Gaza has 2 million inhabitants, 42.3% of which are 14 and younger. Anyone else a little bit worried?

  • the_kid [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    61
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Israel had unlimited backing by the US when they got thoroughly embarrassed by Hezbollah in '06 too. it seems like Hezbollah’s willing to get involved in the case of a ground invasion, I don’t think it’d turn out well for Israel.

    • zed_proclaimer [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      49
      ·
      1 year ago

      Israel has said they will level Damascus and kill Assad if Hezbollah invaded them, which seems odd but they are willing to drag a 3rd party into the war. If Syria and Lebanon are going in, Iran and Iraq likely will too at some level

          • zephyreks [none/use name]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            24
            ·
            1 year ago

            The rise of cheap guided munition warfare is going to completely decimate the supposed technological advantage that Israel has over its neighbours.

            Fighters are vulnerable to MANPADS, tanks are vulnerable to drones, and the end result of all of this is that whoever has the industrial capacity for more guided munitions wins. Air superiority is useless if you can’t get within infrared range (50-80km) for CAS. You can’t do SEAD if the missile that can pop you out of the sky can be carried on someone’s shoulder. Armoured assaults are similarly useless if the guided munitions are both cheaper, have longer range, and are easier to pilot than your armour. Even piloted drones have substantially greater mobility than even the best armoured vehicles (because, y’know, you can operate them out of any moving thing) and the asymmetric cost of a defense system (the PATRIOT is estimated at 4 million per intercept) makes conventional Western doctrine unsustainable.

            The entire principle of modern warfare seems to be centered around asymmetric response: instead of overwhelming the enemy with big arrow combined arms offensives, you want to whittle down your enemy with constant precision strikes that expend more of their resources than your own. As opposed to the dynamic supply lines necessitated by big offensives in prior conflicts, the core element today is efficient logistics assuming static frontlines. It’s far more similar to WW1-era doctrine than WW2-era doctrine.

            That’s what I’ve gathered from both sides in the Ukraine conflict… but it’ll be interesting to see if the same applies to a potential Arab War.

        • Comp4 [she/her]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          20
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Would be one of the few ways I could see Israel lose hard…mind you I feel the USA might step in to stop that from happening but it would become an absolute clusterfuck

      • zephyreks [none/use name]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        25
        ·
        1 year ago

        I cannot think of a single thing better for Syrian unity than fighting a war with Israel that was instigated by Israel. It’s exactly what Assad needs to consolidate power, because he’s currently in the rather inconvenient position of having to rebuild from a civil war he was involved in. If Israel attacks, Assad has a scapegoat for all the societal and economic problems in Syria and allows for more cautious powers (e.g. China) to be more flexible in the aid and investment they provide.