War, what is it good for?

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.

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

NATO v. the USSR was a TOTALLY different situation than what we're looking at here.

by **Esquire Bertissimmo** » 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.

by **yavuzovic** » 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.

by **Esquire Bertissimmo** » Thu Jun 19, 2025 3:29 pm

This is all extremely backwards.

Israel would rather have its nukes than all the Western support in the world.

Iran's desire for nukes in no way makes Israel more amenable to give up its nukes. In what world would a mutual agreement to eradicate nukes on both sides ever come to pass? Iran is run by an opaque theocracy, Israel by an unstable right-wing coalition, both sides would rightly distrust the other.

The second best is not MAD. Israel's nukes are more likely to be launched in a world where Iran also has nukes. That's before even considering the new risks posed by Iran's new nuclear arsenal. And, of course, nuclear proliferation doesn’t just mean “Iran vs. Israel”—Iranian bombs would invite a regional arms race, which also raises the chance a weapon leaks to non-state actors. Nothing about Iranian nukes would reduce the chance of nuclear war in that region—very much the opposite.

by **yavuzovic** » Thu Jun 19, 2025 3:25 pm

I don't advocate increasing the number of nuclear armed state. But if Israel's protectors were to pressure Israel to get rid of its nukes, I think Israel itself wouldn't be able to stand against this long. If Iran was to develop threatening nukes, Israel and its allies would have an extra reason to come to an agreement to completely eradicate both side's nukes. The more under threat Israel is the better. If Israel cannot be convinced to give up on its nukes, as you say, so be it, let them feel the same threat as well. If not the government, its people will certainly dislike this feeling. If we don't want Israel to use its nukes, the second best bet is MAD, after disarming them.

by **Esquire Bertissimmo** » Thu Jun 19, 2025 3:02 pm

Esquire Bertissimmo wrote: ↑
Thu Jun 19, 2025 2:52 pm
Syria had its secret nuclear weapons program blown up by Israel in 2007. And thank God that happened lol. A nuclear armed Assad regime could have been another North Korea, or worse because it's even less stable.

Jamie and Yav seem to want Iran to get the bomb for Iran's sake.

The reality is giving the Mullahs a bomb would not only be disastrous for nuclear proliferation, but also terrible for ordinary Iranians. It would greatly increase the latitude of the government to repress its own citizens a la North Korea. The evidence for this can be seen clearly in Israel, where its nuclear arsenal is clearly a precondition for its cavalier genocide of Palestinians.

by **Esquire Bertissimmo** » Thu Jun 19, 2025 2:52 pm

Esquire Bertissimmo wrote: ↑
Thu Jun 19, 2025 2:36 pm
You can't convince a country that has nukes to give them up. That basically never happens.

In fact, the only example I could find is South Africa, where the outgoing apartheid government dismantled its nukes because they didn't trust the incoming black and Soviet-aligned ANC to steward them.

The former Soviet countries that had Soviet nukes leftover on their land lacked the ability to launch or even maintain them, which made the inert weapons a huge liability. Many probably would have risked a US invasion if they had rushed to indigenize these weapons (a process that may have taken many years).

Libya gave up on its nuclear program in the 2000s under international pressure, but they never actually produced a working bomb.

Syria had its secret nuclear weapons program blown up by Israel in 2007. And thank God that happened lol. A nuclear armed Assad regime could have been another North Korea, or worse because it's even less stable.

by **Esquire Bertissimmo** » Thu Jun 19, 2025 2:36 pm

yavuzovic wrote: ↑
Thu Jun 19, 2025 6:15 am
I believe that Iran deserves to disregard external warnings concerning its nuclear program, given that Israel is already a nuclear-armed state. Israel is one of the most aggressive governments in the world. Fairly, there should be either mutual assured destruction to deter anyone from using a nuke, or no nukes at all (second one is more pleasant to me). If Western powers wish to convince Iran to not pursue nuclear weapons, they should start with convincing Israel to remove nuclear arms first. Anything else will be biased, and without the enforcing power behind them, are just a joke to the fair mind.

You can't convince a country that has nukes to give them up. That basically never happens. The prominent misremembered example is Ukraine. Ukraine didn't really give up "its" nukes. What actually happened is they agreed to let Soviet nuclear weapons, which were on Ukrainian territory but controlled by Moscow (and for which Ukraine didn't have the launch codes or the needed infrastructure), be removed and dismantled. If there were an easy way to get countries to give up their bombs then we would have already applied such tactics to Pakistan, North Korea, etc.

Iran is welcome to ignore external warnings and keep developing a bomb. Their desire for a bomb indeed makes strategic sense. But the rest of the world is allowed to think "I'm willing to risk a war with Iran to prevent them from having atomic weapons".

The underlying principle here seems to be that because some nations have nukes, every sovereign nation should. That's an appeal to "fairness" that doesn't make any sense to me: countries are not otherwise equal in their military and economic power, nor are they all equally likely to be stable stewards of atomic weapons (I'd say Israel is clearly too dangerously erratic, but we're too late to stop them from getting a nuclear arsenal). Proliferation based on some misguided notion of fairness is so obviously a recipe for nuclear annihilation that I'm deeply confused why anyone would propose it.

by **Jamiet99uk** » Thu Jun 19, 2025 11:30 am

Esquire Bertissimmo wrote: ↑
Thu Jun 19, 2025 12:57 am

Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑
Thu Jun 19, 2025 12:08 am
I am not posting this in support of Saddam or Gaddafi. But I AM saying that chaotic regime removal increases overall harm. If in doubt, the west should entirely FUCK OFF.
With the notable one off principled exception of Israel lol?

If you think that the West has been leaving Israel alone you really haven't been paying attention.

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?