Please read this sentence: I am NOT defending the massive Israeli attack on Gaza, which is undeniable. This is more about critical thinking in the consumption of news sources, versus simply repeating the most outrageous accusations one can find.
> "No rational person could argue that it was reasonable to ... drop three Hiroshima's worth o…
Please read this sentence: I am NOT defending the massive Israeli attack on Gaza, which is undeniable. This is more about critical thinking in the consumption of news sources, versus simply repeating the most outrageous accusations one can find.
> "No rational person could argue that it was reasonable to ... drop three Hiroshima's worth of bombs on the civilian population when extremists commit an undeniably atrocious attack."
That latter assertion is quite a good outrage producer, but as is my wont, I wondered where this figure "3 Hiroshima's" came from, as it seems surprisingly large upon even superficial consideration. The Hiroshima bomb was estimated at 12 to 18 kilotons, so three times that would be 36,000 to 54,000 tonnes of TNT.
The largest (non-nuclear) ordinance used by the IDF is the BLU117, or so called 2000 pound bomb, which actually contains about 1000 pounds of TNT equivalent, so it would take about 70,000 -110,000 of such bombs to equal 3 Hiroshima bombs.
For context, the US has supplied 5400 BLU117, but it's unlikely that all have been used. We do know that hundreds have been tho.
Of course, the vast majority of the artillery, rockets and bombs used in Gaza were much smaller than that monster. So that claim is a bit dubious, likely exaggerated by severalfold, perhaps even an order of magnitude high. But that estimate would be subject to revision with facts from a competent and unbiased source.
So where did the claim come from? Apparently, it came from the Gaza Media Office, an organ of Hamas (ie: part of their propaganda apparatus).
From what I can find in a quick search, it looks like those who wish to fuel the anti-Israel narratives are (1) exaggerating the number of weapons dropped or fired, (2) falsely assuming that all of them are very large indeed, and (3) counting the total starting weight (including casings, rocket motors, guidance, fuel, etc) as being pure TNT. And counting on an audience who *wants* to believe the worst and will not do any checking.
Simply taking Hamas' word for it, and repeating without any verification (or even quick reality-check arithmetic) their 3 Hiroshima framing, which was calculated to foster outrage in a gullible public in the West, is less than optimal for factuality.
Likewise assuming that 100% of that exaggerated 65,000 tonnes of explosive was unguided (better estimates of the percentage is 40-45%), and assuming that it was all dropped on civilians (and none of it on military targets). Good for outrage, bad for truth.
Let's all beware of unreflective echoing of propaganda - and the "motivated reasoning" bias we can ALL experience in uncritically accepting anything which seems to support the point we wish to make. This is a note to myself as well, so nobody should take it too personally, but we should all take it seriously and up our game.
(Let me note that my primary point is about using known unreliable sources like Hamas in our writing. Doing post-writing research which is selectively looking for the highest numbers one can cull from other sources in order to be 'right' - ie: sources which were not considered before writing - does NOT mean the initial credulity goes away. At best it means one was lucky.)
And once again - even if the figures from Hamas (or from peace groups, etc) are grossly exaggerated for propaganda effect, there is zero doubt that Israel has nevertheless engaged in truly massive destruction in Gaza, and that can be justly condemned. So I'm not arguing against the main point, but cautioning about good process - about not believing and amplifying a questionable source just because it supports our point.)
(Aside: Apart from total quantities, just the use of several hundred 2000 pound bombs in a crowded area like Gaza - which has been verified by bomb crater analysis of satellite photos - is in itself very hard to justify, even if it's not tens of thousands of such bombs. I am appalled at many things that Israel has done).
But we can do that condemnation carefully, without being taken in by easily dispelled misinformation from propaganda sources. We must trust that the truth is enough to support our points, with no need for exaggeration.
"Please read this sentence: I am NOT defending the massive Israeli attack on Gaza, which is undeniable. This is more about critical thinking in the consumption of news sources, versus simply repeating the most outrageous accusations one can find."
For the record, I find disclaimers like this, which you use quite frequently, to be unnecessary and condescending. If you write a sentence, you don't then need to instruct people to read it.
If, in their reply, you feel that they've made an unfair assumption about your motives, it's obviously appropriate to point that out. But I think it's sensible to give people the benefit of the doubt that they'll at least read what you've written and aren't going to react like irrational children.
This is just my feeling on it, of course. Others might feel differently. But thought I'd offer the feedback, as stuff like that just makes it exponentially more likely I won't bother replying.
Anyway, that said, I appreciate this comment. We completely agree that accurate, clearly expressed information is important. And while I did check the figures for myself, I didn't go into the same detail you did regarding tonnage vs direct explosive force. So, looks like the correct figure is around one Hiroshima's worth, no? Google is telling me that the explosive yield of a bomb is typically around 30-40% of the weight. 65,000 x 0.3 = 19,500. Little Boy, according to Wikipedia, was 15,000.
I don't have any great problem using information from Hamas or Gaza as long as I do some verification myself. Hamas' figures have proven to be accurate over the many years of this conflict, there's no good reason to believe they aren't here. I think a lot of people constantly trying to cast doubt on the "Hamas figures" are doing so because the reality of what Israel is doing is tough fro them to swallow. And while Hiroshima comparison are undeniably emotive, I think it's also quite difficult for the people to get a sense of what 65,000 tons of bombs means. Is that a lot? It sounds like a lot. But there's no context.
Anyway, I'd repeated the "3 Hiroshimas" in an article, which I've now corrected (I'll just stick with tonnage rather than "Hiroshima units" until I find a better way to convey the scale), so again, really appreciate the correction.
Please read this sentence: I am NOT defending the massive Israeli attack on Gaza, which is undeniable. This is more about critical thinking in the consumption of news sources, versus simply repeating the most outrageous accusations one can find.
> "No rational person could argue that it was reasonable to ... drop three Hiroshima's worth of bombs on the civilian population when extremists commit an undeniably atrocious attack."
That latter assertion is quite a good outrage producer, but as is my wont, I wondered where this figure "3 Hiroshima's" came from, as it seems surprisingly large upon even superficial consideration. The Hiroshima bomb was estimated at 12 to 18 kilotons, so three times that would be 36,000 to 54,000 tonnes of TNT.
The largest (non-nuclear) ordinance used by the IDF is the BLU117, or so called 2000 pound bomb, which actually contains about 1000 pounds of TNT equivalent, so it would take about 70,000 -110,000 of such bombs to equal 3 Hiroshima bombs.
For context, the US has supplied 5400 BLU117, but it's unlikely that all have been used. We do know that hundreds have been tho.
Of course, the vast majority of the artillery, rockets and bombs used in Gaza were much smaller than that monster. So that claim is a bit dubious, likely exaggerated by severalfold, perhaps even an order of magnitude high. But that estimate would be subject to revision with facts from a competent and unbiased source.
So where did the claim come from? Apparently, it came from the Gaza Media Office, an organ of Hamas (ie: part of their propaganda apparatus).
From what I can find in a quick search, it looks like those who wish to fuel the anti-Israel narratives are (1) exaggerating the number of weapons dropped or fired, (2) falsely assuming that all of them are very large indeed, and (3) counting the total starting weight (including casings, rocket motors, guidance, fuel, etc) as being pure TNT. And counting on an audience who *wants* to believe the worst and will not do any checking.
Simply taking Hamas' word for it, and repeating without any verification (or even quick reality-check arithmetic) their 3 Hiroshima framing, which was calculated to foster outrage in a gullible public in the West, is less than optimal for factuality.
Likewise assuming that 100% of that exaggerated 65,000 tonnes of explosive was unguided (better estimates of the percentage is 40-45%), and assuming that it was all dropped on civilians (and none of it on military targets). Good for outrage, bad for truth.
Let's all beware of unreflective echoing of propaganda - and the "motivated reasoning" bias we can ALL experience in uncritically accepting anything which seems to support the point we wish to make. This is a note to myself as well, so nobody should take it too personally, but we should all take it seriously and up our game.
(Let me note that my primary point is about using known unreliable sources like Hamas in our writing. Doing post-writing research which is selectively looking for the highest numbers one can cull from other sources in order to be 'right' - ie: sources which were not considered before writing - does NOT mean the initial credulity goes away. At best it means one was lucky.)
And once again - even if the figures from Hamas (or from peace groups, etc) are grossly exaggerated for propaganda effect, there is zero doubt that Israel has nevertheless engaged in truly massive destruction in Gaza, and that can be justly condemned. So I'm not arguing against the main point, but cautioning about good process - about not believing and amplifying a questionable source just because it supports our point.)
(Aside: Apart from total quantities, just the use of several hundred 2000 pound bombs in a crowded area like Gaza - which has been verified by bomb crater analysis of satellite photos - is in itself very hard to justify, even if it's not tens of thousands of such bombs. I am appalled at many things that Israel has done).
But we can do that condemnation carefully, without being taken in by easily dispelled misinformation from propaganda sources. We must trust that the truth is enough to support our points, with no need for exaggeration.
"Please read this sentence: I am NOT defending the massive Israeli attack on Gaza, which is undeniable. This is more about critical thinking in the consumption of news sources, versus simply repeating the most outrageous accusations one can find."
For the record, I find disclaimers like this, which you use quite frequently, to be unnecessary and condescending. If you write a sentence, you don't then need to instruct people to read it.
If, in their reply, you feel that they've made an unfair assumption about your motives, it's obviously appropriate to point that out. But I think it's sensible to give people the benefit of the doubt that they'll at least read what you've written and aren't going to react like irrational children.
This is just my feeling on it, of course. Others might feel differently. But thought I'd offer the feedback, as stuff like that just makes it exponentially more likely I won't bother replying.
Anyway, that said, I appreciate this comment. We completely agree that accurate, clearly expressed information is important. And while I did check the figures for myself, I didn't go into the same detail you did regarding tonnage vs direct explosive force. So, looks like the correct figure is around one Hiroshima's worth, no? Google is telling me that the explosive yield of a bomb is typically around 30-40% of the weight. 65,000 x 0.3 = 19,500. Little Boy, according to Wikipedia, was 15,000.
I don't have any great problem using information from Hamas or Gaza as long as I do some verification myself. Hamas' figures have proven to be accurate over the many years of this conflict, there's no good reason to believe they aren't here. I think a lot of people constantly trying to cast doubt on the "Hamas figures" are doing so because the reality of what Israel is doing is tough fro them to swallow. And while Hiroshima comparison are undeniably emotive, I think it's also quite difficult for the people to get a sense of what 65,000 tons of bombs means. Is that a lot? It sounds like a lot. But there's no context.
Anyway, I'd repeated the "3 Hiroshimas" in an article, which I've now corrected (I'll just stick with tonnage rather than "Hiroshima units" until I find a better way to convey the scale), so again, really appreciate the correction.