iranian missiles don't have enough precision to execute retaliatory attacks. also, it will be much better use of missiles to take out some military infrastructure (which they can't do, because missiles don't have precision in order to hit something)
as proof of this, in last 2 days iran shooting missiles with cluster warheads that have 8km dispersion radius into downtowns in order just to hit somebody and do some damage
Article 58 of Additional Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, adopted on 30 November 1993, is fully cognizant that perfect precision is not possible, which is why military objectives - note, not "military infrastructure", because taking out an oil refinery can be a military objective even it's not a military infrastructure - should not be placed in or near densely populated areas:
> The Parties to the conflict shall, to the maximum extent feasible:
> a) without prejudice to Article 49 of the Fourth Convention, endeavour to remove the civilian population, individual civilians and civilian objects under their control from the vicinity of military objectives;
> b) avoid locating military objectives within or near densely populated areas;
> c) take the other necessary precautions to protect the civilian population, individual civilians and civilian objects under their control against the dangers resulting from military operations
Now, Article 49 is not well followed, but that's a different topic. My question again is, where are the treaty obligations for how accurate one must be to execute a retaliatory attack?
Is the use of large, high-explosive bombs in an urban environment which cause extensive collateral damage ispo facto a treaty violation or even possibly a war crime?
(NB: the authors of these conventions were well aware of the mass bombings of the Second World War, which dropped large unguided bombs that caused mass collateral damage, justified in part by noting the war effort necessarily involved most of the civilian population.)
I know very little of the recent exchanges. It sounds like you are saying that most of the Iranian response is acceptable under current conventions but one type is not?
What treaty or other convention says that a 2.5 km radius is okay but an 8 km one is not?
You characterized their use as "just to hit somebody and do some damage" but standard doctrine for decades is to use multiple warheads to make interception by anti-ballistic missiles more difficult.
That's why SDI - the US "Star Wars" defense system against a Soviet missile attack - was doomed from the start. It's a lot cheaper to use multiple warheads to get through a defense than it is for the defenders to target and destroy each warhead.
The Israeli missile defense system is famous, so using a cluster-like MRV system from a ballistic missile is the obvious way strategy.
So to me it seems not "just to hit somebody and do some damage", but also to make the war expensive to Israel, and likely also to exhaust Israeli defenses so future attacks can be more successful.
Do you know which missile/warhead systems are these? Are they MRVs or MIRVs? If they have independent targeting ability, then an 8km dispersion refers to the overall possible target area for all warheads, even if each warhead has a much smaller error.
Otherwise the US ICBM fleet with MIRVs would be a cluster munition.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_independently_targeta... even mentions 'multiple re-entry vehicle (MRV) system for a ballistic missile deploys multiple warheads above a single aimpoint which then drift apart, producing a cluster bomb-like effect.'
Note the "like". That is not the same as saying MRVs are cluster bombs.
The Convention on Cluster Munitions says: “Cluster munition” means a conventional munition that is designed to disperse or release explosive submunitions each weighing less than 20 kilograms, and
includes those explosive submunitions -- https://www.clusterconvention.org/files/convention_text/Conv...
From what I've heard, the MRV warheads carry more than 20kg of explosives, making them not a cluster bomb.
In any case, neither Israel, the US, nor Iran are signatories to the Convention on Cluster Munitions.
What I said was, point to the relevant treaty or conventions which are being violated.
No, what I said was it cannot be read as "just to hit somebody and do some damage".
Your best response should be to describe why there are no military objectives by bombing a city - no military targets, no command-and-control centers, no anti-missile bases, no espionage headquarters, etc. (There's a reason Article 58 is so hard to follow.)
Do you really want to argue that this is "terrorism"? Definitions of terrorism regularly exclude armed conflict between nations, as you can read at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_terrorism . What definition are you using?
So:
1) Which treaty or convention defines what 'enough precision' means?
2) What makes these cluster munitions? Are all MIRV systems (including conventionally-armed ones) cluster munitions?
3) Which treaty or convention prohibits the use of these weapons?
4) Which tribunal will determine if Iran or Israel violated these conventions?
As far as I can tell, none, no, none, and none.
The ICC and other post-war agreements were meant to prevent the atrocities regularly carried out during wars. Reject those agreements, fail to uphold them internally, well, don't be surprised about the outcome when a non-curb-stomp war breaks out.
I did write that I know very little of the recent exchanges. Pointing this out earlier would have been more timely.
As the links points out (and as I wrote earlier) "Neither Iran nor Israel is a signatory to the 2008 Convention on Cluster Munitions, an international treaty prohibiting the production, stockpiling, transfer, and use of cluster bombs. The agreement has been signed by 111 countries and 12 other entities."
So, what should my feelings be when two belligerents have decided it's acceptable to sometimes use cluster bombs during war, and one uses them against the other?
It's really hard for me to feel a sense of outrage for one use of cluster bombs, given the recent history of Gaza, the 2024 Lebanon electronic device attacks, etc.
Furthermore, as a US citizen, I am also well aware that the US sent cluster munitions to Ukraine. Both Russia and Ukraine use them in their war. None of those countries are treaty signatories.
Should the US be outraged about Iran's cluster munitions use when it's okay for Ukraine?
Should we get the UN to step in between Israel and Iran? Between Russia and Ukraine? Between Israel and Gaza? What treaties apply?
You still haven't answered my question of how you determined which accuracy is needed for a retaliatory response.
it's geneva convention. not convention on cluster munition
According to Article 51(5)(b), an attack is disproportionate, and thus indiscriminate, if it “may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.”11 Certain kinds of cluster munition attacks tend to tip the scale toward being disproportionate. Strikes in or near populated areas are particularly problematic because when combatants and civilians commingle, civilian casualties are difficult to avoid. Based on research in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Yugoslavia, Human Rights Watch believes that when non-precision guided submunitions are used in any type of populated area, there should be a strong, if rebuttable, presumption under the proportionality test that an attack is indiscriminate. In other words, a cluster munition strike on a populated area should be considered indiscriminate under the law, unless the military, which should bear the burden of proof, could show the military advantage of a particular strike outweighed the civilian harm.
Cluster munition strikes also have the potential to be indiscriminate because the weapons cannot be precisely targeted. Article 51(4)(b) prohibits attacks “which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective.”12
israel doesn't use cluster bombs that indiscriminately spreads. it uses single munition that hits specific target.
i'll give you example. at first week israel dumped 6000 bombs. at same time were reported per day ~400 casualties (hamas doesn't separate fighters from civilians). it gives is 2800 casualties in a week.
with simple math it gives is, something like 0.46 casualty per bomb (which can go up to 2000lbs and bring entire building down).
does 0.46 casualty per bomb in supposedly "most densely populated area in world" looks to you as non-discriminate bombing of civilian population ?
The authors are Amichai Cohen and Yuval Shany, two Israeli scholars. How much effort do you expect me to do to understand their biases?
"Hezbollah operative" is carrying a lot of weight in that paper. Are all Hezbollah operatives members of the military arm of Hezbollah?
No. Your link mentions they were also provided to "medical staff, who may or may not have had connections to military activities) and other allies (such as the Iranian Ambassador)." Is your claim really that medical staff and the Iranian Ambassador were specific targets in the pager bombing?
That essay lists several assumptions which must be true for its conclusion to hold. Are they all true?
Who is going to adjudicate the evidence and determine if those assumptions hold? If only there were an international agreement that would force the principal actors to provide evidence. /s
If Iran says "oops, we launched a cluster bomb by mistake", would you believe them? If they provide $6,000 in compensation per death, would that resolve the issue?
If Israel doesn't believe that cluster bombs should be used in war, why didn't they sign the anti-cluster bomb treaty when so many other countries have? Why was it okay for them to use some four million cluster bomb submunitions on south Lebanon in 2006, plus earlier uses in 1978 and 1982 (source: https://www.mineactionreview.org/assets/downloads/Lebanon_Cl...) but not okay for Iran to use them now?
(Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Lebanon_War, "They criticized Hezbollah's use of unguided Katyusha rockets, and Israel's use of unreliable cluster bombs – both too close to civilians areas – suggesting that they may have deliberately targeted civilians ... According to Egeland, 90% of [the cluster] bombs were launched by Israel in the last 3 days of combat, when it was known that a UN resolution was on its way.")
If Israel's stance is that conflicts must avoid disproportionate civilian causalities, explain their policy for destroying all the hospitals, buildings, and tents in Gaza. Is the bombing of Gaza non-discriminate? I'm sure you can find whitepapers justifying that decision. That emperor wears no clothes.
As I pointed out, those same Geneva Conventions say to not place military objectives in densely populated areas. Iran claim their attacks target the Ben Gurion airport, biological research facilities, command and control centers, and other military objectives.
How do you tell if Iran is lying and deliberately attacking a civilian target with no military objective, or is telling the truth and the missiles are simply not accurate enough?
I believe your point is that Iran should not retaliate until their missiles are accurate enough to pinpoint military objectives. I believe restrictions on technology exports to Iran prevents them from developing missiles which have that level of accuracy. Putting those two together means Iran should never retaliate, correct?
It sure seems to me like if you have no choice but to place military targets in or very near to densely populated areas, then perhaps you should work really hard at keeping peace with your neighbors, rather than pissing them off for decades because you have powerful friends to protect you.
What are we opposed to? The wanton destruction of civilian infrastructure (which the IDF put into doctrine[0]) or the manufacturing of cluster munitions (which Israel also does[1]).
Neither Iran nor Israel are signed onto the CCM. You're basically just complaining that Israel can't bomb colleges and hospitals without putting their own infrastructure in the line of fire.
Next you're going to tell me there is no such thing as a Hannibal Directive. Sure is convenient that all these ugly doctrinal conventions are actually invented by the media despite them being first reported[0] by IDF members. Definitely not systemic denial[1] from a famously brutal armed force and historically dishonest government, nosiree.
