The current Harvard estimate is 400 000 Palestinians "missing" — boethius

That's something I've not stumbled into and something totally on a different scale than the Gaza health officials are themselves stating. It would basically mean that Hamas and Palestinian officials are hugely downplaying the death toll. (It is a possibility, perhaps)

Ethnic cleansing of simply moving the Palestinians I don't see how that could be a worse crime, since if they are still alive the situation could be reversed by the world or then at least compensated. — boethius

Ethnic cleansing on a huge scale just happened now in Nagorno-Karabakh. Azerbaijan didn't get at all negative publicity, especially when they flatly denied it and said that Armenians would be wellcome to stay.

And basically that ethnic cleansing would mean a repeat of the Nakba. Then 720 000 or so Palestinians out of 1,4 million were moved off from Israeli controlled areas. Hence just to finish this you would have to move about 5 million Palestinians out of Gaza and the West Bank to somewhere else.

Now if you think they would be compensated or the move could be reversed, I'm not sure that would happen. But I'm sure that the Bibi administration is surely salivating about these kinds of plans. For the exrremists, that is their solution.

Yes, that is the crucial difference. So why does that difference exist? Is it religious fundamentalism and the rise of European secularism? — RogueAI

No.

It's because millions of Europeans died in the two World Wars and many countries have had the experience that defending their country only gave them misery and a humiliating defeat. The Pre-WW1 jingoism and imperialism died especially after the Second World War. Then Europeans had their continent divided with the prospect of a nuclear WW3 being fought in their cities and countryside.

(German soldiers going onwards to war in 1914 with flowers given by onlooking women spectators)


That's what Trump the idiot doesn't understand: European integration wasn't done to fuck Americans, but to finally put securely away the wars of the past. And even still that hasn't happened: In Yugoslavia there was a bitter civil war and thanks to Putin, several decades after the Soviet Union collapsed, the "Civil War" because of that breakup is fought in Ukraine.

Actually many neocons don't understand this either: the saying that Americans are from Mars and Europeans are from Venus and hence Europeans don't have an eager enthusiasm to fight "Rogue states" comes also from this background. Basically the only European country that has still made it's own "Great Power" politics is France. Even this old colonial master has suffered major setbacks in it's former colonies in Africa in this decade. The UK opts sometimes to be the loyal sidekick of the US, but after Suez has been very passive, even if it can still kick ass as we saw in the Falklands/Malvinas war. Everybody else are happy with having NATO around.

But in the end, this anti-militarism comes from the experience of WW1 and WW2.



A similar war has never happened in Israel and not even in the Palestinian territories. The casualties especially on the Isreali side are minimal compared to the losses that European countries suffered in WW1 and WW2, although naturally Israeli jews do truly remember and keep in mind what their parents and great grandparents suffered during WW2 under the Third Reich. Yet that isn't something that happened in Israel or is part of this conflict. Perhaps now the Palestinians in the Gaza strip are truly suffering a total war. Now the Jewish people in Israel are about seven million, so 1% would be 70 000 people.



Hence some hundred Iranians and below fifty Israelis being killed, that won't make these countries to howl for peace. The jingoists and the militant hawks will be in power in both countries for a long time still, even if the cease-fire will last for a while.

Yeah, that's certainly not true. The rise of nations is a zero-sum bloody game. — RogueAI

In truth, it isn't. If we mean by nations rising that they become prosperous.

War and conflict doesn't create prosperity, it might only transfer wealth as loot as war is extremely costly. In truth nations have gotten prosperous through voluntary trade and cooperation and investment to education and technology and in general a positive attitude toward business and private enterprise. The most successful imperialist enterprise was the Mongol Horde, and that basically created zero prosperity itself and basically immediately fell into couple of different khanates. The Mongol cavarly traditions gave these Khanates the ability to survive a few Centuries until modern rifles made it a turkey shoot to defeat cavalry fighting on horseback.

Israel hasn't become prosperous because of the wars it has fought with it's neighbors, but with the trade and tech investments. Nearly one third of it's GDP is made up of exports of goods and services.

How many times has Alsace-Lorraine changed hands in the last 1,000 years? — RogueAI

Yet notice the crucial difference to the Middle East. Germans don't give a fuck that Alsace-Lorraine belongs to France now. And both French and Germans of today would be surprised just how some place like Alsace-Lorraine stirred up fervent jingoism in both countries in the past.

Every illegal attack, like the two we've recently witnessed, is an argument for them to pursue a nuclear bomb as that is the only weapon that truly acts like a deterrent. That's rather obvious. — Benkei

Having a nuclear credible nuclear deterrent keeps the US from attacking an "axis-of-evil" country that has been declared to be a rogue state. Worst possible situation is when a country doesn't have nuclear weapons, but the US firmly thinks it's trying to make them and is considered a rogue state.

Yet Iran also should really think about it's past aggressive foreign policies in Syria, Lebanon and Yemen and just how much they have worked. Iran should understand that trying to export their Islamic Revolution will ultimately fail and just worsen the situation with fellow Muslim states. Trying to create a "Shiite Crescent" will only push other states closer to the US and even Israel. What is notable has been the stance of the Arab League and Turkey in this conflict: the idea that Saudi-Arabia would eagerly join the beating up of Iran didn't prevail. What is also notable is that UK hasn't participated (in my knowledge, I could be wrong) to the defense of Israel.

What is normally the difficult to prove part is the intention. As mass chaos and violence and death can be presented as carried out for some other goal. — boethius

And here the courts got an ample amount of this rhetoric after the Hamas attacks. Yet I think the real threat is ethnic cleansing on a vast scale. Our international institutions are simply collapsing as the regional players and the US don't give them any role. Trump is simply making it more natural to speak about ethnic cleansing.

I can't blame everything on Likud. One event that sticks in my mind was the Olympic massacre of 1972. That wasn't under Likud. The violence has been there regardless of whether Israel has been liberal or conservative. — BitconnectCarlos

The Oslo peace process was far later than the 1970's. If you want another one to blame is of course Jasser Arafat, who didn't take the agreement when there was the chance. But still, even if he would have taken it, I'm not at all sure if even then peace would followed and the two state solution would have held.

And the structural problem for Israel that it actually needs a strong counterpart that could also keep the peace and control it's territory. With Egypt and Jordan this works. Failed states or nearly failed states Lebanon and Syria this isn't possible, hence the Israeli solution seems to be perpetual low intensity conflict.

The genocide is an openly declared policy such as starving the entire population and bombing every hospital and university, and horrendous crimes in themselves even considered in isolation to mass murder, such as sniping children, proudly boasted about by the perpetrators.

There is nothing to analyze or debate about these facts. It is as clear as anything taken for common knowledge such as the sun shining upon the earth.

If you want to live in denial about it, then you weld your soul to the fate of these evil doers. So I'd consider it carefully if you entertain the possibility of an afterlife.

Or if I misunderstand you and there's multiple genocides to consider at the moment, you're just asking which one I'm talking about, then in that case I am referencing all the genocides currently being perpetrated by Israel. — boethius

I understand your point.

My point is that we don't really want to have inflation on the term genocide or it to be a popular derogatory adjective as "fascist" or "nazi" describing something that it isn't. With genocide we are talking about the intent of total destruction of people. Of the two million people in the Gaza strip perhaps 60 000 in truth have been killed. That yet isn't genocide, or it is a very failed attempt of genocide. Do notice that amount hasn't grown even linearly. The real threat is famine, which truly could kill a lot more with a quarter of million people in catastrophic food insecurity and one million emergency condition. That catastrophy has not been initiated yet by Israel. Yet the number 50 000 - 60 000 dead out of two million ought to make it perfectly clear the absolute disregard for human life in this conflict.

To make some sort of plausible attempt at peace, Israel would have to stop its settler activity. — boethius

I don't think that the Bibi administration attempts a peace solution, it is attempting to win the conflict. The Oslo peace process has been dead for decades now.

Limited strikes by Israel (due to simply being way smaller) and then limited strikes by the US is the absolute worst strategy, as Iran can now transition smoothly to a total war system, and even better now after the US strikes knows exactly what these bunker busters can do. — boethius

Hear hear! :100: :up: :heart:

Now the clergy that rules of Iran can really go back to the times of the 1980's when it was in war. The idea that Iran's regime would fall because of this is an example of the utter stupidity now so prevalent. I mean really, think of yourself and your country that you live in. If two foreign countries that are thousands of kilometers away from you suddenly started bombing your country, why would your response be to attack your own government? Nope. Iran will try to transition to a wartime economy now.

Israel needed an existential enemy to justify its militarism and refusal of a 2 state solution and obstructing any peace process generally speaking. — boethius

I agree.

Yet you should give a thought here also to why is Iran, of all countries, so hellbent to be against Israel in the first place? Iranians aren't Arabs, they are (mainly) Persians. Iran doesn't have a border with Israel and Israel hasn't taken any of land that is considered part of Iran. One reason might be that the Pahlavi regime was not hostile to Israel (yet not extremely friendly either), but that isn't a reason enough.

The only reason I can understand is that in order to blow wind to the sails of the Iranian Islamic revolution, the Shiites of Iran had to attack Israel to get a following from the Sunni community. Because otherwise the Sunni states wouldn't be so accepting of the Shiite Islamic revolution. It's actually quite similar to the fact that after invading Kuwait, Saddam Hussein was suddenly extremely supportive to the Palestinian cause and lobbed few Scud missiles into Israel, because why not?

Iran, like Russia, represents a lot of resources that the neocons can't control, so both they and their predecessors are psychologically damaged by the existence of Iran. They are used to being able to "do something" when they don't like someone or what's happening in a country. — boethius

Well, a lot of countries have a lot of resources that the neocons don't control. International trade is for that. In the end, the resources of some country don't justify war, because those resources never make wars actually profitable as in the end they cost a lot more than just to buy the Goddam resources by trade. Neocons and other imperialists give as reasons the natural resources of some country as a valid reason to invade them, but in the real world this never goes out so simple.

Likud rose to power because of the intifadas and the failure of peace agreements. The nice, left-wing Israelis failed, thus you get Likud. Sort of like how on 10/7, the most left-leaning progressive Israelis were killed. Hypothetically, I believe if the Arabs living in Gaza or the West Bank truly wanted peace, we would see it, but this would not work the other way around. The Nakba always looms in the collective memory. I think the "Nakba" is how the "Palestinian" people came to be—both lies. — BitconnectCarlos

@BitconnectCarlos, naturally you see lies in there being a "Nakba" or "Palestinians", but the people living in West Bank and Gaza don't see it that way. Besides, these Arabs living in Gaza and the West Bank don't see any prospect of peace because of Likud. Once Likud came into power, the peace process stopped. That's it. And it wasn't anymore the time of Palestinians negotiating, it was the time of Hamas.

With the other side remembering "Nakba" and the other side remembering "The Holocaust", it's no wonder you have a perpetual war.

I'll repeat one anecdote I remember from the times I was in the university. One of the brightest guys that I had started studying economics with was an Finnish reservist NCO who had been a blue beret in Lebanon. Once in the mid 1990's I was sipping beer with him in a student party and the discussion came to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The guy said in the most earnest and straight forward way possible: "There is never going to be peace in the Middle East between Israel and the Arabs." Not in our lifetime.

Looking back thirty years now, his words are still true. Yep, it might have been a conflict that could have come to the end when the Cold War ended, but it didn't. That Oslo peace process might have worked, but it didn't. And we cannot get back to that. And in the end we have this today.

Israel has no way to normalize due mainly to the genocide. — boethius

Just what genocide?

Israel has pursued a strategy of intentionally having no off ramp, so unsurprisingly finds itself with no off ramps. — boethius

I agree with you. This is Likud party's main line: there doesn't have to be any peace with the Palestinians, there can be a perpetual war as far it is low intensity and doesn't cost too much. And that has worked for decades now, whereas trying to do a peace with the Palestinians has been represented as utterly impossible, because it failed.

Moreover, there's really no way to conquer Iran. 90 million people, and a geography that similar to 1 entire Rocky Mountain chain in addition to 1 entire France.

It's just not feasible for the US to conquer Iran without going to full total war, drafting millions of people, which is obviously not happening. — boethius

This is the main issue that Trump in his ineptness doesn't understand. The only options are limited strikes. Trump should ask himself, just how long did he fight the Houthis? How long? 30 days and that was it, and they are quite alive and kicking.

This is behind the absolute stupidity that the neocons have spread for many decades of Iran being an existential threat to Israel and the US. The politically incorrect and utterly out of the Overton window is the fact that Iranian nuclear deterrent would be to deter Israeli nuclear deterrent, not to be used in an all out attack on Israel. Why would Iran want tens of millions of it's own citizens to perish? There's no reason.

The fact is that if Iran would have a nuclear deterrent, the US response would be similar as it was to North Korea. Bill Clinton was the last president that truly thought of attacking North Korea in the similar way as Trump has now attacked Iran. Americans too are sane in the end: they attack and occupy countries that don't have a nuclear deterrence capability. Unconditional surrender, occupation of the whole country and regime change are exactly the things that countries with nuclear weapons will opt to use them against.

This all just shows how stupid this war is and how Trump has been lured into a war that in the end won't give him that victory he so eagerly wants.

And anyway, especially the vice president is going batshit crazy in trying to deny just what has happened:

(CNN) Vice President JD Vance, in his first public comments since President Donald Trump authorized US strikes on Iranian nuclear sites, emphasized that the US is “not at war” with Iran as he laid out the president’s decision-making process.

“We’re not at war with Iran. We’re at war with Iran’s nuclear program,” Vance said in an interview with NBC’s “Meet the Press with Kristen Welker,” calling the strikes a “testament to the power of the American military.”

Vera was one of those members whose comments I always liked and whose discussions I enjoyed. Very sad to hear this. Condolences to her family.

Ah, Trump's big beautiful war is here. Trump the peacemaker, Trump the "no-foreign-wars" peace president! :rofl:

Seems that Donald "I'm not going to start wars, I'm going to stop wars." -Trump has now put aside his eager hopes for that Nobel-prize and has gone head on to the next forever war with his supporters eagerly cheering for this.

Now it's so warming to see the spineless MAGA-morons rallying around their big beautiful prez and supporting Trump's decision to go to another not-so well thought war. How desperately they now try to change their stance:

Former Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz, Trump’s one-time pick for the attorney general post who had warned of the Middle East conflict turning into another drawn out war for the U.S., said on X that the president’s strike didn’t necessarily portend a larger conflict, and likened it to the strike of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani during Trump’s first term

“President Trump basically wants this to be like the Solimani strike — one and done,” Gaetz wrote. “No regime change war. Trump the Peacemaker!

Few strikes and then go back home to eat that cherry pie? Well, might not to happen exactly that way. At best, the US is now on board with Bibi, as Bibi wanted, on this perpetual conflict of "war off - war on" where two sides stop for some time with announcements from Israel and the US that the nuclear threat has been now thwarted/eradicated... only for the next bomb strikes to happen later. But that will be enough for the MAGA-morons.

Once few weeks (or less) have gone and Israel and the US halt their strikes and declare victory, all these MAGA people will rejoice victory and the wisdom of Trump and deride those who opposed this war. Of course, likely Iran will continue to adapt it's defenses and simply then get the nuclear weapon and the clergy will stay in power in Iran. After these attacks, the young generations of Iranians will remember just how Israel and the US attacked them, hence the evil nature of the US doesn't have to be retraced back to the Pahlavi regime and the ouster of Mossadeq, which is old history for the new generations of Iranians. If Iranians had an 8 year war against Saddam Hussein, then this generation isn't going to be softer either. And then the Iranian nuclear deterrent, likely with ICBMs, will simply be a "non-issue", just like North Korea. Because that's what the US does when the country actually has nuclear weapons that could possibly strike mainland US. Bibi's Israel has opted for perpetual war already, so they are totally OK with this.

The US has an armed forces of over 1 million with roughly quarter of a million based outside of the Continental US. Of those less than 40 000 are stationed in the Middle East. Hence there's no land invasion happening. And no regime change, actually.

So along the invasion of Iraq, this is one of those stupid wars the US gets itself into.

he Israeli/NRA lobbies will become even more strong and wicked here in the US. — Eros1982

You meant AIPAC?

No. Don't you notice agriculture from the old times (even if it's used still today in India or Latin America)? They are creating a swidden. Very popular in especially Eastern Finland earlier. Make some land that you can cultivate for some time and then move on. Just thinking of being independent and close to nature. A lot of hard work but hey, you are totally independent. No need for any trade or government.

Trump's war is coming closer, more B-2 Spirits are deployed forward:

(UK Defensejournal) U.S. Air Force B-2 stealth bombers have departed from Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri with aerial refuelling support from eight KC-135 Stratotankers.
The aircraft appear to be heading toward Diego Garcia, a strategic U.S. military base in the Indian Ocean.

Flight tracking data shows two groups of four tankers each linking up with the bombers over Kansas. The B-2 aircraft were using the callsign “MYTEE21,” which has previously been associated with stealth bomber missions.

The movement comes during a wider repositioning of U.S. military assets toward Europe and the Middle East. In recent weeks, dozens of American aircraft, including fighters, tankers, and surveillance platforms, have been deployed to the region. Two U.S. Navy supercarriers are also operating forward, along with other naval and air force elements.

Seems also that Iran is still launching missiles into Israel.

(Reuters) Early on Saturday, air raid sirens were triggered across parts of central Israel and in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, with missile interceptions visible over Tel Aviv and explosions echoing.

If a woodchip floats from upstream, time to move further away into the wilderness.

I think he's not among us anymore. And people who think like him don't run the World.

I mean really, how many people live like him, seriously?

It's this myth that people think they want to live like.

Self sufficiency is smart thing to prepare if there is crisis and the sea routes for trade are blocked. If you're self sufficient in food production, your people won't starve if there is a war or another crisis that cut those important sea routes.



But that's it. Really, nothing else.

Perhaps it's really difficult for Americans to understand this, because there are 340 million of you, but the truth is that is your prosperity is dependent of global trade and you being a part of it. For us Finns, which there are a puny 5+ million, it's very easy to fathom: the World give a shit about us if we don't engage with the billions of people that make the rest of the planet. Our prosperity, is dependent on trade with other countries. And actually, even if many deny it, so is yours.

The MAGA people can live in their dreams that Trump can make the US independent of the rest of the World thanks to the "liberation" of tariffs! But if your industries don't have to compete on the world stage, then you will simply fall behind.

In Canada the provincial and federal leaders are negotiating with each other about lowering the steep and stifling provincial trade barriers, fast-tracking projects that would otherwise take decades to get through the red tape, cutting spending, lowering taxes, diversifying trade relationship, and other goodies. Last month King Charles gave the throne speech to open parliament, the first time the true Canadian sovereign has done so in around 50 years.

All of it is a complete reversal from previous domestic policy of the last half century, and now we all know that every thing the Canadian governments have done over the past few decades were complete nonsense. My god, and all it took was a few Truth Social posts. — NOS4A2

Never underestimate the effect an derogatory and condescending statement from a foreign leader has on a population. Add there sky high tariffs on highly integrated supply lines, and you have Canada in earnest looking for other trade partners than the US.

Everything that’s going in the world is the direct and indirect result of the kind of leadership you hope and pray for, and an old playboy and reality-tv show host is out here exposing how effete and obsolete it all is.

Thanks Trump! — NOS4A2

Well, I don't think that international trade has been effete and obsolete. Throughout history it has been global trade that has brought us prosperity. Not stupid naval gazing and mercantilism.

To target specific buildings or SAM sites by medium range artillery missiles is very difficult. You have a lot of difficulty in making the final corrections. But one can notice that the CEP (Circular error probability) is rather low, measured perhaps in some fifty to some hundred meters (meaning the radius that 50% of the missiles hit). Hence Iranian missiles are far improved from the Scuds, which were 1950's technology.

What can be noticed is the difference between the "normal" ballistic missiles, which rapidly decrease their speed once hitting the lower atmosphere and those that then have a motor for the last leg, usually referred to being hypersonic glide vehicles. The difference is notable, and also is the difficulty for anti-ballistic systems to get them.

Also what is noticeable is that the range between Iran and Israel is such that basically the ballistic trajectories don't take the missiles into space. The can be seen flying over Iraq and Jordan.

Tables turned, for now. Previously I remember Israelis watching from the Golan Heights the civil war in Syria. Now Lebanese and Jordanians can watch the Iran-Israel match above their sky.

Iran still capable of firing rockets at Israel? That doesn't sound good for Bibi. Fact is that Iran is a huge country. Israel is already starting to cut off videos of missiles hitting Israeli cities. Wartime censorship seems to got more tighter.

I think if/when Iran starts to hit bomb shelters large malls, schools, which naturally are public information, then you can make the argument of them being like the Russians. It's simply the systematic nature: not one hospital, all of them. Like in Gaza.

Now it seems Iran is trying to hit the Israeli SAM sites, which isn't as easy as it sounds when using medium range artillery missiles. If there's a night/day with no missiles, that would be telling.

Still, the body count in both countries, even in Iran, is rather low.

Funny how only Latinos are targeted no? — Benkei

Yep.

When I googled images "ICE going after Latino people", I got this photo:


When I googles images "ICE going after Dutch people", I got this photo:


Either the algorithms have to learn more, or Dutch people aren't really targeted by ICE. :wink:

Soon Nimitz will be in striking range of Iran, so there's going to be two carrier strike groups in the area. Plus the B-2 bombers at Diego Garcia, whichI mentioned about earlier two months ago, are still there. Plus the important tanker aircraft needed to attack Iran.

This is about what Trump wants to do, and likely he will follow what Bibi and the hawks wants him to do. It's the classic American take, when you are ready to pounce, the last thing would be for the target to back down, hence make as tough demands that they cannot simply abide to.

Now I might be indeed wrong, but I think it's just a matter of time before Trump comes for the help of Bibi "as Iranians haven't responded to all the efforts". No, in truth Trump is salivating too much to get piece of that "Winning" that Israel and Bibi are getting. A big juicy war.

The next likely outcome is if Trump stays TACO, that Israel declares that is has met it's goals. And the war on - war off - war continues...

Classic art of the deal. — NOS4A2

People refer to that absolute bullshit line, still? After all the whimsical "Liberation Day's" and so on? :rofl:

I think it should be clear how this dysfunctional administration will just go on forward from one crisis to another, and during this chaotic stumbling, the older crazy ideas are simply forgotten... hopefully. Like Canada becoming a state. Or the US annexing Greenland or Panama. Or Trump kicking over 10 million illegal immigrants from the US. Just like the "Liberation Day" tariffs.

I can imagine many future crisis that Trump will stumble into in the next three years. Ah, and you are going to be so tired of all that winning.



https://www.youtube.com/shorts/WjMpD16nC2w?feature=share

You want Orwellian, this poster is being shared on social media by The White House and Homeland security. — praxis

Yep.

Definitions of invader:
Merriam-Webster: one that starts armed conflict against another especially without reasonable cause
Oxford Learners dictionary: an army or a country that enters another country by force in order to take control of it; a soldier fighting in such an army
Wiktionary: One who invades a region. Synonyms: assailant, encroacher
Cambridge dictionary: an army or country that uses force to enter and take control of another country

I'm genuinely happy that tourist are ditching Trumpland and going somewhere else. Foreigners really shouldn't go to the US as long as Trump is in power.

There is absolutely no argument that could justify that you should be detained or held responsible (on your example, that is. Obviously circumstances can exist to meet that burden). — AmadeusD

That's what I meant. It's a true political and philosophical question just where we draw the line of hate speech or inciting people to commit violence.

Being part of an identifiable group doesn't seem to lead to much anyway: Antifa, BLM etc... all carried out serious, violent terroristic actions, but other members were never called up and hte groups were not designated (this being political bias, obviously, but that's not quite relevant to my clarifying what's going on here. — AmadeusD

Have relations with Al Qaeda or ISIS members, and you will notice the difference.

Besides, irrelevant of Kash Patel being the head of FBI, the FBI has been quite systematic at looking at both leftist and right-wing extremist groups, including even environmental groups. In truth the security apparatus hasn't been biased as the partisan commentators always persist.

And do notice that you have gunmen that have tried to kill Republican politicians too. Starting with one Thomas Crooks.


This is the way that violence and upheaval can show itself. Solitary events create together the instability.

Hopefully this is the first of many moments they realize that things aren't being done quite right in the administration. — Samael Isn't

I think many government employees do realize how dysfunctional this administration is. It was surprising just how same the story was told during the last Trump administration by various commentators and reporters made out of it.

The simple fact is that Donald Trump is a great populist orator for his supporters, but a truly inept leader. His past failed businesses show this clearly. The only difference between this Trump administration and the previous administration is that this one is filled with lackeys and loyalists while the previous one did have Washington professional who tried to curb the most excesses of Trump. The fact is that Trump now will try to make his things, then fail, and then these failures are simply forgotten as the next crisis comes through the door.

And likely (hopefully) this is the outcome. Stephen Miller will get his ass kicked by the negative response to these kind of totally random operation on the street will have. I assume the ICE professionals do understand just how detrimental to the public image these kind of operations are, but naturally have to follow what the Trump crazies in the administration tell them to do.

The likeliest outcome is that ICE raids will tone down, be something not in your face but the normal operations that under previous administrations were done will prevail. And Trump's fantasies of deporting many millions of illegals will whimper and fade away just like the idea of Canada joining the US. Or the US annexing Greenland. People around Trump will just shut up about them and the discourse will be the next real crisis at hand.

The thing that is very consistent with Trump is that in the great dramatic things he wants to do, he will utterly fail in doing.

In my example, I was thinking of a scenario in which you are unarmed and face an enemy in the process of arming himself. Nobody is talking about Israel destroying Iran entirely. — BitconnectCarlos

And that's not relevant to this scenario, where Israel has a nuclear deterrent and enjoys total military dominance over it's rivals. And intends to keep it so by attacking them constantly.

It's impossible to know the Khameini regime's true motive. — BitconnectCarlos

One could educate oneself on it and not believe the propaganda. Yet in the Middle East one has to really try to make the difference with the rhetoric to the people and the real underlying policies and strategies.

The world, ideally, would have stopped Iran from going nuclear years ago. It shouldn't be left up to Israel, ideally, but here we are. — BitconnectCarlos

Have you ever thought about the possibility of Israel's enemies wanting to acquire a nuclear deterrent as to be a deterrent or do you genuinely believe that they are fantasizing about starting a nuclear war that likely will be as devastating if not more devastating for their people than the invasion of the Mongol Horde?

Khameini's words: "It doesn't matter if we die. Iran is not important, Islam is important." — BitconnectCarlos

That cannot be interpreted as Israel has to die and we have destroy it, even if we die trying.

Operation Downfall would have likely been extremely devastating. The typical American (Western?) position is to justify the atomic bombings as a necessary evil to avoid a land invasion. This was my position for most of my life. GEM Anscombe's essay "Mr. Truman's Degree" and her essay "War and Murder" caused me to rethink my perspective on this. You can find the first one online; it's not too long. — BitconnectCarlos

I haven't read this, but is has been known for a long time that Soviet Union joining the fight against Japan and it's rapid advance through Japanese defenses was a far bigger issue to the Japanese than American historians give credit.

The world should judge these countries on a case-by-case basis. Nuclear proliferation is a complex issue; I don't pretend to know all the ins and outs. — BitconnectCarlos

If you want to look at the geostrategic picture in the Middle East with the military balance in mind, you simply cannot forget that Israel has a functioning nuclear deterrent and it's enemies never had it.

It explains a lot more than at first you might think.

There are a good 500,000 European illegal immigrants that aren't getting rounded up alongside their Hispanic counterparts. — Samael Isn't

I don't know if it's true or just the ramblings of this administration, but....

(The Independent, 10th June 2025) Donald Trump’s administration is reportedly preparing to send thousands of illegal immigrants to the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as soon as this week, marking a rapid escalation of the president’s mass deportation agenda which could target hundreds of people from European allied countries.

Immigration officials are considering whether to transfer as many as 9,000 foreign nationals, including people from the United Kingdom as well as Ireland, Italy, France, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Lithuania, Poland, Turkey and Ukraine, according to reporting from The Washington Post and Politico.

Officials are not expected to inform their home countries about their imminent transfers to the notorious facility, which opened in 2002 at the height of the War on Terror.

But at least there seems to be hope that Stephen Miller went simply too far by demanding the 3000 arrests per day quota, and ICE has to back down from random searches. So there are hopeful signs:



That the Trump administration gives out very confusing and opposing signals only shows the chaotic behavior of this dysfunctional administration.

I can't quite see whether you're trying to say that htis means its not a 'lone nut' or that it's somehow problematic that the security apparatus don't treat lone nuts like terror cells. I don't hold you to either, though. — AmadeusD

It's the latter case.

What I'm saying that especially with right-wing terrorism in the US, those who want it and promote it, understand that any conspiracy like forming terrorist cells or some organization simply alerts the whole security system. The legal system is made for fighting terrorist organizations. Yet if it's just individuals just acting alone, the security system cannot crack down on everybody. If you say you are against illegal immigrant, you cannot be detained or held responsible for someone who you don't know killing illegal immigrants in another state. But if someone makes a deadly terrorist attack and then it's publicly declared that the attack was made by "The Brotherhood for the Defence of America", guess which brotherhood members are going to have SWAT teams coming through the doors of their home in no time? Then having extensively discussed the illegal immigration problem in the Brotherhood website will get you into at least questioning or to be under watch.

It would require the U.S. to take Tehran, this is what the hawks and the Israeli lobby are trying to convince Trump to do now. Hopefully there is someone with a level head in that room. — Punshhh

Hopefully indeed, as that is a really foolish idea. Just look at the size of Iran. And unlike Iraq, it's a quite unified country and likely would put up a resistance. The armed forces are nearly 1 million strong and Iran has 85 million people.

Basically any land operation would be temporary or limited. Perhaps to clear and destroy the nuclear facilities. Or then take some islands in the gulf. But to march to Tehran, over the mountains and deep inside in the interior of the country? Ludicrous idea.

You would need a huge alliance to do this, but I'm not seeing this forming. For example the Turkish leader is saying that Iran is defending itself. Not a line if you would want to be part of an invasion force.

And how eager would be the Saudis to join this? Not even lukewarm:

Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman reiterated in a phone call with Iranian president the Kingdom’s condemnation of the Israeli strikes on Iran saying they have “disrupted” dialogue aimed at resolving the crisis, the Saudi Press Agency (SPA) reported on Saturday.

Speaking with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, MBS underscored Saudi Arabia’s “condemnation and denunciation of these [Israeli] attacks, which undermine the sovereignty and security of the Islamic Republic of Iran and constitute a violation of international laws and norms.”

“The Crown Prince stressed that these attacks have disrupted ongoing dialogue aimed at resolving the crisis and have hindered efforts to de-escalate and reach diplomatic solutions,” SPA reported adding that MBS also offered his condolences to Pezeshkian for those killed by the attacks.

The Crown Prince “emphasized the Kingdom’s rejection of the use of force to resolve disputes, advocating for dialogue as the fundamental principle for resolving differences.”

So reality is that this is either between Israel and Iran or Israel with sidekick USA against Iran.

I am saying this because Israel has never lost a war. — Eros1982

Well, in the end Operation Peace for Galilee wasn't a huge success as in the end it created Hezbollah in Lebanon and Israel had to withdraw from Lebanon in 2000 after a long low-intensity conflict. The 2006 Lebanon War wasn't either a huge success and Hezbollah then wasn't destroyed.

The basic problem is that you have a perpetual cycle of Israel attacking it's neighbors and responding to attacks from various groups, which then simply repeat time after time again. These attacks have basically made Lebanon a failed state and Syria is too, if it cannot rebuild itself. Failed states cannot make peace even if they wanted. But I guess the present Israeli administration is totally happy with perpetual war and wouldn't care if all of their neighbors became failed states.

Netanyahu may be destroying Israeli and Western institutions, but he definitely won this war on Friday --when Trump gave him the green light to attack. — Eros1982

He finally got his war after decades for craving it.

But I fear that this is only a temporary solution and simply won't solve anything in the long run. And it's crazy to think that if Israel attacks Iran, somehow then Iranians would topple their government. This is a delusional line that you can hear in Western and especially American media. Just think about it: a foreign country starts to bomb your country, what would you do? Want to overthrow your countries government? There is no "liberation" of Iran from Iranians on the cards here. Trump declaring that Iran should surrender is the tone deaf thing that idiot is perfectly capable of doing.

Supreme Leader Khamenei says Iran won’t accept “imposed war”, “peace”, and warns any US strikes on its territory will have “serious irreparable consequences”.

If now the Gulf States like Saudi-Arabia and UAE are brought into this war (for example by closing the straight of Hormuz), then we'll have a oil price shock that likely will put us into a global recession.

Iran is wasting its rockets on Israel. The regime would do better if it wins time, while spreading chaos in the region surrounding Israel (Lebanon, Syria and Iraq). If Iran chose this path, a US invasion or Israeli nukes would not make sense. — Eros1982

Well, if they can continue firing rockets at this pace for weeks, that's a clear sign that Israel would have failed. If no rockets are fired to Israel, then Israel has achieved it's objectives.

Next up, cartels and Iran. Both of these will need to occur to get you back in the green. I read you often and enjoy your efforts, but I’m still trying to assess whether I’m being given insight or fear-mongering. — NOS4A2

That was just a month ago what you said, @NOS4A2.

Well, seems like it's very close that we indeed get a Trump war, now with Iran that was started by Israel.

(The Guardian, Tuesday 17th on June 2025) Trump convened a meeting of his national security team in the White House situation room after a day of febrile rhetoric in which the president gave sharply conflicting signals over whether US forces would participate directly in Israel’s bombing campaign over Iran.

He told journalists in the morning that he expected the Iranian nuclear programme to be “wiped out” long before US intervention would be necessary. Later he took to his own social media platform, Truth Social, to suggest that the US had Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, in its bomb-sights, and could make an imminent decision to take offensive action. “We know exactly where the so-called ‘Supreme Leader’ is hiding. He is an easy target, but is safe there – We are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now,” Trump said. “But we don’t want missiles shot at civilians, or American soldiers. Our patience is wearing thin.”

In a post a few minutes later, Trump bluntly demanded “UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER”.

It was not just Trump’s all-caps threats that triggered speculation that the US might join offensive operations. They were accompanied by the sudden forward deployment of US military aircraft to Europe and the Middle East, amid a general consensus that Iran’s deeply buried uranium enrichment facilities could prove impregnable without huge bunker-busting bombs that only the US air force possesses.

Demanding unconditional surrender is a quite extreme demand. Talk about an ultimatum. Is it going to be still TACO-Trump or will it be the big sidekick coming to the fight when the opponent seems to be loosing?

(The Hill, 17th June 2025) Trump — who on Monday cut short his visit to the Group of Seven summit in Canada to return to Washington to huddle with his national security team — has already authorized several military capabilities to the Middle East for defensive purposes. Those include more than 30 refueling tanker aircraft sent to Europe, the USS Nimitz carrier strike group ordered to the Middle East and two destroyers sent to the eastern Mediterranean Sea to help Israel defend against guided missile strikes.

The refueling tankers could be used to help replenish Israeli jets, offering Trump a less intense option for military involvement.

A U.S. official told NewsNation that the planes were moved to the European theater to give Trump “options” should things escalate further and the U.S. decide to become more involved.

The extra equipment and personnel add to the large U.S. force posture in the Middle East, with nearly 40,000 troops, air defense systems, fighter aircraft and warships.

The deployments of air and sea assets, taken together, suggest Washington is preparing for a potential offensive operation as Israel and Iran take part in tit-for-tat attacks, open warfare that Israeli officials have said could last “weeks, not days” and threatens to spark a wider war in the Middle East.

To have a lot of tankers around is good especially for offensive purposes. You don't need them for defensive Combat air patrols, but you do need them if you want to strike deep into Iran. So I disagree a bit with the above article.

(Earlier the MAGA people thought like this. Let's see how it goes. But that was before the TACO-nickname.)

It is said that the regime has already so many woes to worry about. A quick defeat/retreat from Israel will add to the miseries of a big proud nation (that is overwhelmed from a nation ten times smaller). It may serve as the Falklands War example in Argentina (where it is said that their defeat from UK brought the collapse of the Argentina regime). — Eros1982

Argentina claimed the Malvinas, invaded it and then fought for them with the Argentinian forces finally surrendering to the British. That's a defeat, no matter how you look at it.



If Israel attacks by air strikes Iran and then stops them let's say after two weeks, that's a different issue. If Israel (or the US) would take Quesm and Kharg islands, then it would be far more serious and the loss would be more evident. Yet I have trouble envisioning the IDF taking and occupying Tehran. And this is the real problem here: attacking Iran is problematic, because a land war would be very, very difficult.

So much power is corrupting Israel and the US, in the same way as a jack pot might totally change me as a person. — Eros1982

One thing is totally evident, the Netanyahu administration has become a war cabinet which sees war as a natural instrument to solve it's problems. War is a normal state for Israel.

If a man comes at you with a gun, is the only justified time to respond after the bullet has been fired? Even while the bullet is in the air, there's technically no damage done. Guess we need to wait until after it strikes. — BitconnectCarlos

No. As I said, if you shoot a man that didn't shoot you, you simply need a lot explaining to do to the judge, because you will be the one that shot. And at some times, it will, even under law, be legitimate. But naturally there are quite a high bar for this.

When Israel has a nuclear deterrent, those countries who see Israel as a threat to themselves will try to get a nuclear deterrent. But you simply assume that they aren't seeking a balance, their own deterrence, but their motive is simply to destroy Israel, even if this put their own people and country to the peril of the many nukes that Israel has.

What Truman did was very questionable, and if there is a God, he will likely need to answer for what transpired. — BitconnectCarlos

We never can know how many Americans (and Japanese) would have died if Operation Downfall would have been initiated. And naturally we forget the huge importance of the Soviet attack in Manchuria for the Japanese to admit to surrender.

The problem isn't that another nation is stronger than Israel. The problem is that the nation expresses genocidal intentions towards Israel and was on the verge of going nuclear. Israel is okay with other countries being stronger than it. — BitconnectCarlos

How about the Arabs? It would be interesting how Israel would react if the Saudi's would get a nuclear deterrent. What if the Egypt would also get a nuclear deterrent? Israel does have a peace agreement with Egypt (which it doesn't have with the Saudis).

Thank you for one of the best replies I've ever gotten in this Forum. It's really great when somebody understands my points. Here are some comments that hopefully forward this good discussion.

You rightly emphasize the subjective-objective distinction in the context of Wittgenstein’s hinges and Gödel’s incompleteness theorems, framing subjectivity as tied to self-referentiality and objectivity as a “view without a viewpoint.” I find this interesting, particularly your point that objective truths in logic and math are typically computable and provable, while subjective ones involve self-reference, evading such formalization. Your reference to Wittgenstein’s Tractatus (3.332–3.333) and his solution to Russell’s paradox is spot-on: Wittgenstein identifies self-referentiality as a source of logical trouble, arguing that propositions or functions cannot contain themselves. This insight resonates with Gödel’s incompleteness theorems, which, as you note, cleverly navigate self-referentiality (e.g., the statement “This statement is unprovable in the system”) without falling into the traps of Russell’s paradox. — Sam26

There's one Holy Grail there if one could make it a true mathematical theorem: if that "objective truths in logic and math are typically computable and provable, while subjective ones involve self-reference, evading such formalization" could be made into "objective truths in logic and math are all computable and provable, if there isn't self-reference that leads to subjectivity". Or something like that.

This leads to understanding that there's also true but uncomputable math and we cannot just assume objectivity to compute them. And that we do have to understand that in some occasions, the best models would be uncomputable.

Because look at just what we have now for a definition of computation: the Church-Turing thesis. And what does that basically tell us? Basically (and not rigorously defined) that computation is something that a Turing Machine can do. Which means that something that is uncomputable is something that a Turing Machine cannot do. And not that this isn't a theorem, just a thesis. The Church-Turing thesis is said to be unprovable or basically undecidable. And this is because a direct proof and computation are so close to each other.

The dichotomy of the subjective and the objective and Wittgenstein's remarks could really here help. It's worth mentioning that when Alan Turing and Wittgenstein met, they simply didn't understand each other. Wittgenstein say the paradox in Alan Turings undecidability result, yet as you noted that just like with Gödel's Incompleteness theorems, the example of the Turing Machine doesn't end up in a paradox. However, Wittgenstein does have an important point.

In your market e.g., the “hinge” might be the assumption that prices reflect aggregate behavior, but using the model to act within the market introduces a self-referential loop that defies objective grounding (if I understand what you're saying), which is akin to the unprovable truths in Gödel’s systems or the unquestioned certainties in Wittgenstein’s hinges. — Sam26

Yes, once you are an acting part of a universe you are trying to model, the problem arises. Many times when you don't notice the problem, you get to a problem of infinite regress. Yet do notice that self-referential loops can get to a "objective grounding". If we have something like a self-fulfilling prophecy, that can indeed be modeled and computed.

Your point, that “not all systematic thought can be brought back to grounded foundations,” is a helpful perspective, but I’d argue it complements rather than contradicts the my claim. — Sam26

I agree. The uncomputable are really special occasions to the norm. At least when we try to make objective scientific models.

The paper doesn’t assert that all thought lacks grounded foundations, but that sufficiently complex systems (epistemic or mathematical) require ungrounded foundations within their own justificatory scope. Simpler systems, like those covered by Gödel’s completeness theorem or basic linguistic practices, may achieve internal grounding, but that the parallel with Wittgenstein and Gödel emerges in domains where complexity has limits, necessitating external or unprovable foundations. — Sam26

Yes, exactly. There isn't any problem with having Gödel's completeness theorem and incompleteness theorems being true at the same time.

But let's think about just what is meant by "ungrounded foundations". Just what do we mean by this is important. In my opinion, with grounded foundations we go back to the way that an algorithm works: follow these foundations, and you can make correct model / compute the correct answer. Yet if in the foundations there is the aspect of subjectivity, all hell is loose. If the order or step would be "Here you decide what ice cream you like" it's not anymore an objective truth as it needs that subjective decision. Or the classic instruction of "Do something else not written in these instructions", which is a command that a computer cannot follow as it isn't itself a subject capable of making subjective decisions.

I think the objectivity/subjectivity dichotomy would be an interesting way to look at this problem. I remember last year we had a good thread about , where people went through professor Noson S. Yanofsky's interesting paper True but Unprovable and the PF thread was Mathematical truth is not orderly but highly chaotic. Perhaps then the subjective / objective issue wasn't at the center stage, but it really puts the issue back to simple logic.

Anyway, I hope these have been useful comments to you.

Do you think it's possible for Israel to do something with the strait and pin the blame on the Iranians somehow? — Mr Bee

I don't think so. There's no need for an escalation like the Israeli attack on USS Liberty.

This is about the Eagle S incident from last December. Basically the police inquiry has ended with charges laid towards the crew members. Law takes it's time in a democracy.

• Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia are European countries’ puppets, says Lavrov (TASS · 2025 Jun 10)

When Russia says your country is merely a puppet, it rhymes quite with the country being "purely an artificial construct", just like in the case of Ukraine was said for years.

The Baltic States should indeed worry.

If the Iranian regime will sign quickly a treaty with Trump or Israel, this regime will definitely sign it own death. From the first day that there will be no more hostilities, the Iranians will ask themselves why their regime brought these misfortunes to them --and most probably will start killing each-other. But if the Iranian regime endures, then with the passing of the time I see more and more Iranians being united by the resistance towards Israel. — Eros1982

After they have been bombed by foreign state, why would Iranians start killing each other?

Or will they say that they endured most that arch enemy could through at them and they survived with bringing the Jews so much losses that they had to stop and thus this generation has been as victorious as the previous ones were defending Iran from the attack from Iraq?

And then they will do a "lessons learned" from this, look where their weaknesses were and prepare for the next time Israel attacks them?

That could easily happen too, you know. So I don't agree with you, but that's my opinion. We'll see what happens.

Some populist politician said something inflammatory - big whoop. — Tzeentch

Are political assassinations in Minnesota, the killing of Melissa Hortman and her husband and the attempt on State Senator John Hoffman and his wife also a - big whoop or are they something else to you?

(BBC) Investigators reportedly found a list of 70 "targets", including the names of state Democratic politicians, in a vehicle the suspect drove for the assassination.

Walz, congresswoman Ilhan Omar, Minnesota's two US senators, Amy Klobuchar and Tina Smith, and state Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison were on the hit list, according to local media.

Locations for Planned Parenthood, which provides abortions and contraception, were also on the list, a person familiar with the investigation told the Minnesota Star Tribune.

Or are you going to say that it's just a one off lone nut? Well, political violence is and has to be a "lone nut" thing, because otherwise if there's really a terrorist cell, an organization behind the act of violence, then the Police and the security apparatus will spring to life.

Just to stay on the topic of the creep.

Imagine you have a homicidal and fanatical enemy in your region that is building a mighty weapon. — BitconnectCarlos

I don't have to imagine that.

I'm Finn and living next to Russia. My summer place is literally less than 10 km from the border of Russia.

As a last resort, if you were to attack your enemy's designs, would it truly be you starting the war? Or was it your fanatical enemy who ceaselessly worked towards designing a devastating weapon? — BitconnectCarlos

No matter how much you say about the logic and soundness of a pre-emptive attack, it still is an attack and there's no question about who is the attacker. Besides, some say an attack is the best defense. Just take it as a fact, admit it to yourself and don't be such a hypocrite.

No, but the situation could escalate. — BitconnectCarlos

Let's hope that Trump then doesn't escalate and sticks to his current position then.

Do you have any doubt that we've had national leaders in the past 100 years who would have used a nuclear warhead had they had one at their disposal? Hitler, for one. We've had fanatical world leaders with zero humanitarian concern. Has humanity fundamentally changed since then? We're talking about our fathers and grandfathers here. — BitconnectCarlos

So you accuse president Truman to be a fanatic leader with zero humanitarian concern? That's a new one from you, @BitconnectCarlos.

Don't forget Fidel Castro and the tactical nukes that were already stationed in Cuba. Not having any intel about tactical nukes would have made it a bit hard for the Marines, if they've had landed on some beaches in Cuba. Talk about an extremely warm welcome.



Actually here the real question is: how mad do you think that general Curtis LeMay was? Or the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who wanted to strike and invade Cuba? Were they mad? Here's from the real tapes between general Curtis LeMay and President Kennedy discussing the attack on Cuba. (The following short video, 1 min 25 second, seems to be only viewed on Youtube, but it's really worth watching)



So LeMay's answer is that the Russian's won't do anything and won't make a reprisal. What's behind this? The simple conclusion is perhaps that a) Cuba isn't Soviet Union and b) the US will have an advantage at that time in a nuclear war between the two powers. Yes, Few bomber bases and few cities might be wiped off the map, but that's it. Something that LeMay seems to be an OK price.

EXCOMM considered the effect on the strategic balance of power, both political and military. The Joint Chiefs of Staff believed that the missiles would seriously alter the military balance, but McNamara disagreed. An extra 40, he reasoned, would make little difference to the overall strategic balance. The US already had approximately 5,000 strategic warheads, but the Soviet Union had only 300. McNamara concluded that the Soviets having 340 would not therefore substantially alter the strategic balance.

In fact in 1961 Soviet Union had then only seven operational intercontinental missiles while the US estimated there to be 20 to 40. And the US had on the other hand 177 intercontinental missiles. The rest were shorter range missiles and free fall bombs that bombers had to carry. Hence Curtiss LeMay and other generals opted to have that war. Twenty years later in the 1980's it was totally different. Let's remember that even now Russia has more nuclear weapons than the US. We just forget this very big difference.

For Bibi to attack Iran now has the similar logic. Hit Iran while you still can. Because it won't get better. Since Trump is in Washington, since Hezbollah has been dramatically weakened and since the war in Gaza is winding down, why not then now hit Iran?

The only downside of this is that it leads to quite similar thinking that the German high command had prior to World War 1 about the Russian Empire: better have the war now before Russia becomes too strong. This thinking means that you simply won't have peace.

And what do you know, we have that Israeli-Iranian war we talked about for decades.

I was often taught the contrary: That two nuclear powers would never go to war because it would be irrational and mutually assured destruction. — BitconnectCarlos

That's not the contrary.

What you were told is that they would never go to war. That it indeed would be impossible, because "it would be irrational and mutually assured destruction". This is the line that I'm exactly talking about! Since there's MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction), nuclear powers don't go to war.

Never were you (or I) told that the two Superpower could have a limited fight, but would restrain from using nuclear weapons. Well, that's the goddam thing that has already happened twice with India and Pakistan! Both can many millions of each others population. And they have fought wars having all those nuclear weapons. The wars have just been short and limited ones.

And that's why only later we have been told that the Red Air Force fought USAF fighters in Mig Alley during the Korean war with some Russian fighter pilots even getting to ace status against Americans. Did the Air Force know that they were fighting the Soviet Air Force? Of course! But this was kept as a secret, because nobody wanted to admit that the two powers were already engaged in pitch battle over North Korea. Don't want to frighten the people.

How we talk about nuclear war is really different and quite strange. The standard example is to put someone to be the President and then have the scenario where the other side has unleashed a massive nuclear strike... and he or she has the ten minutes to come up with a response. In that situation, many will give the answer (which basically reinforces the deterrence) that a similar massive strike is launched. But put that person to situation where the opponent has used an underwater nuclear detonation to kill one our attack submarine, and the response might not be to instill a massive nuclear strike on the enemy. And these situations aren't publicly discussed because of the emphasis is on that simply nuclear weapons would not be used, because "it would be irrational and mutually assured destruction". No other discussion tolerated.

Nuclear war isn't the likely outcome, but it doesn't need to be the likely outcome for it to be terrifying. — BitconnectCarlos

To take the step and use nuclear weapons, even small tactical ones, is huge. That I agree. Hence I don't think that the IDF would use nukes to destroy the underground facilities that Iran has.

During Desert Storm, the US couldn't know if Saddam Hussein actually would have nuclear weapons or would use the extensive chemical weapons arsenal. Hence it was a real possibility before it was evident that the Iraqi army would simply collapse. Colin Powell, who then was the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has told later that then in case of WMD's used against US forces in 1991, they would have blown the damns on the Tigris (and rivers flowing to it), which would have caused a huge flood in Baghdad. A flood can be devastating, but it doesn't sound to us as devastating as a nuclear bomb or a chemical warfare attack. This remark also shows just to what lengths the US armed forces would go NOT to use nuclear weapons.

Yet you might ask yourself: are you already in WW3? I don't think so. Neither am I. Still now you do have (again) Israel and Iran in open war.

Even if we knew there would be no nuclear war: Who loves death more? The secular or the Islamic fundamentalists? Fundamentalist religious countries (like Iran) that are nuclear do not bode well for a West that wants to live and let live. A nuclear Iran has much more bargaining power/influence, plus the possibility of proliferation, where they had their dirty work off to others to maintain plausible deniability. — BitconnectCarlos

Israel started this war, not Iran.

You should be thanking Israel. — BitconnectCarlos

The only thing I would thank them if they can deliver on time the weapons systems Finland bought from them.

The real bulwark for Western Europe is Ukraine, not Israel. I'm not seeing a nuclear armed Caliphate emerging from the Middle East, yet I do see a Russia hellbent on it's own imperialist goals to be great Power again and restore it's empire.

What I see is a Israeli administration attacking a hostile country that is 1000 kilometers away from it with it's actual neighbors still calmly looking from the side as Iranian missiles streak over them to hit Israel. Bibi is truly now is the wartime president, who thinks that military operations are the key to success. That's one big major problem.

Yep.

Hopefully Iran won't enlargen the conflict by closing the straight of Hormuz. This would put oil prices skyrocketing and force Trump to go to a full war with Iran. Somehow I think they aren't going to be so reckless, if the US stays out of attacking Iran itself. If Trump would join the party, then it's another matter.

Yet if the missile strikes continue on Israel, then Bibi will face the question of when calling it quits. Israelis (and basically people ought to know) that Israel does have a large nuclear deterrent. Because of this deterrent, it's questionable just why Israel would be hellbent prolong this war. Doesn't Israel's nuclear deterrence work? Or Iranians would want to destroy themselves just to destroy Israel?



Nevermind the "Mad-Mullahs" argument of Iranians wanting a to commit a suicide on it's whole population, the fact is that in the Middle-East the political rhetoric isn't at all in line with the military reality on the ground. But naturally this rhetoric gives the argument for Bibi to proclaim that Iranians are lunatics. Tiny actors like the Houthis in dirt poor Yemen can indeed cry for the destruction of Israel, but they don't have any means of doing it. And Bibi will remind everybody that Iranian politicians have called for the destruction of Israel.



When there is actual nuclear deterrent on both sides, you would have such limited engagements as Pakistan and India had just a short time ago. In those cases basically both sides do want for the war to stop as quickly as politically possible as both sides do not want to escalate the conflict.

The fact is that we have this false idea repeatedly given to us that a war with two nuclear armed powers will lead to a nuclear war, and in the case of the US and Russia (and China), to an all out nuclear holocaust. And that to assume something else is wrong, and only increases the possibility of a nuclear war. That we simply cannot say that anything else would happen than an all out nuclear exchange.

But the truth is that this isn't the likely outcome. This Iran-Israel war and especially the engagements between India and Pakistan after the two have built their nuclear deterrent shows otherwise. Remember that many people thought that Israel attacking Iran would be "WW3". Well, if so, we are already living it! Doesn't seem so apocalyptic to me.

This also gives credibility to the previous Biden administration saying that if Russia would use nuclear weapons in Ukraine, NATO would attack Russian forces in Ukraine with an air campaign. Likely they really would have done that: A limited air campaign that would have weakened the Russian forces in Ukraine. And then a declaration that the limited air campaign was a success. And Russia would claim that it's forces endured the onslaught well. And then both would act as India and Pakistan have acted.



Why wouldn't then NATO forces attack let's say Russian nuclear submarine bases in the Kola Peninsula? Well, not only because of Norway and Finland (and Sweden) being against that, but also then that action would truly have gotten us closer to that WW3 type nuclear war. Then Russia would indeed follow it's nuclear doctrine. Hence the response truly would have been what the Biden administration said it would do. And only that. End result: no use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine, at least for now.