many people think opus 4.6 was the best

> Raids would be necessary to destroy any buried weapons, but these troops wouldn't need to stay there.

Shaheds can be launched from trucks from inside densely populated cities. Good luck with those raids.

> Eventually, because they don't have an industrial base and cannot effectively replenish their stocks

Modern drones are cheap and easy to assemble, Iran's allies (Russia, China) can easily smuggle them inside country.

The win condition is not zero Shahed attacks, the win condition is to open the strait.

Its the same thing. Businesses won't move ships if there are shahed attacks.

And yet they are moving ships despite Shahed attacks that occurred yesterday, so by this empirical observation, you must conclude that you are operating under a flawed worldview.

yesterday's attack happened allegedly because Iran didn't allow specific ships to move. Those which are moving today likely received permission from Iran.

> Controlling and securing shipping routes has been a fundamental function of a navy

this function is outdated since u-boat appearance, and now cruise missiles and drones. More important modern function of navy is projecting power.

Submarines can be hunted (and are) and drones and cruise missiles can be shot down. These things are what navies are supposed to do nowadays. US Navy in particular has not read the memo for about 20 years.

the question how efficiently they can be hunted, if ROI is that high.

my best guess is any information on the topic is... classified

The basic information about surface warship specifications isn't classified. We know how many interceptor missiles they can carry. Standard doctrine is to fire at least two interceptors at each incoming threat in order to increase the probability of a kill. And empirically these defensive systems work very well, but ships in action empty their magazines quickly and then are out of action until they can return to a friendly base to rearm. At some point there just aren't enough hulls and missiles to sustain the effort.

They've actually been pretty open about the expense and difficulty for a long time. At least since the Iraq war if not earlier.

Japan made public that one of the motivations for continuing rail gun research is defending naval vessels against saturation attacks.

Most powerful navy "failed its mission", as well as Russian navy received heavy casualties, so we have enough public information that modern drones and missiles are highly effective.

On graph, they are still slightly bellow Mythos. Maybe enough to not be prohibited by US government?

> Perhaps, but one does have to wonder why the US favors making life easier for founders and venture capitalists over making life more livable for people who aren’t already rich.

because US government is more controlled by business interests than population voting power.

> Coming from Claude, I was just not used to seeing this

Claude doesn't show its internal Cot?

> as recognized by the United Nations

its not, this would require voted resolution to declare genocide. It was some report on inquiry by individuals with unknown bias.

> I keep wondering if hardware like this will become obsolete well before it has a meaningful ROI

it will build expertise/infra/know-how foundation for next generation of hardware

I think its obvious that there will be a lot of children amputees in active denstly populated warzone.

I think there's an ethical difference between "we need to wage war on a densely populated area", and "we need to wage war on a densely populated area, let's make sure to harm the vulnerable people we encounter there". This is what I'm trying to differentiate between.

We won't know without analyzing protocols how Israel picks targets.

Also, harming civilians is the norm in modern world. Russia absolutely deliberately is targeting critical civilian infra in Ukraine (e.g. grid during cold winter).

If the effect of your actions is a war crime, you are a war criminal.

If the Russians also do it, that is additional evidence of war crimes.

> If the effect of your actions is a war crime, you are a war criminal.

war crimes usually defined by intent: were civilians targeted intentionally.

Were civilians targeted intentionally on 9/11? Or was it just a targeted assassination strike on some bankers? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/13_July_2024_al-Mawasi_attack) If I am attacked and legally have the right to self defense, but kill the neighbors "in the process of" defending myself because I fired 300 rounds at the attacker. Is that okay? I didn't do it "intentionally". But it is convenient that I hate them.

We likely agree that individual military strikes ought to aim for collateral damage proportional to their war value. For example a strike with potential to kill enemy leadership (rapidly accelerating the end of the overall war) can justify high collateral damage, much higher than would be justified by a strike against frontline troops.

With this in mind, I don't follow your example at all. Are those bankers of wartime value? And if they are, is the collateral damage proportional to that value? It's possible there's a lot I don't know about those banker's links to military!

But of course you're not arguing that collateral damage proves war crime?

I would expect the UN to investigate what the IDF defines as collateral damage and draw their own conclusion. Their conclusion is genocide.

I'm not sure all the facts are in yet in relation to Ukraine, but I do not anticipate that Putin will be getting his yacht back in the immediate future.

Would you accept opinion that UN is politicized org which does work of varying quality and its conclusion can't be accepted as ground truth without trivial checks?

I do not accept your opinion, or assertion, that "harming civilians is the norm" nor the implication that normative violence serves as any kind of license or justification.

Harming civilians is absolutely the norm in warfare through all humans history, all/most nations including likely yours practiced it in multiple points of time. Its also norm pretending that its bad while actually practicing it.

The question was specifically about genocide allegations, and blind trust in UN sub-orgs reports.

Note "the UN" has no unified voice on an absence or presence of genocide - instead it's voiced by individual UN inquiries. Only the ICJ can legally convict a state of violating the genocide convention.

The claim in report is that Israel deliberately targeted newborn delivery hospitals and similar. I don't think they have proof of "deliberately", I assume hamas people could use those hospitals as potentially safe zones for gathering, weapons stashes, etc.