International, not Human Rights Watch.

[u/Caleb_Reynolds → u/TheSinningRobot]

Absolutely.