The difference is that the former does not threaten the security of the great powers, whereas the latter undermines it in the most dangerous way possible. — Tzeentch
Nuclear proliferation is one of the only topics the great powers have generally been in agreement over. They realise the consequences to global security, including their own, if the nuclear genie is let out of the bottle. — Tzeentch
What would ensue after an unprovoked nuclear attack is a mad scramble where virtually every nation on the planet will be trying to get their hands on nuclear deterrents and anti-ballistic missile defenses of their own. — Tzeentch
At that point, the great powers would likely do everything in their power to crack down on the culprit in an attempt to cool global fear. — Tzeentch
Yes and no. The latter opposes – struggles against – the inhumane and counter-productive (i.e. destabilizing) excesses – strategic blindness – of the former.is it geopolitical and historical reasoning that is blind to universal humanitarian concerns or is it universal humanitarian concerns that are blind to geopolitical and historical reasoning?
So what I would really like to understand is: is it geopolitical and historical reasoning that is blind to universal humanitarian concerns or is it universal humanitarian concerns that are blind to geopolitical and historical reasoning? I think the second is way more likely, hence the spectacular and endless frustration of the universal human rights activists. — neomac
Ask yourself how many years Israel occupied Lebanon until it withdrew ...and with it's actions made the Lebanese shiias form Hezbollah in the first place.This will take years, more than expected, maybe. — javi2541997
It's now likely that Israel will strike Iran now. Last time the two warring parties refrained their military actions, but likely this time it will be far more. This will likely escalate.It appears to be far bigger than the previous attack in April. It is crazy how the chaos is raging over there (Middle-East). I can't see a calm and peaceful mood in the long term... This will take years, more than expected, maybe. — javi2541997
This is the way the US is drawn to the another war in the Middle East.WASHINGTON, Oct 1 (Reuters) - President Joe Biden has directed the U.S. military to aid Israel’s defense against Iranian attacks and shoot down missiles targeting Israel, the White House National Security Council said on Tuesday.
It's now likely that Israel will strike Iran now. Last time the two warring parties refrained their military actions, but likely this time it will be far more. This will likely escalate. — ssu
It's now likely that Israel will strike Iran now. — ssu
This is a wartime politician on a roll. Fighting Hamas is now a mopping operation and the spectacular pager and the killing of the Hezbollah made likely Bibi and his leadership overenthusiastic and extremely self confident. As I've said, the 2006 operation into Lebanon didn't go well. Hence IDF is eager to have a brilliant victory such the Six Day War is very much in the past. They've been thinking how to fight Hezbollah for 18 years, so it's time now to put those ideas into action.Israel can get to wherever they want in the Middle East after the missile attack. He is a bellicose man; his adrenaline pops up with this tension, and when everything is crossing the limits. — javi2541997
Last time the two warring parties refrained their military actions, but likely this time it will be far more. — ssu
As Israel and Iran are distant from each other, there is a geographic reason that limits warfighting capabilities. Hence both sides will talk about limited actions: they simply cannot fight the war in any other way. However now it's the second time in a short time that Iran has attacked Israel. Hence it is unlikely that Israel will refrain from a retaliatory strike.Iran still refrained this time around. — Mr Bee
Now tell me how Netanyahu won't strike back when he has said the above? When you say Iran will pay and that Israel will retaliate against it's enemies, it would be quite difficult then to follow by not doing anything.JERUSALEM, Oct 1 (Reuters) - Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Iran's missile attack on Israel failed and vowed retaliation.
"Iran made a big mistake tonight - and it will pay for it," he said at the outset of a political-security meeting. "The regime in Iran does not understand our determination to defend ourselves and our determination to retaliate against our enemies."
As Israel and Iran are distant from each other, there is a geographic reason that limits warfighting capabilities. Hence both sides will talk about limited actions: they simply cannot fight the war in any other way. — ssu
Now tell me how Netanyahu won't strike back when he has said the above? When you say Iran will pay and that Israel will retaliate against it's enemies, it would be quite difficult then to follow by not doing anything. — ssu
There's no reason why Netanyahu wouldn't attempt to destroy Hezbollah as it has done with the current military organization of Hamas. — ssu
War is the main interest of the current Israeli government to cover the corruption and power abuse of Netanyahu. He was lucky with the attack on October 7th. He would be locked up in prison otherwise. — javi2541997
They can come close ...assuming they get the needed airspace to launch an attack. I assume that Israel has it's Jericho missiles for nuclear deterrence, but for example the LORA medium range artillery missile (400km) can come in handy with it's air launched variant (AIR LORA) would be the optimal system. This has the possibility of launching the missiles from possibly Iraqi air space and thus minimizing the threat Iranian air defense systems pose. And then of course there's the option of also using drones, which Israeli has already used against Iran.Of course I'm not suggesting that I expect Netanyahu will hold back. It was honestly surprising that he even held back in April. Like I said, Israel, helmed by Netanyahu, wants to escalate as far as possible. They really want to strike their nuclear facilities, which they can't really do by themselves, but again that's where the US comes in. — Mr Bee
Yet a large scale attack would mean that the US would give a green light, which isn't actually so difficult as already the US has committed to the defense from incoming Iranian missiles. If Joe Biden (and Kamala) are started to be called chickens or whimps, that might easily get the US to side with it's ally even during an election. — ssu
I can certainly see it avoiding oil infrastructure for the reasons you described unless the Israelis really want to humiliate Biden even more. — Mr Bee
The basic issue is here: what is the objective in the landwar in Southern Lebanon?Apparently the US is coordinating with Israel on a response unlike last time. Oddly enough that makes me feel a bit more confident about the possibility that it won't be too escalatory (or be specifically designed with an offramp in mind) despite the fact that the US is getting involved. That being said, I'm sure the Israelis may try to do their own secret operation, though there is only so much they can do unilaterally. I can certainly see it avoiding oil infrastructure for the reasons you described unless the Israelis really want to humiliate Biden even more. — Mr Bee
They are opposed to doing rotas but not to going on duty. — javi2541997
That's almost as obscenely vile as Israeli apartheid that everyday oppresses non-Jews especially in the Occupied Territories, West Bank & Gaza. Police (everywhere) should "conscientiously object" to protecting only Official Israeli spaces (e.g. consulates, embassies, government offices, businesses, etc) instead. Mass murderers, no matter how triumphant they are in the moment, reap what they fucking sow. :fire: :mask:One can now apparently be a "conscientious objector" re: providing security for Jewish spaces — BitconnectCarlos
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.