berg

You don't get one without the other. You don't get to choose.

NY Post. Fair and balanced.

There's a good chance she won't make it to then. American life expectancy is only mid-70s and declining.

A deterrent for being old, having no realistic alternative to driving, and a failed licensing program?

Wow, nice personal anecdote. It must be true, then. Let's just ignore all medical evidence because you think it's not true.

People age differently, and many people experience cognitive decline that impairs their decision-making, resulting in overestimation of their current, now-degraded abilities.

Your ability to evaluate yourself often degrades with age. It is the state's responsibility to independently verify that the drivers they license are capable of driving safely.

If prison is for rehabilitation and not punishment, are you suggesting we rehabilitate this woman for being elderly?

The NY Post is a rag.

The driver is in her eighties, in poor health, previously had a clean record, was not intoxicated or distracted, showed remorse for what happened, and did not contest the charges against her. It is unknown if she suffered a medical incident at the time of the crash.

If prisons are truly for rehabilitation and not punishment, what is she to be rehabilitated for? She already doesn't have much time left, and being thrown into an overcrowded, run down prison purely out of spite would only serve to further reduce her life expectancy and waste state funds.

If anything, this is a symptom of the state's over reliance on cars, and insufficient testing and certification of elderly drivers.

Why should she keep her composure?

This is coming from the leader of the country that launched their own 'surprise' and killed over 250,000 of her country's civilians.

Both are important.

Legal cases create precedents which can be used to fight similar cases in the future.

This is not a humanitarian or ethics question

From Israel's perspective nuclear weapons are a last resort

Correct.

Their leadership and military may be genocidal, but they still have a sense of self-preservation and act somewhat rationally

Genocide isn't perpetuated by rational thinkers, is not an act of self preservation, and does not protect the wellbeing of it's perpetrators. The absurdity of this cannot be understated.

I am not making a moral argument. I am stating Israel has shown the depravity to use tactics of absolute destruction and barbarity, an established doctrine promoting the use of nuclear arms if Israel were to take heavy damage, and the fact that Israel is taking significant damage as their defenses continue to weaken as additional fronts open. These are all key requirements for the use of nuclear arms by Israel, and they are increasingly being met. Suggesting the US is more likely to deploy nuclear weapons from their position of relative safety is just laughable.

So that's making a very critical assumption: that Israel's territory is being existentially threatened. Iran simply does not have the military capability to do that.

Israel already claims that every one of their neighbors is an existential threat to their existence. The truth of the matter is irrelevant, as it is Israel that decides whether or not to launch Israel's nukes. They do not have enough interceptors to indefinitely outlast Iran's missiles and drones. Their defenses are failing to prevent direct strikes on targets in Israel, which the Israeli population are largely unaccustomed to. It is unlikely that the idea of suffering a prolonged bombardment would be popular or deemed acceptable. Iran will be hesitant to negotiate, because US and Israel have a history of attacking during negotiations.

Israel's small size and geopolitical situation basically requires such deterrence against a neighbor who might decide to blitzkrieg into Tel Aviv. Iran simply does not possess that capability.

Last time I checked, there are many small countries without nukes that are doing just fine. For decades, Israel has launched attacks on their neighbors, all while vehemently claiming that they are actually the ones being unjustly persecuted.

There's very little a nuke would do that Israel can't do to Iran with conventional weapons. While there's a whole lot that nukes don't do to a prepared enemy with spread out military and command infrastructure.

Nobody is debating the tactical or strategic usefulness of a nuclear strike. Possession of nukes is strategic, but their use is not. Israel has already used the equivalent of 6 nuclear bombs on Gaza. They target schools, hospitals, cultural sites, journalists, first responders, and everything else which is supposedly held sacred. They have already displayed an appetite for complete destruction.

Using nuclear weapons as anything but a last resort is therefore an awful gamble

Using nuclear weapons on population centers (Samson Option) is always unacceptable.

Israel has already shown a willingness to commit the crimes we associate with the use of a nuclear warhead (and more), and their leadership has an ever worsening victim complex. It would be tragic, but not unsurprising, if Israel launched a nuclear attack against Iran after suffering heavy bombardment from their enemies.

Israel has already shown their willingness to flatten cities and a blatant disregard for civilian life. Their president and a large majority of citizens believe "there are no innocents in Gaza", and that every child born is "already a terrorist from the moment of his birth".

Israel would consider a launch far before the US ever would. The US can sail away to safety whenever they choose, but Israel cannot. In the event Israel suffers enough damage, the Samson Option would be considered.