Chief Sitting Bull and Hamas, or The Limits of Self Defense

[chris_gerrib]

On June 25, 1876, Lieutenant Colonel George Armstrong Custer, leading 700 men, attacked an Indian encampment led by Chief Sitting Bull on the banks of the Little Bighorn River in modern-day Montana. By the next morning, Custer and 267 of his men would be dead. It was the single worst defeat suffered by the US Army in the entire Plains Indian wars, which ran from 1860 to 1890.

President US Grant reportedly did not react well to the defeat. However, 12 years prior, at Cold Harbor, then General Grant had suffered 7,000 casualties, 10 times Custer’s entire command, in less than an hour of fighting in a single day.

In short, although Sitting Bull had scored a serious victory, there was no concern that Sitting Bull could in any way overthrow the United States government. Everybody on both sides was quite aware of that fact, and based their actions accordingly.

I mention this because I have been following the debate over the Israeli blockade of Gaza. Now, I don’t want to get bogged down in the legalities of blockade and boarding. I want to focus on a bigger picture – the idea that Israel is “fighting for its life” and has therefor unlimited rights of self-defense. Related to this is the idea that Hamas has vowed to never tolerate Israel.

First, no nation, Israel included, should have to tolerate rocket attacks over its borders. So Israel does in fact have a right to self defense. It is certainly justified, when dealing with a life-or-death situation, to do whatever is needed to survive. For most of Israel’s history, it was in a life-or-death struggle.

But Israel is not, in fact, “fighting for its life.” Hamas or Hezbollah or both can no more destroy Israel then Sitting Bull could destroy Washington. It doesn’t matter what Hamas wants or says – they can’t get even close to accomplishing it. Nor can they get this capability. Iran, their chief sponsor, doesn’t have the capability, either with conventional means or its not-yet-existent nuclear weapons. Even if Iran had the capability, they neither can nor would it give that capability to Hamas. Israel is too valuable to Iran’s domestic policy as a threat in being, the logistics for conventional weapons are too daunting, (try smuggling in a hundred tanks!) plus there’s that little issue of thermonuclear retaliation.

Arguing, therefore, that anything Israel does is justified by self-defense is like arguing that anything done to the American Indians was completely justified. Putting the conflict in that context makes the argument clear. Don't get me wrong - the farther away one is from the fighting the easier it is to put it in perspective, so this is not intended as a moral judgment on Israel or Israelis. But, putting things in context is what a friend does - be that friend a nation or a person.

Putting Hamas in the context of the Indian Wars provides a much more useful framework to dealing with the problem. Although the modern term “counterinsurgency” hadn’t been invented then, use of counterinsurgency tactics were what eventually prevailed. These tactics include things like economic development, using “natives” for security forces, having at least marginal cultural awareness, and yes, proportional response to provocations.

Comments

[banner.livejournal.com]

You make my point, thank you. You know how it's done, you know what has to be done. The doing is the easy part.

[daveon.livejournal.com]

The doing is the easy part.

Oh? Excellent. You see I've this idea for solving the energy crisis by fusing the nuclei of certain elements together to generate vast amounts of power with less heavy radioactive waste than Fission.

All you need to do is bring certain hydrogen and helium atoms close enough together and they'll fuse.

Would you mind building me a working reactor that makes electricity out of that?

In other words. No. Doing is not easy unless you've precious little experience of doing.

[ford-prefect42.livejournal.com]

Does it need to be pointed out that with 1939 technology, we did it?

Does it further need to be pointed out that your fusion example is an example of something *no one knows how to do*? Doing *is* relatively easy once you know what to do *and how to do it*. Particularly when the vast majority of the doing is already done. The difficult portions of making nuclear bombs are in the uranium obtaining and enrichment stages. Machining the uranium is simple when compared to large scale gas centrifugation of uranium hexafluoride and the recovery of the pure metallic uranium from same. Are you seriously holding up the difficulty of making the enriched refined product into a hollow cylinder and a plug as a major hurdle?

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

Are you seriously holding up the difficulty of making the enriched refined product into a hollow cylinder and a plug as a major hurdle?

Well, it does have to be made into a very precisely machined "hollow cylinder and a plug," so it's not something you could do in your garage with a homemade waldo. But for a nation-state, especially given the vast advances in machining technology (programmable lathes and the like) in the six and a half decades since 1945, it's hardly an insurmountable obstacle.

And sure, the gun-type device is a very inefficient sort of atomic bomb. That won't be much of a consolation for those caught in its radius of total destruction, any more than it was a consolation for the people in Little Boy's range of total destruction at Hiroshima on August 6th, 1945. Little Boy was a gun-type device.

[ford-prefect42.livejournal.com]

My garage contains one of these.

http://www.machinetools.com/us/listings/view/lansing-lansing-t

Would it be easy? no, but I could do it. I'd get cancer eventually, but in jihadist terms, who cares?

[daveon.livejournal.com]

Have you met my friends Dunning and Kruger.

Seriously. You people amaze me.

[ford-prefect42.livejournal.com]

Was there a point, logic, or anything resembling it in there? Or were you just being a petulant child again?

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

He's saying that you've reached a false conclusion but are unaware of it because you are too incompetent to realize your own cognitive biases. However, his statement is itself idiotic, because he has given no reason for his own conclusion, and consequently exposes himself to the same accusation, and more justly (since you have given ample support for your own conclusions).

[daveon.livejournal.com]

a hollow cylinder and a plug as a major hurdle?

As they say, the case for the prosecution rests your honour.

[ford-prefect42.livejournal.com]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Boy

Point, set, match. Have a nice day.

[ford-prefect42.livejournal.com]

What is *really* amusing me about your flailing in this particular sub-thread is that if you can enrich and reclaim metallic uranium, then you are *already machining it on a regular basis*. It isn't as though it's a separate process, it is part of the process of making even basic things like reactor fuel rods. Or were you thinking that they just stored hundreds of tons of Uranium Hexafluoride gas around the place?

[daveon.livejournal.com]

Not at all.

I just love reading stuff by people on the internet who know how easy things are when they're actually really not.

But, please, do go on. It's fun to read.

[ford-prefect42.livejournal.com]

I am an engineer and a machinist you nit-nit! I repeat, they did this in 1940, it isn't hard by modern standards. What *is* hard is getting the enriched uranium to begin with, after that, any halfway competent machine shop could turn one out in a weekend!

Unless you have something meaningful to contribute to this conversation that is, perhaps some difficulty that I may have failed to consider?... I didn't think so.

[daveon.livejournal.com]

It amazes me the number of people on the interwebs who claim to be engineers while showing a complete lack of grasp of the complexities of actual engineering delivery.

perhaps some difficulty that I may have failed to consider?

Let's put it like this. I'm also an engineer (Honours degree Mechanical), I also know my way around a machine shop (Up to British HNC level) - I've even worked in bits of the nuclear industries back in the day before I realized it was a lot of work for relatively little pay.

Based on the twaddle you're spouting here. I think books could be written about the things you've failed to consider and/or have difficulty with.

[ford-prefect42.livejournal.com]

From
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Project#Cost_of_Manhattan_Project

"Cost of Manhattan Project"

Over 90% of the cost was for building plants and producing the fissionable materials, and less than 10% for development and production of the weapons. "

And that was the first time this was done, there was serious R+D to be done. This compares to today where the basic design can be found on wikipedia, critical mass is a well-documented quantity,

But then, feel free to keep digging, you are looking dumber and dumber the longer you protest this issue.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

Um ... the human race has had the capability to build working atomic bombs since 1945. Are you under the delusion that the Iranians are somehow nonhuman? Yes, this was originally an American-British-Canadian secret -- but that was 65 years ago. The knowledge has long since become general in the appropriate engineering communities, and some individuals from those communities have almost certainly decided to work for the Iranians.

[daveon.livejournal.com]

No, I'm not. Nor am I under the illusion that making working bombs was easy for the people who've done it.

It's certainly not enough to be a physics grad who knows how to build one.

But please, be my guest, let me know how the cancer goes.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

No, I'm not. Nor am I under the illusion that making working bombs was easy for the people who've done it.

Nobody said it was "easy." What makes you think that the Iranians can't do hard things, or hire people who can do hard things? After all, America, Britain, France, Russia, China, Israel, South Africa, India and Pakistan have all done this particular "hard thing" already. And it is obviously easier the more it is done, because engineers and technicians climb the learning curve.

Your argument makes no sense at all in context of the assumption that the Iranians are human beings just like ourselves.

But please, be my guest, let me know how the cancer goes.

You honestly believe that the Iranians would be stymied by the problem of radiation shielding?

Seriously, if that's what you mean, it's one of your stupidest claims of all time. Why not just admit that the Iranians can build atomic bombs if they want to? You're being forced into more and more absurd positions in your attempt to avoid admitting the initial error.

It's certainly not enough to be a physics grad who knows how to build one.

True. But once you know the physics and thus that it can be done, and how, I don't see any obstacle insuperable to the resources of a medium-sized nation-state such as Iran.

[daveon.livejournal.com]

Seriously, this kind of post is an example of the type of Cognative Dissonance that makes you so fascinating.

You're not responding to what was written, instead you're creating a fascinating narrative in your own head that you're responding to that has little do with what the thread is about nor, in fact, what's going on in general.

By the way, the inclusive of South Africa in this list for the reasons you've given is extremely amusing.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

Well, in your original comment you argued that I couldn't, personally, make an atomic bomb. Or possibly that a hypothetical single "physics grad" would find it difficult. And you'd be quite right about both.

But neither I nor a single physics grad is attempting to build an atomic bomb. The nation-state of Iran, with a population of over 65 million people and a GNP of over $770 billion, is attempting to build atomic bombs, and such an entity has access to many "physics grads," engineers, and equipment beyond the resources of garage hobbyists. So your objections are silly.

Sorry, why's it "extremely amusing" that I included South Africa in the list? They did, in fact, gain a nuclear capability.

[banner.livejournal.com]

Okay, I honestly thought you were smarter than this (and less snarky). So I will expand a little because you obviously do not understand.

1) Everyone knows that Atomic Bombs work. It's been proven.
2) Everyone knows the theory behind the bombs is correct.
3) Everyone knows the math and practical physics behind the bombs.
4) Everyone knows the basic designs behind the two basic types of bombs.
5) The difficult part of a bomb are a) determining the proper amount of material (see #3). b) neutron sources (see #3). c) Neutron reflectors (see #2). d) building the implosion bomb (see #2 & #3).

All of these things are known. Plus in any older library you can actually find schematics of the first bomb here in America (I know, I have). While some of this is 'rocket science', everything involved in the building of a bomb has been done before, thousands of times. A good deal of the unknowns can easily be modeled on a computer. The designs are known for the two different types of bombs, and of course hundreds of them have been set off successfully already.

Now, knowing all of this, you are telling me that if Iran has the material, that they can not build a bomb? They have hundreds of physicists with advanced degrees. They have thousands of advanced machinists (they build aircraft there now you know), mathematicians, etc. Milling Uranium or Plutonium is not that hard. Difficult? Yes, but not as hard as actually producing the material in the first place. Iran also has hundreds of millions of dollars to throw at the effort.

Give me a couple hundred million, a couple dozen physicists, a few explosives experts, and two dozen machinists AND the material and I will build you a bomb. And I'll do it in four years or less. Iran is a country with far more resources than this, and you think they can't?

Oh btw, the rest of your post is a strawman, I wasn't talking about things that haven't been done a thousand times already. I was talking about something that is as common as jumbo jets.

[daveon.livejournal.com]

Now, knowing all of this, you are telling me that if Iran has the material, that they can not build a bomb?

I am not telling you that, nor have I said that. That's the strawman people have invented based on what they want me to have said, which, in part, is one of the reasons I'm being as sarcastic as I am.

I'm saying that Iran is not 3 months away from having a bomb, ANY kind of nuclear bomb. Because it's not that easy to do, even if you have the materials at hand - particularly if you want to have something that makes a strategic point, otherwise, as Chris has pointed out elsewhere it's a waste of time.

Nor do I buy the "all Islamists are monsters" lunacy being peddled suggesting that the government of Iran and other places wants to kill millions of their own people through stupidity.

Given a few years, no interruptions and some luck with some outside help and they'll have nuclear weapons. No question.

It's certainly not remotely as simple, as Ford upthread, suggests as building a slug you can fire into a larger pit. Certainly if you want something that will actually explode and not just dump a lot of fizzing uranium all over the place. And you point out a lot of the other hard stuff yourself.

But we're not talking about which bomb they'd build, why, nor the strategic implications of building bombs. We're still on the "it's easy" line which is so facile and ridiculous that until we've put that one to bed there isn't a discussion, there's just my able reservoirs of scorn and sarcasm.

I was talking about something that is as common as jumbo jets.

Funny thing, I'm pretty sure you don't see the irony of this statement in the context either.

[ford-prefect42.livejournal.com]

"Given a few years, no interruptions and some luck with some outside help and they'll have nuclear weapons. No question."

Except that it didn't take the US that long to make the very first one. Oak ridge successfully *began* producing enriched uranium "enough to meet experimental needs" in march of 1945. The gadget bomb was detonated on July 16, 1945. A whole 4 months. Again, you have failed to present a case, and the statements you have made are easily, by documentation I have personally made available to you, verified to be completely inaccurate.

Now, if you have, all along here been making the infantile point that it isn't something that I could do in my garage, then I will concede that point. I would need at least 2 other smart guys and some specialized equipment to get the details right. However, the point that Jordan, Banner, and I have all been trying to hammer into your head is that from nuclear material to bomb is the easy part. When you get the U235, you are *well* over 90% of the way there, In fact, given that Iran will not be needing to do the lions share of the engineering, you're probably 97% of the way there. It's child's play *relatively speaking* to make the actual bomb if you have already gone to all the effort of refining the uranium.

You should really drop the scorn and derision, it does not strengthen your point and significantly reduces the respect you may expect.

[daveon.livejournal.com]

Seriously do you actually think through this stuff before you type it?

Are you honestly making that comparison to demonstate yor point and more importantly do you want to?

What Iran can do now versus the entire US in WW2?

Seriously?

I could care less if you think I'm not making my point. I actually don't have to.

[ford-prefect42.livejournal.com]

Yah. I am making the comparison between: A) what the US was capable of doing in 1945 with the largest war in history draining our resources, and without the benefit of the knowledge gained over 65 years of many nations doing this very thing: and B) to the capabilities of Iran which has already done the vast majority of the work. My comparison is justified by the very fact that they *have* in fact done the aforementioned 90% of the work.

Furthermore, given that comparing the 2 nations (1945 US and present Iran) Iran has over 50% of the population (73 million versus 132 million), Iran has a higher overall GDP than the US did at the time in adjusted dollars (1998 dollars, iran 666 billion compared to 1945 US at 223 billion), Iran has a far far higher level of overall generated power, ambient technology, computerization, education, etcetera. Really, there are very few respects in which 1945 US could be considered more capable than modern Iran. Unless, of course, you have some rational points to make? I didn't think so.

You're right, you don't have to make your points. But then, If you expect to be taken seriously by anyone ever, you really should. Or you could admit that you are wrong about this one.