When it comes to this kind of strategic messaging, my basic reaction is “get used to it.” In the long history of human conflict, and I'm going back 5000 years into Mesopotamian and Egyptian history, the concept of a declared peace is a late arrival. The concept that one would be perpetually signaling hostility towards one's neighbors was the norm.
In ancient times, this was mostly done through nighttime raiding, or by punitive expeditions in which a king led a warrior band into the territory of the perpetual enemy, burned a few things, stole others, while the invaded population went into the hills to hide.
When you have to go in person to make a hostile demonstration it entails some risk. When you can simply lob a rocket or a shell toward your enemy, the cost maybe seen as lower.
BTW, the entity lobbing the shells is not only demonstrating continued hostility toward the enemy, but also strongly signaling to its own population, “Trust us! We will never make peace with those bastards!"
Bottom line: This is not a new development— there was a lot of it in the Cold War as well.
Thanks - interesting as always! I'd actually disagree with you a little on the historicity - the cost of conflict usually meant that material gain was first and foremost the priority consideration, and the long history of declared peace can be seen in the importance of marriage alliances - but that is somewhat besides my point. Regardless of historicity, I'm primarily concerned with dangers kinetic messaging poses to escalation in the modern era; it has evolved alongside the development of both the information age and cheap guided weaponry, and arguably has become a default means of strategic communication for many actors. This does not bode well for the world's many, many geopolitical flashpoints.
"material gain was first and foremost the priority consideration"
You're totally leaving out the factor of glory/male ego in warfare. In the Bible, there was an expectation that a king of Judah or Israel would conduct some sort of war campaign every single summer. Israel, Judah, Moab, Ammon, and Edom were permanent enemies and few if any marriage alliances. Costs were reduced by keeping the war small, a raid or a single siege— even if the payoff in booty and slaves wasn't big, royal/national prestige was a bank accounts that needed to be maintained.
As for the substitution of rockets for raids, I see the danger coming when these weapons become much more accurate. Now most of them just make holes in the ground. I agree that things will be really bad if these they can actually start hitting things. For many years, the Israelis have felt comfortable countering rocket attacks with safe rooms— bunkers in which to hide.
I'd say that the events of the past 48hrs have proven the escalatory danger, I'm afraid. And, without going into the details, I can assure you that the weapons are accurate enough.
Admittedly, the group that attacked the American base had the accurate stuff from Iran, whereas Hamas is building most of its dumb rockets from repurposed unexploded Israeli ordinance.
When it comes to this kind of strategic messaging, my basic reaction is “get used to it.” In the long history of human conflict, and I'm going back 5000 years into Mesopotamian and Egyptian history, the concept of a declared peace is a late arrival. The concept that one would be perpetually signaling hostility towards one's neighbors was the norm.
In ancient times, this was mostly done through nighttime raiding, or by punitive expeditions in which a king led a warrior band into the territory of the perpetual enemy, burned a few things, stole others, while the invaded population went into the hills to hide.
When you have to go in person to make a hostile demonstration it entails some risk. When you can simply lob a rocket or a shell toward your enemy, the cost maybe seen as lower.
BTW, the entity lobbing the shells is not only demonstrating continued hostility toward the enemy, but also strongly signaling to its own population, “Trust us! We will never make peace with those bastards!"
Bottom line: This is not a new development— there was a lot of it in the Cold War as well.
Thanks - interesting as always! I'd actually disagree with you a little on the historicity - the cost of conflict usually meant that material gain was first and foremost the priority consideration, and the long history of declared peace can be seen in the importance of marriage alliances - but that is somewhat besides my point. Regardless of historicity, I'm primarily concerned with dangers kinetic messaging poses to escalation in the modern era; it has evolved alongside the development of both the information age and cheap guided weaponry, and arguably has become a default means of strategic communication for many actors. This does not bode well for the world's many, many geopolitical flashpoints.
"material gain was first and foremost the priority consideration"
You're totally leaving out the factor of glory/male ego in warfare. In the Bible, there was an expectation that a king of Judah or Israel would conduct some sort of war campaign every single summer. Israel, Judah, Moab, Ammon, and Edom were permanent enemies and few if any marriage alliances. Costs were reduced by keeping the war small, a raid or a single siege— even if the payoff in booty and slaves wasn't big, royal/national prestige was a bank accounts that needed to be maintained.
As for the substitution of rockets for raids, I see the danger coming when these weapons become much more accurate. Now most of them just make holes in the ground. I agree that things will be really bad if these they can actually start hitting things. For many years, the Israelis have felt comfortable countering rocket attacks with safe rooms— bunkers in which to hide.
I'd say that the events of the past 48hrs have proven the escalatory danger, I'm afraid. And, without going into the details, I can assure you that the weapons are accurate enough.
The successful drone attack on the American base in Jordan was due to a failure of air defense, as I am sure you are aware.
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/01/29/world/israel-gaza-jordan-news?campaign_id=60&emc=edit_na_20240129&instance_id=0&nl=breaking-news&ref=headline®i_id=191440926&segment_id=156739&user_id=ce1478ce2e51de14ed53104496dd6d2c#a-us-drone-was-returning-as-another-attacked-the-base-confusing-air-defenses
Admittedly, the group that attacked the American base had the accurate stuff from Iran, whereas Hamas is building most of its dumb rockets from repurposed unexploded Israeli ordinance.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/28/world/middleeast/israel-hamas-weapons-rockets.html?te=1&nl=israel-hamas-war-briefing&emc=edit_igwb_20240129