War, what is it good for?

by **CaptainFritz28** » Fri Jun 20, 2025 8:06 pm

Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑
Fri Jun 20, 2025 2:20 pm

CaptainFritz28 wrote: ↑
Fri Jun 20, 2025 6:15 am
I disagree. Nuclear warfare is widely viewed (and rightly so) as inherently different than conventional strikes or even invasion. Any nation using a nuke without unilateral agreement from her allies would be shunned by those allies.
But perpetrating a genocide in which tens of thousands of civilians are murdered in plain view of the world does not result in shunning.

Explain that to us.

I am inclined to think that if Israel fired a nuclear missile at Tehran today, Trump would applaud, Keith Starmer would do nothing at all, and Bert would be in here saying "thank goodness Iran was stopped from getting the bomb".

It's a lot easier to deny that a genocide is occurring than it is to deny that a nuclear weapon has been used.

by **Esquire Bertissimmo** » Fri Jun 20, 2025 6:59 pm

Octavious wrote: ↑
Fri Jun 20, 2025 6:32 pm
And it will just be airstrikes and possibly special forces ops. I don't see any appetite for an invasion.

I wonder how that might play out. If the US thought it could just use a stealth bomber and call it a day, I suspect they already would have.

The US probably needs to blow up Iranian ships and anti-air installations in the south in order to fly in with maximal safety. And Iran might react to US strikes in a way that increased the chance of war. Since the war is existential from their view, it seems like even a bunch of self-harming options are on the table—striking US bases in Qatar, hitting Saudi oil fields, cutting off oil shipping, etc. If American soldiers are dying and oil prices spike, I don't know how long the US could really hold off.

by **Octavious** » Fri Jun 20, 2025 6:32 pm

Esquire Bertissimmo wrote: ↑
Fri Jun 20, 2025 5:53 pm
I'm curious to hear your view on the situation Oct. No doubt I harass you too much on some topics, but I'm genuinely curious for an Oct's-eye-view on the situation. Did Israel err in striking Iran? What should the US, UK, etc. do?

The UK should stay out of it as much as possible. Not our business. The usual empty statements about de-escalation and calls for peace is as far as our involvement should go.

Whether Israel has done the right thing or not remains to be seen, and may never be seen clearly. We only ever get to see the fallout of the choices made and never see what the consequences would have been if the other road was taken. If you believe that the do nothing option would inevitably lead to Tel Aviv disappearing under a mushroom cloud then pretty much any fallout from this attack is worth it. But if Israel manage to genuinely cripple Iran's nuclear ambitions with minimal losses then it'll be considered a win by the vast majority of people.

With regards to the Yanks... they will no doubt be nervous about whether their bunker buster works or not. As it stands their enemies have to assume it does... If they use it then everyone will know for sure one way or another. I think this is making them think twice about intervening more than any squeamishness about war. And it will just be airstrikes and possibly special forces ops. I don't see any appetite for an invasion. Iran may well descend into civil war, but they will see that very much as Iran's problem. Even if an Islamic State style group take over it will be an Islamic State group without nukes, which will be considered better than what currently exists with nukes.

by **Esquire Bertissimmo** » Fri Jun 20, 2025 5:53 pm

I'm curious to hear your view on the situation Oct. No doubt I harass you too much on some topics, but I'm genuinely curious for an Oct's-eye-view on the situation. Did Israel err in striking Iran? What should the US, UK, etc. do?

by **Esquire Bertissimmo** » Fri Jun 20, 2025 5:41 pm

Octavious wrote: ↑
Fri Jun 20, 2025 5:16 pm
So quick to believe every piece of nonsense about Trump you read, Berti. Get a grip, man. You're like a teenager who's just discovered politics

This was a useful check, thank you. You're right that the New Republic reporting was intentionally misleading, which is unfortunate for a paper that used to do reasonable journalism. I admit to being quite twitchy about this conflict, which is a big source of dangerous uncertainty—you're right that this particular fear did not need indulging.

by **Octavious** » Fri Jun 20, 2025 5:27 pm

Trump has threatened nothing of the sort. It's a Guardian article that casts doubts on the capability of bunker busting bomb, and specifically states Trump isn't considering nuclear weapons.

You have an official being questioned about it and he's desperately trying to quash the rumour that the much vaunted bunker buster may be ever so slightly over-hyped and not up to snuff. Then he gave the stock response of "nothing is off the table" which they reporter has got thoroughly overexcited about. Anyone who interprets this as a threat to use nukes needs to sit down, count to ten, and consider whether they've been sitting in the sun too long

by **Octavious** » Fri Jun 20, 2025 5:16 pm

So quick to believe every piece of nonsense about Trump you read, Berti. Get a grip, man. You're like a teenager who's just discovered politics

by **Esquire Bertissimmo** » Fri Jun 20, 2025 4:16 pm

https://newrepublic.com/post/197037/trump-white-house-nuclear-weapons-iran-fordo

Okay Jesus Christ I don't support this, even if it's an idle threat. Trump is a threat to everyone's safety, seriously fuck the people who thought he'd be a good president.

by **Esquire Bertissimmo** » Fri Jun 20, 2025 3:45 pm

Here's a probably-fair assessment of where we were at before the war from The Economist:

"Israel said it decided on war after it picked up intelligence that Iran had “accelerated significantly” towards building a nuclear weapon. It has not substantiated that claim in public. It has shared intelligence with allies, not all of whom are convinced. There is no doubt that Iran had enriched 400kg of uranium to 60% purity, a short hop from weapons-grade, a figure reported by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN’s nuclear watchdog. America’s spies also believe that Iran was researching other aspects of bomb-making. But they are sceptical that Iran was as close to building one as Israel posits."

Iran was developing a bomb. It was getting ever closer to being able to build one. But Israel probably jumped the gun earlier than other allies would have liked. Given Israel would be the target for such a weapon, it makes sense they have a lower risk tolerance than others—but their eagerness may indeed have wasted some time that *might* have been used in service of some diplomatic solution. Diplomacy, however, has not achieved much to date re: Iran's nuclear ambitions. And if diplomacy failed and Iran got the bomb, there would then be no way to stop them from having atomic weapons.

by **Esquire Bertissimmo** » Fri Jun 20, 2025 3:21 pm

Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑
Fri Jun 20, 2025 3:12 pm

Esquire Bertissimmo wrote: ↑
Fri Jun 20, 2025 3:05 pm

Non-proliferation should be done first by diplomacy and economic coercion. Where that fails, like in Iran, the next best option may in fact be military action, but that's (as we can clearly see) a dangerous and uncertain approach.

A diplomatic route was being pursued. Iran was in regular communication with the IAEA and a major round of talks, including senior delegates from the USA (ironically) was due to take place imminently.

Israel's attack was deliberately timed to cause those diplomatic efforts to fail (as well as taking some attention off Gaza where the IDF continues to murder and torture women and children in their thousands).

Israel does not respect diplomacy and believes it has the right to kill anyone it pleases.

Maybe yes. The problem is a decade+ of such talks have not prevented Iran from getting more and better weapons' grade material. The time it would take Iran to develop a working nuke has dropped every year that negotiations have been going on—and these weren't just friendly chats, the West was simultaneously imposing extremely costly sanctions (with severe humanitarian consequences).

Israel's attack was sanctioned by the US, in part to gain leverage in a negotiating approach that was clearly failing. Trump's 60-day threat, and now the two-week threat, are aimed at beating the regime into giving up its nuclear ambitions without the need for US air strikes or boots on the ground. It's deeply unclear that this will work, but it ought to be admitted that the previous approach was also failing.

by **Jamiet99uk** » Fri Jun 20, 2025 3:12 pm

Esquire Bertissimmo wrote: ↑
Fri Jun 20, 2025 3:05 pm

Non-proliferation should be done first by diplomacy and economic coercion. Where that fails, like in Iran, the next best option may in fact be military action, but that's (as we can clearly see) a dangerous and uncertain approach.

A diplomatic route was being pursued. Iran was in regular communication with the IAEA and a major round of talks, including senior delegates from the USA (ironically) was due to take place imminently.

Israel's attack was deliberately timed to cause those diplomatic efforts to fail (as well as taking some attention off Gaza where the IDF continues to murder and torture women and children in their thousands).

Israel does not respect diplomacy and believes it has the right to kill anyone it pleases.

by **Esquire Bertissimmo** » Fri Jun 20, 2025 3:05 pm

Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑
Fri Jun 20, 2025 3:00 pm

Esquire Bertissimmo wrote: ↑
Fri Jun 20, 2025 2:33 pm
In this conversation (post Israel's strikes on Iran) my only real point is that it's stupid to allow ones rightful hatred for Israel to blind them to the real trade-offs at stake posed by an Iranian bomb.

Someone might make a convincing argument that Israel's actions in the past week actually greatly increase nuclear risk. That would be a lot more convincing to me than just saying "Israel is bad" and "imperialism are bad" without addressing the nuclear elephant in the room.

Given my main concern is preventing the chance of a nuclear strike, I would quite obviously be against Israel launching a nuke, even if it could somehow be proven that it was the only way to stop Iran from developing one. Israel will under no circumstances launch a first nuke strike on Iran anyhow for the reasons we've already discussed, so I'm not particularly fussed about this.
You therefore believe that if any state in the world is suspected of developing any kind of "weapons of mass destruction", any other nation on earth is immediately justified in bombing that state?

This is what you believe, yes?

You keep saying the word "suspect" as if we didn't have a ton of independently verified evidence that Iran is on the brink of making nukes.

Non-proliferation should be done first by diplomacy and economic coercion. Where that fails, like in Iran, the next best option may in fact be military action, but that's (as we can clearly see) a dangerous and uncertain approach.

If we fail to do this the chance a nuke gets used in mine or my future kids' life goes up from already unacceptable levels, which is a harm so great that many absurd and horrible things can in fact be justified to prevent it. It was a good thing that Syria's program was bombed. It's a terrible shame that North Korea has nukes. You no doubt agree it's terrible that Israel has them.

This is a problem that is going to get worse in the near future. The barriers to develop nuclear (and biological) weapons are dropping rapidly. More states and non-state actors will pursue them. We're likely to indulge an awful lot more surveillance and conventional violence in response to the horrible logic of this.

by **Jamiet99uk** » Fri Jun 20, 2025 3:00 pm

Esquire Bertissimmo wrote: ↑
Fri Jun 20, 2025 2:33 pm
In this conversation (post Israel's strikes on Iran) my only real point is that it's stupid to allow ones rightful hatred for Israel to blind them to the real trade-offs at stake posed by an Iranian bomb.

Someone might make a convincing argument that Israel's actions in the past week actually greatly increase nuclear risk. That would be a lot more convincing to me than just saying "Israel is bad" and "imperialism are bad" without addressing the nuclear elephant in the room.

Given my main concern is preventing the chance of a nuclear strike, I would quite obviously be against Israel launching a nuke, even if it could somehow be proven that it was the only way to stop Iran from developing one. Israel will under no circumstances launch a first nuke strike on Iran anyhow for the reasons we've already discussed, so I'm not particularly fussed about this.

You therefore believe that if any state in the world is suspected of developing any kind of "weapons of mass destruction", any other nation on earth is immediately justified in bombing that state?

This is what you believe, yes?

by **Esquire Bertissimmo** » Fri Jun 20, 2025 2:33 pm

In this conversation (post Israel's strikes on Iran) my only real point is that it's stupid to allow ones rightful hatred for Israel to blind them to the real trade-offs at stake posed by an Iranian bomb.

Someone might make a convincing argument that Israel's actions in the past week actually greatly increase nuclear risk. That would be a lot more convincing to me than just saying "Israel is bad" and "imperialism are bad" without addressing the nuclear elephant in the room.

Given my main concern is preventing the chance of a nuclear strike, I would quite obviously be against Israel launching a nuke, even if it could somehow be proven that it was the only way to stop Iran from developing one. Israel will under no circumstances launch a first nuke strike on Iran anyhow for the reasons we've already discussed, so I'm not particularly fussed about this.

by **Esquire Bertissimmo** » Fri Jun 20, 2025 2:28 pm

Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑
Fri Jun 20, 2025 2:20 pm

CaptainFritz28 wrote: ↑
Fri Jun 20, 2025 6:15 am
I disagree. Nuclear warfare is widely viewed (and rightly so) as inherently different than conventional strikes or even invasion. Any nation using a nuke without unilateral agreement from her allies would be shunned by those allies.
But perpetrating a genocide in which tens of thousands of civilians are murdered in plain view of the world does not result in shunning.

Explain that to us.

I am inclined to think that if Israel fired a nuclear missile at Tehran today, Trump would applaud, Keith Starmer would do nothing at all, and Bert would be in here saying "thank goodness Iran was stopped from getting the bomb".

I guess we wouldn't know until it happened but I strongly share Fritz' view.

The reality is a big chunk of the western public has a high tolerance for masses of darker skinned people being murdered, even by their own governments/militaries but especially by foreign ones.

A nuclear launch is symbol of the end of the world. Nuclear use is threatening to everyone no matter where they're used.

Israel clearly agrees with this framing, or they would just nuke Iran's underground nuclear sites rather than begging Trump to bunker bust them.

by **Jamiet99uk** » Fri Jun 20, 2025 2:20 pm

CaptainFritz28 wrote: ↑
Fri Jun 20, 2025 6:15 am
I disagree. Nuclear warfare is widely viewed (and rightly so) as inherently different than conventional strikes or even invasion. Any nation using a nuke without unilateral agreement from her allies would be shunned by those allies.

But perpetrating a genocide in which tens of thousands of civilians are murdered in plain view of the world does not result in shunning.

Explain that to us.

I am inclined to think that if Israel fired a nuclear missile at Tehran today, Trump would applaud, Keith Starmer would do nothing at all, and Bert would be in here saying "thank goodness Iran was stopped from getting the bomb".

by **Octavious** » Fri Jun 20, 2025 6:46 am

yavuzovic wrote: ↑
Thu Jun 19, 2025 3:37 pm
That's not exactly right. We have seen how MAD reduced the number of arms between soviets and NATO in the past. We also have seen what happened when only one side of a war possessed nukes.

Not really. When the US was the only nation with nukes in a war a nuclear winter was impossible, and indeed any "end of the world" type scenarios, as there were simply far too few of them and they were relatively tiny. We also hadn't developed the repulsion to nuclear weapons that we now all grow up with. They were just another weapon in a nasty war.

Without their use and observing the horror of the consequences we would have entered a world with nuclear weapons and far less fear about the consequences. If WWII hadn't been the first nuclear war, then there would almost certainly have been a far more deadly first nuclear war at a later date. We were frankly extremely lucky that it happened when it did.

What is remarkable is that for several years the USA had the ability to easily conquer any nation on earth with minimal casualties to itself, and chose not to. Very few great powers have shown such restraint in their ascendancy

by **CaptainFritz28** » Fri Jun 20, 2025 6:15 am

I disagree. Nuclear warfare is widely viewed (and rightly so) as inherently different than conventional strikes or even invasion. Any nation using a nuke without unilateral agreement from her allies would be shunned by those allies.

by **yavuzovic** » Fri Jun 20, 2025 5:12 am

CaptainFritz28 wrote: ↑
Fri Jun 20, 2025 1:52 am

Esquire Bertissimmo wrote: ↑
Thu Jun 19, 2025 3:40 pm

yavuzovic wrote: ↑
Thu Jun 19, 2025 3:37 pm
That's not exactly right. We have seen how MAD reduced the number of arms between soviets and NATO in the past. We also have seen what happened when only one side of a war possessed nukes.
So your expectation is that Israel will use its nukes unilaterally, undeterred unless Iran also has nukes? It seems to me MAD already applied to Israel, who would be nuked by Pakistan and/or invaded by all its neighbours after such a launch. Iranian nukes don't add to MAD here, they just add to the nuclear risk in the region.
Not to mention that Israel would lose quite a lot of western support from launching a nuke.

Judging from the current situation I doubt that

by **CaptainFritz28** » Fri Jun 20, 2025 1:52 am

Esquire Bertissimmo wrote: ↑
Thu Jun 19, 2025 3:40 pm

yavuzovic wrote: ↑
Thu Jun 19, 2025 3:37 pm
That's not exactly right. We have seen how MAD reduced the number of arms between soviets and NATO in the past. We also have seen what happened when only one side of a war possessed nukes.
So your expectation is that Israel will use its nukes unilaterally, undeterred unless Iran also has nukes? It seems to me MAD already applied to Israel, who would be nuked by Pakistan and/or invaded by all its neighbours after such a launch. Iranian nukes don't add to MAD here, they just add to the nuclear risk in the region.

Not to mention that Israel would lose quite a lot of western support from launching a nuke.

War, what is it good for?

Post a reply

Expand view Topic review: War, what is it good for?

Re: War, what is it good for?

Re: War, what is it good for?

Re: War, what is it good for?

Re: War, what is it good for?

Re: War, what is it good for?

Re: War, what is it good for?

Re: War, what is it good for?

Re: War, what is it good for?

Re: War, what is it good for?

Re: War, what is it good for?

Re: War, what is it good for?

Re: War, what is it good for?

Re: War, what is it good for?

Re: War, what is it good for?

Re: War, what is it good for?

Re: War, what is it good for?

Re: War, what is it good for?

Re: War, what is it good for?

Re: War, what is it good for?

Re: War, what is it good for?