You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
US and UK action against Iranian backed Houthi rebel....Iran seizing Red Sea ship....Sunak looking for his Falklands moment...Russia getting away with Ukraine...China sitting watching....
Dunno about you but it all feels a bit WW1 dominoes build up at the mo
A war of the scale seen in the two world wars can’t happen again imo. Warfare in general has changed to a huge degree. Technology and the nuclear deterrent held by major players mitigates the ability for escalation to that degree. I’d like to think deep down every leader of the large powers knows that it wouldn’t be WW3, it would be Armageddon. Nobody benefits from that happening.
China will never go to open war with the west and vice versa. They make all our shit so we need them. We pay them to make all our shit, so they need us. I don’t think Russia has much time left in its current incarnation and nobody on the world stage gives a shit about the UK. Let alone our PM who’s all but gone.
Wasn't COVID-19 WW3? 🇨🇳
Also Trump, if he gets in, is more Putin’s poodle than likely to get into a fight with him. And as has been reported recently on the BBC his attitude to Europe was “you’re on your own”.
Can't happen, as all money would lose its value, and the billionaires would never allow that.
No point in having money if its worthless.
Meh… At least with a few fully tooled up nuclear powers involved it’ll all be over quick enough.
We won’t know a thing about it so why worry? Embrace proper retro, Cold War, 80’s-style thermonuclear Armageddon…
It's no less peaceful than any time in the last 40 years, if you count from the Vietnam war, the Falklands, Iraq-Iran war, Serbia/Croatia/Kosovo etc, first gulf war, invasion of Iraq, Afghanistan, the West bombing Libya, it's never been any less heated than it is now really.
Nobody has to touch the West as we are doing well enough at destroying ourselves from within
We won’t know a thing about it so why worry? Embrace proper retro, Cold War, 80’s-style thermonuclear Armageddon…
Do you want to play Tic-Tac-Toe?
How about a nice game of chess?
Time to dig out my Threads DVD...
Yes I do have it.
China will never go to open war with the west and vice versa. They make all our shit so we need them. We pay them to make all our shit, so they need us.
This is changing rapidly. China is now on par with manufacturing costs in the west for some things, and they have the technical skills that we lost. Other regions like Vietnam are taking their place in the cheap labour manufacturing, about 5-10 years behind China in technical capability. China doesn't just make cheap plastic tat though, so is still quite hard to replace.
argee
Full Member
It’ll still all be Keir Starmer’s fault 😂
What are you talking about? I don't recall Keir Starmer ever been blamed for anything.
Also Trump, if he gets in, is more Putin’s poodle than likely to get into a fight with him. And as has been reported recently on the BBC his attitude to Europe was “you’re on your own”.
Yup, Trump is very much a US right-wing isolationist.
I think it is unlikely but quite feasible that things could escalate and conventional warfare could occur across multiple nations, including nuclear armed nations.
Unlikely because almost everyone wants to avoid escalation of tension in the Middle East. The only exception appears to be the far-right Israeli government.
BBC News - Swedish alarm after defence chiefs' war warning
<br /> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-67935464
We won’t know a thing about it so why worry?
[img]
[/img]
Can’t happen, as all money would lose its value, and the billionaires would never allow that.
No point in having money if its worthless.
If you’ve not read Ben Eltons "Stark", now would be a good time
Sunak looking for his Falklands moment…
To be fair that above all else is what could save Sunak's bacon - the UK involved in a war. It shouldn't be forgotten that Margaret Thatcher was all but certain to lose the general election before the Falklands War kicked off.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_1983_United_Kingdom_general_election
Although having said that thanks to the Afghan War and the Second Gulf War going to war doesn't appear to be as popular with voters as it once was.
Might reduce my pension contributions
@Drac - you can get special underpants nowadays for that. No need to feel bad, this is safe space
It can't be that safe if he needs nappies...
I’ve confidence that the ICJ will rule in favour of South Africa therefore the country that can’t be named will lose widespread support resulting in them winding their necks in. That alone will cool a lot of heat in the area and stop dead the Iran escalation and we’ll be back to “normal” soon. <br /><br /><br />
Didn't it happen in the 80s? Sir John Hackett wrote a book about it.
Compared to then I think the risk of an all out nuclear war ruining my day is lower.
how weird I’m at that very scene!
I need to get my copy back I lent it out a couple of years back. It’s still very good and very reflective of what we were fearing during the 80s, nuclear strikes and rabies.
Just watched the 10 o’clock news. Fs it’s grim.
Should this be put to a vote in parliament?
Even if Sunak does think this will save him at the polls, I'm not sure that's likely, the public are very wary of being drawn into war in the middle east
Very worrying times not least because my brother in law is captain of the destroyer currently shooting down houthi drones. He was supposed to come for Xmas but obviously that never happened, we're planning a full family xmas dinner when he does get back. And its his eldest daughters 10th birthday in a couple of weeks, but doubt he'll be back for then either.
In the 1980s it was considered inconceivable that there could be armed conflict on European soil precisely because of the perceived risk of nuclear war.
We now know that brutal wars can be fought on European soil without it necessarily escalating into a nuclear conflict.
IMO it is quite feasible for a devastating international war across the Middle East without it escalating into a nuclear exchange.
I do believe though that in the event of a serious risk of Israel capitulating the Israeli gov would very likely as a last resort use nuclear weapons.
Wish they’d all calm the **** down, I have a reserve liability and don’t want to have to shave my beard off.
Shatters the illusion that you’re one of the beardy soldiers that writes books 😉
Yes, ernielynch is right. Russia knows that attacking a NATO country would lead to the destruction of Russia's military and quite likely a nuclear holocaust. Russia would gain nothing and lose everything so the bluster about escalation is just intended to impress Russian nationalists who like to fantasize about Russia being a global superpower again.
China is playing a spoiling role - China resents the U.S. led system of liberal democracy and wants to undermine that, but without provoking a direct conflict.
Iran similarly wants to undermine the U.S. and Israel, but wants plausible deniability that they are behind any military action so they arm militant groups across the region. The problem is (as the U.S. found out in Afghanistan) that supplying weapons to people who have the same enemy as you doesn't mean you control their agenda. Iran wanted Hamas to keep harassing Israel, not to launch an unwinnable war. Hamas apparently made the miscalculation that Iran would join in the fight against Israel if they saw that Hamas had succeeded in invading Israel. Everyone in the Middle East knows that Israel has nuclear weapons. Those are useless in a normal war, they're only useful as a final deterrent - if there is serious danger of Israel being invaded and destroyed, the major cities of whoever attacked Israel will also be destroyed. That's how nuclear deterrence works, every nuclear power has the same unspoken policy - you attack us, your cities will be incinerated. However, Iran does not have nuclear weapons and no other Middle Eastern country is interested in yet another suicidal war with Israel. Very unlikely to go nuclear.
However, even if Israel and Iran end up in a direct war, China is not going to join in. They aren't allies with Iran, they just have a common interest in undermining the U.S., not getting involved in a Middle Eastern conflict involving the U.S. The danger with China is that they decide to invade Taiwan. This to me is similar to the Falklands. Chinese leaders have used this as a nationalist rallying cry to distract from the economic and social problems that China faces and may gamble that the U.S. won't risk a nuclear war with China over Taiwan. I suspect China is wrong about that, but U.S. policy on this is deliberately ambiguous. Thatcher faced enormous political pressure to retake the Falklands, regardless of how unimportant they really were. Any leader who just stands back and lets an invasion like that happen without responding is politically finished. Same in the U.S., there will be enormous political pressure for the U.S. to assist Taiwan. It's not the Middle East that is my biggest concern (which is not to say that I'm not extremely concerned about it), it's whether Chinese leaders miscalculate and blunder into a war with Taiwan, Japan, the U.S., etc.
Dear Mr Putin.
"Northcliffe House 2 Derry Street London W8 5TT"
.
Please Please Please direct a nuclear missile to this address.
Putin knows damn wel that messing directly with a NATO country would mean a serious escalation.
That's why he's tinkering around the edges.
If he messes directly with, for example Poland or Lithuania, then things will get very messy, very quickly.
And eveyone knows it...unfortunatly Ukraine is suffering massivley in a game of brinkmanship at the moment.
China is playing a spoiling role – China resents the U.S. led system of liberal democracy
<br />China doesn’t GAS about any of that. China just wants to be China, free from the imposed morality of other powers. China doesn’t want our liberal values or our way of life. China’s real concern with the US is related only to the US seeing China as the main concern and a threat to its sole superpower status, hence the US trying to surround China with US based and allies, restrictions on technology, tariffs on trade. All focussed on weakening/slowing China’s ascension.
China is playing a spoiling role – China resents the U.S. led system of liberal democracy
They really don't care about liberal democracy. In fact they don't care about what others do so long as they can keep trading with them but they want Taiwan back, and the resources in the region. If China stops claiming the islands around SE Asia, their support will increase instantly but they have miscalculated by insisting the islands belong to them. They have underestimated their neighbouring countries need to rely on the sea for food too. (anyway, the fish stock will dry up one day as commercial fleet from China starts to establish aggressively)
China won't fight with US beyond their own (China's) door step but will keep US influence out of the region altogether. If US wants war with China then US will have to take the war to China which is a logistic nightmare for US, and they know it. China really doesn't need to fight because others will fight for them, and all they need to do is to supply them with the equipment. The region (many 3rd world and developing nations included) is increasingly repulsed by the "Western agenda" of domination. If China can demonstrate that they are of no threats to the region such as Japan or S.Korea, then that will be the day the Western "political" influence ends in that part of the world.
However, China's hunger or determination for resources can sometime blind them to the hardship they can create for the region. For example, they built at least 15 to 20 hydro electric dams/plants that completely block the water downstream for many poorer nations in SE Asia that rely on the river for survival and not to mention the ecological disaster they will create. China builds all the hydro dams just to show the west they are reducing the reliance on fossil fuel etc or thanks to the West for encouraging them to reduce carbon emission etc, the side effect is an ecological disaster waiting to happen.
Oh ya a war with Taiwan? That will only happen if US can stir up bad sentiment in that region.
relapsedmando - its ok, according to an Economist Podacst the British Army is edging closer to allowing beards due to a lack of willing new recruits.
Apparently, they once kept a stock of fake moustaches for newer recruits way back when!
Shatters the illusion that you’re one of the beardy soldiers that writes books 😉
Haha, sorry. Also it would be incredibly dull, lots of cleaning & sweeping stories, pointless arguments over tea & toast in the mess and maybe a couple of tour dits which would centre around blind luck and comedy ****-ups, it would be a really dull book if written honestly.
'Veteran with an alpha leader self help journal', is the military version of 'another white man with a podcast'.
relapsedmando – its ok, according to an Economist Podacst the British Army is edging closer to allowing beards due to a lack of willing new recruits.
Apparently, they once kept a stock of fake moustaches for newer recruits way back when!
I have been following this closely, if they go that way then I hope they allow and encourage proper beards, some of the wet examples I've seen hanging off the face of members of the RAF are embarrassing.
Big and bushy beards are the way.
Jokes aside, we're a long way off mobilisation of a bunch of retired ex-regs with residual commitment. It'd be like Dad's Army but with drones.
Speaking of world war 3, looking at the news this morning, it sounds like Yemen is about to get some freedom.
I have lost count of the amount of times I've heard someone predict that this or that regional or civil war will spark off WW3.
Dear Mr Putin.
“Northcliffe House 2 Derry Street London W8 5TT”
.
Please Please Please direct a nuclear missile to this address.
Id ask people to be a little considerate of those who are nervous about the worldly issues before posting this kind of content, because you’ve just condoned murder and pleaded for my family to be wiped out and perhaps just a few others at least . Yes I know it’s not “real” but still…. Have a thought for those that live in the region you care to expose.
I have lost count of the amount of times I’ve heard someone predict that this or that regional or civil war will spark off WW3.
Unfortunately that was also true of the times people predicted a squabble in Eastern Europe starting a war which would pull in France, Germany and Russia.
The fatigue around it arguably helped trigger it with everyone having stopped paying serious attention.
Well, I don't have a reserve liability any more and, if I did, the Army would have to come get me from Sweden first. Sadly, I think the Swedish have first dibs on my services now and that's a bit closer to the bear.
One good thing is that the Russians would hav to go through Finland first and that will be a challenge for them. Oh and the shares I have in Saab have skyrocketed the last few days... Two good things!
Getting dragged into a conflict with either the Houthis or Iran doesn't have parallels to the Falklands in terms of political benefits - the Falklands are a British territory that was invaded, that's very different from us getting involved in Middle Eastern conflicts.
I agree with some others here that the biggest risk of a major world conflict would come from China invading Taiwan but I don't see that happening until/unless Xi starts losing his grip on power. Right now it's not in his interest to risk war with the US (or at the least some punitive sanctions) but if Xi's power starts weakening he might see it as a worthwhile gamble in order to reassert his strongman image, or at least generate some Nationalist support within China.
Id ask people to be a little considerate of those who are nervous about the worldly issues before posting this kind of content
Do we have to preface posts with a trigger warning and use spoiler tags now?
If you have that much anxiety I'd suggest clicking into a thread about WW3 isn't a healthy life choice.
And what nickc said, every bloody year there's a thread claiming we're all going to be wiped out with the usual doom mongers and misanthropes dutch ruddering themselves into a frenzy.
I agree with some others here that the biggest risk of a major world conflict would come from China invading Taiwan
It is much much more beneficial to the CCP to make belligerent noises about Taiwan than it is to actually try to invade Taiwan - which is essentially an Island fortress across 100 miles of pretty difficult sea crossing and would have to be perhaps one of the biggest military amphibious landings and something that the PLA have never attempted and probably couldn't, and even if they wanted to, All they have to do is look at Eastern Europe to see how well it would go militarily, or to the middle-east to see how well it would go diplomatically.
I don't think the CCP would weigh that up and come to the conclusion that it would ever be a good idea to try to invade a country that isn't the same anymore; 80 years after Chaing-Kai-Shek legged it there. For that matter; China isn't the same anymore.
It is much much more beneficial to the CCP to make belligerent noises about Taiwan than it is to actually try to invade Taiwan
The CCP may not weigh it up the same as you. I agree, it would be very difficult undertaking but this is a matter of national pride to China, not a rational balancing of risks and benefits. They may decide that either the U.S. won't assist Taiwan or that it would be a limited conventional war that China can win, even if it comes at a tremendous cost. I believe there would be tremendous political pressure for the U.S. to assist Taiwan and I suspect a Chinese invasion would fail if the U.S. did join in. The question then is, what would China do next? It would be a shattering defeat for the CCP and there would be great pressure for them to use nuclear weapons to destroy U.S. aircraft carriers, etc. I think your assumptions about what China would see as rational are too optimistic.
Surely the biggest risk for the UK being drawn in is that it can be used to recruit people for terror attacks here in Britain
all of the 7-7 attackers cited Iraq as their justifications in suicide videos
another issue is that a wider conflict will increase the outflow of refugees which, suffering aside, is destablising across europe
I agree, it would be very difficult undertaking but this is a matter of national pride to China
I disagree, I think the current CCP just see this as something that they feel they need to say to connect themselves to a political party of 80 years ago that Mao wouldn't even recognise given all the changes that have happened. I think they'd act entirely rationally, there are zero upsides to actually invading Taiwan, there are endless upsides, on the other hand' to keep hinting that you want to invade Taiwan.
War usually ends up being good for economies, that's probably got more to do with it than anything else. All out WW3 I don't think will happen.
I don’t think the CCP would weigh that up and come to the conclusion that it would ever be a good idea to try to invade a country that isn’t the same anymore
Its not the CCP though but Xi JinPing who counts. Its a standard default for dictators when having problems at home to attack someone else and he has talked a lot about "regaining" Taiwan and as such if his prestige gets damaged in other areas, especially the economy and a housing bubble which makes ours look sane, then he may decide to roll the dice.
Unfortunately its one of those areas where rational goes up against ideological and its never clear which will win.
then he may decide to roll the dice.
He may do, you're right, and who can know what folks like Xi actually think is a rational idea after all? I think there are other targets that would prove more useful internally to him than the invasion route.
Yes, ernielynch is right. Russia knows that attacking a NATO country would lead to the destruction of Russia’s military and quite likely a nuclear holocaust. Russia would gain nothing and lose everything so the bluster about escalation is just intended to impress Russian nationalists who like to fantasize about Russia being a global superpower again.
China is playing a spoiling role – China resents the U.S. led system of liberal democracy and wants to undermine that, but without provoking a direct conflict.
Iran similarly wants to undermine the U.S. and Israel, but wants plausible deniability that they are behind any military action so they arm militant groups across the region. The problem is (as the U.S. found out in Afghanistan) that supplying weapons to people who have the same enemy as you doesn’t mean you control their agenda. Iran wanted Hamas to keep harassing Israel, not to launch an unwinnable war. Hamas apparently made the miscalculation that Iran would join in the fight against Israel if they saw that Hamas had succeeded in invading Israel. Everyone in the Middle East knows that Israel has nuclear weapons. Those are useless in a normal war, they’re only useful as a final deterrent – if there is serious danger of Israel being invaded and destroyed, the major cities of whoever attacked Israel will also be destroyed. That’s how nuclear deterrence works, every nuclear power has the same unspoken policy – you attack us, your cities will be incinerated. However, Iran does not have nuclear weapons and no other Middle Eastern country is interested in yet another suicidal war with Israel. Very unlikely to go nuclear.
However, even if Israel and Iran end up in a direct war, China is not going to join in. They aren’t allies with Iran, they just have a common interest in undermining the U.S., not getting involved in a Middle Eastern conflict involving the U.S. The danger with China is that they decide to invade Taiwan. This to me is similar to the Falklands. Chinese leaders have used this as a nationalist rallying cry to distract from the economic and social problems that China faces and may gamble that the U.S. won’t risk a nuclear war with China over Taiwan. I suspect China is wrong about that, but U.S. policy on this is deliberately ambiguous. Thatcher faced enormous political pressure to retake the Falklands, regardless of how unimportant they really were. Any leader who just stands back and lets an invasion like that happen without responding is politically finished. Same in the U.S., there will be enormous political pressure for the U.S. to assist Taiwan. It’s not the Middle East that is my biggest concern (which is not to say that I’m not extremely concerned about it), it’s whether Chinese leaders miscalculate and blunder into a war with Taiwan, Japan, the U.S., etc.
This reads like the basis for a 1990s style Hollywood propaganda 'blockbuster' directed by Michael Bay and starring Sylvester Stallone, Tom Cruise and Matt Damon. Perhaps resurrecting Mel Gibson's career as the leader of Hamas. Not a lot of insight or gravitas, but an awful lot of revisionism and ignorance of facts. Team America, **** yeh!<br /><br /> Step back and take a wider view, and it quickly becomes apparent that the West, particularly the USA and the UK, are declining as 'superpowers' as late stage Capitalism grinds out the dregs of economic viability. Imagining 'power' in terms of military hardware is pretty redundant now, as the future of conflict lies not in bombing your enemies into dust, but in undermining the very markets they need to survive on, and impoverishing them to the extent they become utterly dependant on any crumbs. Russia may well be hurling millions of tonnes of outdated hardware into Ukraine, but that only makes it harder to clean up the region if and when the conflict there does eventually end. They'll still hold the cards regarding our energy prices though. And it's foolish to see only Russia as the 'enemy', when our own leaders and political systems are complicit in the same policy of divide and rule that has us all hating each other because we're very slightly different somehow. Follow the money properly, and you'll soon see all the links via offshore funds and numbered Swiss bank accounts.
WW3 ? Naah – it’s just the US/UK killing brown people. Business as usual.
As it has been for the last 30+ years or so. I'm so looking forward to the next spike in xenophobia that will inevitably follow this latest bout of sabre rattling.
This reads like the basis for a 1990s style Hollywood propaganda ‘blockbuster’ directed by Michael Bay and starring Sylvester Stallone, Tom Cruise and Matt Damon.
Yeah and for clarity I didn't say any of those things.
I’m so looking forward to the next spike in xenophobia that will inevitably follow this latest bout of sabre rattling.
It'll be fine. Just remember to condemn Hamas. And the Houthis. And ...
Instability and anxiety just becoming something we have to live with it appears.
WW3 - when we least expect it rather than when we think it's going to happen.
It’ll be fine. Just remember to condemn Hamas. And the Houthis. And …
At what point do I have to turn myself in? Or do I just leave that up to my neighbours?
To be fair that above all else is what could save Sunak’s bacon – the UK involved in a war. It shouldn’t be forgotten that Margaret Thatcher was all but certain to lose the general election before the Falklands War kicked off.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_1983_United_Kingdom_general_election
/blockquote>
I realise this isn't a thread about the 1983 general election, but this is just not true. What is true is that the Falklands War provided a boost to the personal approval ratings of Thatcher, but the impact on overall support for the party was much less the case, and there were, as ever, multiple major (and even more minor) factors in the outturn of the 1983 election, not least the reduction in support for the SDP / Liberal Alliance after polling some spectacularly high numbers in their honeymoon period, the (no, this isn't contradictory) support for the Alliance splitting the traditional Labour vote, and, very significantly, the 1983 Labour manifesto (or "longest suicide note in history" as Gerald Kaufmann memorably described it).The source you posted doesn't remotely support your contention that the Conservatives were "all but certain" to lose before the war - Argentina invaded the Falklands on 2nd April (1982). The Gallup poll published by the Telegraph 31st March (i.e. before it "kicked off") had the Conservatives 2% ahead of the Alliance, with Labour a further 3% behind them.
At what point do I have to turn myself in? Or do I just leave that up to my neighbours?
Well, if you won't go back home voluntarily, what choice do we have?
I do believe though that in the event of a serious risk of Israel capitulating the Israeli gov would very likely as a last resort use nuclear weapons.
Naah, the Israeli govt have proven themselves to be a responsible and cautious govt which prioritises human life and wellbeing above all else.
What is true is that the Falklands War provided a boost to the personal approval ratings of Thatcher
Which is all that I claimed. It was certainly an important contributory factor, at least it is widely accepted that it was.
Well, if you won’t go back home voluntarily, what choice do we have?
Wait until I go abroad, then illegally revoke my citizenship?
Actually, can they wait until I'm somewhere nice like the south of France, or Spain?
because you’ve just condoned murder and pleaded for my family to be wiped out
Although I havent really condoned anything, because nothing has happened and while my tongue in cheek post has been condemned by yourself because your family live, there your post is basically meaningless.
Besides, if Russia ever retaliated with a nuclear strike on the UK, London would be subject to multiple strikes and your family would be vapourized anyway.
If they're lucky that is.
I mean, they could receive massive doses of radiation and have a slow lingering death.
So point in fact Im doing your loved ones a favour 😀
I do believe though that in the event of a serious risk of Israel capitulating the Israeli gov would very likely as a last resort use nuclear weapons.
Countries have nuclear weapons as a last resort. Israel has not officially acknowledged having them but it's an open secret that they do. No country is going to attack Israel because they would be inviting their own destruction. Same goes for Russia, U.S., France, U.K., China, ****stan, India, and North Korea. The danger is that nuclear armed countries drift into a limited conventional war, but that escalates and ends up going nuclear. That's why Taiwan is so concerning. India and ****stan too.
Actually, can they wait until I’m somewhere nice like the south of France
Are you Muslim brownperson? If you are they will welcome you with open arms. They love brown Muslims in the South of France.
Well, I don’t have a reserve liability any more and, if I did, the Army would have to come get me from Sweden first.
Noice. I've dusted off my spork just in case, never leave the country without it.
I can't buy into the doom mongering, the entirety of my career was spent in an equally violent and unpredictable world.
And as Brownperson has eluded to, we'll have a uptick in ****ery from mouth-breathing 'patriots' harassing those they think should 'go back home'.
I heard through the grapevine that a former terp I worked with who resettled here after the withdrawal has been assaulted whilst being abused with the usually epithets.
I imagine they have a union flag in their FB picture at least one poppy picture and that gopping photo of an American soldier kneeling with the union flag as backdrop and the heading 'noes the time to kneel' featuring somewhere.
Mouth breathers the lot of them.
No country is going to attack Israel because they would be inviting their own destruction.
So no country has attacked Israel?
I can’t buy into the doom mongering, the entirety of my career was spent in an equally violent and unpredictable world.
Yes, people today forget how dangerous the Cold War was. The Cuban Missile Crisis was utterly terrifying (based on reading about it, I wasn't born then). I do remember the shooting down of the Korean airliner by Russia back in the 80s though, that was tense. There were a lot of close calls back then, they're all forgotten about now and people don't remember how terrifying it was.
So no country has attacked Israel?
Well they have been attacked, but in retaliation they are expunging the other country, and its' people from existence.
So no country has attacked Israel?
Not since they acquired nuclear weapons. Iran funds groups that attack Israel, but with plausible deniability. Every country in the region knows that an open war with Israel is unwinnable. If you succeed in destroying Israel, Israel will destroy you. That's what nuclear deterrence is all about.
Interesting. So Israel has obtained the ultimate defence and has shown itself to be aggressive enough that they might just use it. And yet they don't have peace.
Nukes work against _states_, physical countries that are doing bad things to you. Nukes do not work as a deterrent against groups that operate outwith a state. They also don't really work as a deterrent against people that don't care about their own death.
I know I am probably agreeing with you, but MAD and the nuclear deterrent is effectively pointless for something like IS or Al Qaeda. Even if the group is state associated, link or adjacent, someone like Tehran can say "Not us mate, it's those pesky rebels/students/Houthis*" and then you suddenly have a difficult conversation about why you just threatened to turn a country into glass without proof.
If you (as a country) don't care about that last bit, then yeah, sure, use the nukes when you are threatened and likely end up being a pariah for as long as the fallout affects the planet. That's the scary bit and I am not sure there are many of the traditional nuclear powers that would risk that, even Vlad. The new kids on the block ('Lil Kim, Iran, Israel) might if they have them and are pushed hard enough.
Not since they acquired nuclear weapons.
Israel has probably had nuclear weapons since 1966, it certainly had them in 1973 at the time of the Yom Kippur War. Israel was last attacked less than 4 months ago.
Being in possession of nuclear weapons doesn't seem to have guaranteed peace for Israel.
I do believe though that in the event of a serious risk of Israel capitulating the Israeli gov would very likely as a last resort use nuclear weapons.
Israeli politicians have been advocating nuking Gaza, so I don't expect them to wait until they're on the verge of capitulation to press the big red button.
Being in possession of nuclear weapons doesn’t seem to have guaranteed peace for Israel.
Yes but if they just kill a few more kids, it will all work out fine.
Interesting. So Israel has obtained the ultimate defence and has shown itself to be aggressive enough that they might just use it. And yet they don’t have peace.
No country has openly attacked Israel in 50 years. Netanyahu, who I think has been an utterly disastrous leader both for Israel and the region, seems to have believed that Hamas had been contained and was just a minor nuisance. Hamas may have mistakenly believed that Iran and other countries would join the fight if they showed they could successfully attack Israel. Whatever the case, we have an utter catastrophe for Palestinians and no country is going to openly attack Israel. They'll complain but military action is not on the agenda. It's the same with any nuclear armed state, its neighbors have to accept its existence and make the best of that reality. Russia isn't going away, North Korea isn't going away, their neighbours have to accept that.
Do we have to preface posts with a trigger warning and use spoiler tags now?
If you have that much anxiety I’d suggest clicking into a thread about WW3 isn’t a healthy life choice.
No, and I agree but sometimes there’s healthy and educational debate to be had in a thread such as this. Being happy to suggest a postcode to “Bomb London” might be “I’m alright jack” for those that live in the Lake District (aka a faraway place) but isn’t very inspiring to those of us that live here. I don’t see the implied condolence of doing so as anything other than the acceptance and glamourisation of a mass murderous event, which is frankly very insensitive at best.