to think that putting explosives in devices such as pagers and walkie talkies can lead to indiscriminate injuries and killings

[cakeorwine]

Let's get the first thing out of the way - it's not right to fire missiles and rockets at people - as that can cause indiscriminate injuries as well.

Putting explosives in devices such as pagers and walkie talkies - it sounds clever. Just send a signal and an explosion goes off potentially injuring and killing your opponent who has it. It will also disrupt communication methods.

But once you put the explosive in it, you lose control of where it goes and when it gets blown up. It could be a child has it. It could be on a plane - and might not be picked up by security.

You don't know where it ends up. Which means that it has the potential for unintended consequences.

What about any that didn't go off? Are there objects that have been booby trapped and are just potentially waiting to explode - and who knows where they are? The thing about booby traps is that you just don't know who will set them off.

Booby traps seem to be against the International Humanitarian Law if they can injure civillians.

Customary IHL - Rule 80. Booby-Traps (icrc.org)

That's the point. The show of power and the aim of instilling fear.

No one in this situation cares about harming civilians.

Right now, normal rules don't apply out there. In fact, this has been the case for some time.

It's called terrorism, and it's the whole point... of course they're going to kill indiscriminately and given that the Israelis have now massacred around 40k Palestinians I don't think they give a damn.

I do wonder what they're playing at though, just wanting to start a war with neighbours now and crack on? Or trying to show the world how clever they are?
TBH most of the international community are more concerned about their nuclear arsenal than this party trick of theirs with tiny amounts of explosive

Most bombs can do that though, right? The problem is the use of bombs, rockets etc. or war in general rather than the specific type.

I think this is in poor taste, why would you start an AIBU poll on such awful killings and maimings?

Do you think anyone is going to disagree with your question?

Well yes, but neither side cares about the innocents being hurt or killed so I’m not sure what your point is.

Well, it's headline news isn't it and could provoke all out war in the ME and possible the entire world, so I'd say relevant and worth mentioning.
Regional wars, and world wars, have been triggered by much less

True - bombs tend to be more targetted but can still cause indiscriminate death.

A perfectly ordinary everyday object - that anyone could pick up - has been booby trapped.

It's a clever idea - but it just seems wrong

Exactly. It's brutal warfare and this method of attack is more targeted than others

I mean it's all sounds wrong

This was targeted at terrorists who have been launching rockets constantly into Israel since 7/10 killing 12 Druze children. (That no one seemed to care about)
Surely targeted attacks like these are preferable to more crude approaches that would lead to more civilian deaths?

Or is the issue with Israel defending itself at all?

You think Israel gives a shit? This is a country that drops bombs on apartment buildings and hospitals - blowing up pagers and walkie talkies belonging to terrorists is pretty restrained by comparison.

'Do you think anyone is going to disagree with your question?'

Have a look at the poll 33% seem to think it's A-OK... presumably because it's not our children being maimed and murdered

Weapons should be designed to just 'biff' people, softly like in Gladiators or It's A Knockout or something. If Hitler, Pol Pot or Putin had been on a slippy-slidy rolling pole above an artificial lake, with an over-sized cotton bud as a weapon, then tumbled into the water, no harm done, pulling themselves out with a little embarrassed shrug of the shoulders, the world would be a much nicer place.

The issue is that it might not be targeted - who knows who could be playing with the device or where it is when it explodes.

Unintended consequences.

It's better than firing missiles indiscriminately surely? Civilians don't have the pagers and walkie talkies - the terrorists do.

Who knows where they could end up once they've had the explosives put in?

It's significantly more likely to affect the intended target than lobbing a missile in their believed general direction, so I can see how its effectiveness and higher level of precision could lead to it being employed.

Brutally, if 'you' could take out fifteen people in a three mile radius plus another 15 collateral, that's a huge reduction in casualties compared to levelling a three mile area to include a hospital, three schools and all the services. And then there's the taking out of the whole communications network, plus adding fear/distrust of any method.

War's a messy thing. I'm not convinced that this method is actually worse.

The terroists have the devices not the victims. Its all completley fucked but weapons of mass
Destruction are 'worse' if you can compare weaponry.

Thats obviously a reflection of their level of intelligence, how can anyone say that these types of devices have no potential to injure others than the intended targets?

More targeted than in the pocket of the actual person that you want to attack?

'But the majority of ‘victims’ are terrorists who rape and murder and push gays off of buildings. Why are you so concerned with them?'

How many of the dead Gazan's fit that description do you think? There are quite a few IDF soldiers who do fit at least 2 of those...

You think Hezbollah pagers and walkie talkies are just about for normal people to pick up and play with?

If small invisible implants had been secretly placed inside the brains of terrorists, then detonated killing them instantly with no collateral damage, people would still have issues.

Tell me they wouldn't?