War, what is it good for?

by **Jamiet99uk** » Mon Jun 16, 2025 10:59 pm

Democracy is a lovely idea.
A free press is a nice thing to have.

Imagine yourself in Iraq or Libya in the 2000s and let me ask you:

If you can have free elections, and a free press, and clean running water, and a good quality of primary school education for all of your children... BUT YOU CAN ONLY HAVE TWO... which two would you pick? Really?

by **Jamiet99uk** » Mon Jun 16, 2025 10:57 pm

Q. What was the moral justification for the Second Iraq War?

a. There wasn't one; it was an illegal war which should not have taken place.

by **Jamiet99uk** » Mon Jun 16, 2025 10:13 pm

Octavious wrote: ↑
Mon Jun 16, 2025 10:00 pm
The traditional justification for Nagasaki was that it was a necessary bluff. The first nuclear bombs were extremely hard and time consuming to make. Little Boy used up all the Uranium available which was why Fat Man used Plutonium. The Yanks had two shots in their gun and fired both of them in quick succession to give the impression that they had plenty of spare ammo.

The dropping of the bombs gave the world an introduction to the horror of the weapons. We are very lucky that humanity learned to fear nukes before they became plentiful. Without the two bombs being dropped on Japan I think there's a good chance civilisation would have been wiped out some time ago

I am asking if you think those attacks were justified.

by **Octavious** » Mon Jun 16, 2025 10:00 pm

The traditional justification for Nagasaki was that it was a necessary bluff. The first nuclear bombs were extremely hard and time consuming to make. Little Boy used up all the Uranium available which was why Fat Man used Plutonium. The Yanks had two shots in their gun and fired both of them in quick succession to give the impression that they had plenty of spare ammo.

The dropping of the bombs gave the world an introduction to the horror of the weapons. We are very lucky that humanity learned to fear nukes before they became plentiful. Without the two bombs being dropped on Japan I think there's a good chance civilisation would have been wiped out some time ago

by **Esquire Bertissimmo** » Mon Jun 16, 2025 9:06 pm

Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑
Mon Jun 16, 2025 8:49 pm
Ok let's talk about something thst really happened in the real world.

Do you think the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima was justified?

This seems like quite a jog from the topic of the day.

Maybe the deeper principle here is what makes war necessary and what tactics are allowable?

Maybe the Allies would have lost WW2 (as in ceding political control of their countries to Axis powers) if they hadn't resorted to firebombing civilian centres? Maybe they could have substituted such attacks for much more laborious land invasions and suffered 2x or 3x casualties?

I don't think the US was poised to "lose" to the Japanese in any meaningful sense. But if Imperial Japan would have been an intolerably hostile power then the substitute for a nuke may well have been yet more firebombing or, if that too was beyond the pale, a huge sacrifice of drafted soldiers. I don't totally share the common intuition that soldiers' lives are worth less than civilian ones, especially in the context of a draft. This might serve as an excuse for the first bomb—I don't really know how anyone justifies Nagasaki.

To relate this back to the current issue, I'm not sure what else to expect from Israel. They would fight this war unilaterally to stop Iran from getting the bomb, since they are the obvious target for such a weapon. We may find out that Iran's nuclear program was not in fact a super near-term threat—but I can't say for certain how close Iran should have been allowed to get to this goal.

If Greenland announced that it was building an atomic bomb while its leaders threatened to nuke Montreal 10x a year, I would also view that as intolerable and hope that the CAF had a plan to disrupt it. That my own country is deeply imperfect, and that we already have US nuclear cover, wouldn't really change my thinking on this.

by **Jamiet99uk** » Mon Jun 16, 2025 8:49 pm

Ok let's talk about something thst really happened in the real world.

Do you think the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima was justified?

by **Esquire Bertissimmo** » Mon Jun 16, 2025 8:43 pm

Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑
Mon Jun 16, 2025 8:39 pm
I don't want anyone to get a nuke, and I want the countries that have them to disarm.

Sure. But what does that have to do with the real world?

Either someone intervenes to keep Iran from getting a nuke, or no one does and they get a bunch of nukes.

It may totally be true that Bibi jumped the gun. I don't mean to be cheerleading this. If there was still even a slim hope for negotiations, that would obviously have been preferable. Now we'll never know, since even if this conflict wraps up quickly Iran will certainly dash for the bomb...

by **Jamiet99uk** » Mon Jun 16, 2025 8:39 pm

I don't want anyone to get a nuke, and I want the countries that have them to disarm.

by **Esquire Bertissimmo** » Mon Jun 16, 2025 8:26 pm

Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑
Mon Jun 16, 2025 8:13 pm
1. Is war against Iran unnecessary?

It is unjustified. Iran is accused of seeking to develop nuclear weapons. Israel is widely known to already possess nuclear weapons in some capacity, in breach of international law (which largely no longer exists thanks to the West's indulgence of Israel's murderous policies). This is the problem of nuclear weapons. How can you justify attacking another country for having a nuclear weapons programme, when you have a nuclear weapons programme? The very claim is absurd.

Iran is a sovereign nation. There is no justification for Israel attacking it. Israel is waging an unjust war which will slaughter numerous innocents.

What of the threat of Israel's nuclear programme?

No sense saying "accused", Iran is certainly seeking to develop nuclear weapons. I don't blame them, their main adversary has such weapons and the world is unkind to nations without them.

I don't know why you think morality or justice matters here. If South Korea could roll back the tape they almost certainly would have stopped North Korea from getting the bomb—that they themselves are covered by the US umbrella doesn't make them indifferent to a North Korean nuclear program.

The best possible outcome in the middle east might be that no one gets to have a nuclear weapon. Israel already has them though. So the second best outcome is that no one else gets a nuclear weapon. If Iran gets the bomb, Saudi and Qatar will get their own too. The risk of a global nuclear conflict increases greatly if this volatile region suffers proliferation.

The threat posed by Israel's nukes certainly increases in a world where all its neighbours have nukes as well.

Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑
Mon Jun 16, 2025 8:13 pm
2. Now the conflict has started, why would it be in our interests for Israel to lose?

Wow, what an awful perspective.

"Now that the Nazis have started to conquer Europe, wouldn't it be better to just let them finish the job? They might get rid of a few pesky communists in the process!"

It is not in anyone's interests other than Israel's for this war to be occurring at all. It's not about backing one side or another, ideally. It should be about seeking peace as a matter of urgency. But such peace requires fundamental regime change in Israel at the very least.

I'm not really sure how your analogy applies.

No country in the west wants Iran to get a nuke. Iran seemed undeterrable from developing a bomb. This was likely to cause conflict at some point in my lifetime.

Bibi and co. are undoubtedly exaggerating how close Iran is to this goal, but I don't think anyone credible thought we had more than 10 years. It doesn't take a lot of strategic empathy for me to get why someone in Israel has a lower risk tolerance than I do for letting Iran get close to finishing a bomb.

NATO leaders *strongly* prefer that it is Israeli soldiers and citizens who take the brunt of Iran's self-defense. That preference has nothing to do with their citizens' views on the goodness of the Israeli government.

by **Jamiet99uk** » Mon Jun 16, 2025 8:23 pm

Esquire Bertissimmo wrote: ↑
Mon Jun 16, 2025 8:14 pm

Would such a hypothetical force for good also have a duty to support Israeli strikes on the Mullahs?

To this specific question, no, absolutely not. I described the deployment of forces to protect the delivery of aid, not to support any kind of attacks.

Israel is deliberately trying to starve Gazans to death. The UN has confirmed this.

by **Jamiet99uk** » Mon Jun 16, 2025 8:17 pm

Esquire Bertissimmo wrote: ↑
Mon Jun 16, 2025 8:14 pm

Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑
Mon Jun 16, 2025 8:05 pm

Octavious wrote: ↑
Mon Jun 16, 2025 1:51 pm

The current actions specifically referring to the strikes on Iran? Pretty much what Starmer is doing. As much as possible stay out of it, but make sure increased forces are at hand to react to any threats against British interests.

I'm genuinely curious about what you'd do differently. Cry "Rule Britainnia!" and send out the gunboats to beat a bit of civilisation into Johnny Foreigner?
Maybe what I would do differently would be mostly symbolic but sometimes symbolism matters.

I would place every member of the Israeli government and all senior IDF commanders on the sanctions list.

I would immediately place a trade embargo on Israel, ceasing all exports military or otherwise, and blocking the import of any Israeli goods. A drop in the ocean but a signal.

I would publicly declare the UK's support for South Africa's ongoing case against Israel in the International Court of Justice.

I would place travel restrictions on people with Israel-issued passports travelling to or from the UK or transiting through this country.

I would seek to use the UKs position on the Security Council to bring international action against Israel despite the knowledge that the USA would block it.

If these actions did not yield a significant impact (which I don't believe they would) I would liaise with UN agencies and the Red Cross / Red Crescent to sponsor a plan to deliver an increase in humanitarian aid to Gaza.

Ultimately, gunboats? Yes. I would deploy Royal Navy units to international waters in the Mediterranean Sea to prevent the interception of any UK-flagged vessels seeking to transport aid to Gaza provided such vessels submitted to a search by Royal Navy forces to confirm their humanitarian cargoes.

Reasonable and humane steps in the face of a murderous regime hellbent on genocide.
This seems mostly reasonable to me. Interestingly, it rhymes with liberal internationalist and neo-con visions of foreign policy that no longer have any political support.

Would such a hypothetical force for good also have a duty to support Israeli strikes on the Mullahs? And indeed, to involve itself in many other places where people are oppressed by the state? That seems to be the sticking point. The US tried the world police approach to foreign policy and it failed. Now we're back to pursuing narrower national interests, which in the West will favour Israel over Iran.

There is a specific difference for the UK, however.

The UK had a UN / LoN mandate to administer Palestine. The UK abandoned its duties and actively, knowingly, enabled Zionist massacres of Palestinians.

The UK has a burden of guilt in this situation which it should not forget.

by **Jamiet99uk** » Mon Jun 16, 2025 8:15 pm

If the Nazi analogy doesn't fit, the so called "international community" should in my view seek to place Israel into the position of Japan in around 1954.

by **Esquire Bertissimmo** » Mon Jun 16, 2025 8:14 pm

Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑
Mon Jun 16, 2025 8:05 pm

Octavious wrote: ↑
Mon Jun 16, 2025 1:51 pm

Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑
Mon Jun 16, 2025 12:56 pm
If you woke up this morning to find you were the Prime Minister of the UK, or the President of the USA, what would you do about Israel's current actions?
The current actions specifically referring to the strikes on Iran? Pretty much what Starmer is doing. As much as possible stay out of it, but make sure increased forces are at hand to react to any threats against British interests.

I'm genuinely curious about what you'd do differently. Cry "Rule Britainnia!" and send out the gunboats to beat a bit of civilisation into Johnny Foreigner?
Maybe what I would do differently would be mostly symbolic but sometimes symbolism matters.

I would place every member of the Israeli government and all senior IDF commanders on the sanctions list.

I would immediately place a trade embargo on Israel, ceasing all exports military or otherwise, and blocking the import of any Israeli goods. A drop in the ocean but a signal.

I would publicly declare the UK's support for South Africa's ongoing case against Israel in the International Court of Justice.

I would place travel restrictions on people with Israel-issued passports travelling to or from the UK or transiting through this country.

I would seek to use the UKs position on the Security Council to bring international action against Israel despite the knowledge that the USA would block it.

If these actions did not yield a significant impact (which I don't believe they would) I would liaise with UN agencies and the Red Cross / Red Crescent to sponsor a plan to deliver an increase in humanitarian aid to Gaza.

Ultimately, gunboats? Yes. I would deploy Royal Navy units to international waters in the Mediterranean Sea to prevent the interception of any UK-flagged vessels seeking to transport aid to Gaza provided such vessels submitted to a search by Royal Navy forces to confirm their humanitarian cargoes.

Reasonable and humane steps in the face of a murderous regime hellbent on genocide.

This seems mostly reasonable to me. Interestingly, it rhymes with liberal internationalist and neo-con visions of foreign policy that no longer have any political support.

Would such a hypothetical force for good also have a duty to support Israeli strikes on the Mullahs? And indeed, to involve itself in many other places where people are oppressed by the state? That seems to be the sticking point. The US tried the world police approach to foreign policy and it failed. Now we're back to pursuing narrower national interests, which in the West will favour Israel over Iran.

by **Jamiet99uk** » Mon Jun 16, 2025 8:13 pm

Esquire Bertissimmo wrote: ↑
Mon Jun 16, 2025 6:27 pm

Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑
Sun Jun 15, 2025 1:51 pm
The big prize for both Israel and the US here is the elimination of Iran as a nuclear power and a threat to their dominance in the region.

The Israeli military will talk about taking out commanders and strategic targets but clearly their real aim is provocation. They wanted to provoke Iran into responding and they hope nobody will remember or care that Israel started this.

The objective for Israel, with the US standing by their side, no matter what Trump might say, is to draw the region, and western powers, into a wider war.

This has been made possible because over the last 20 months, governments of the world have been tested, and have stood by and done NOTHING while a genocide happened in Gaza. They’ve dutifully provided political cover, continued to supply weapons and ammo, and they’ve cracked down on opposition to the mass slaughter.

Keir Starmer lies about calling for ‘calm’ while mobilising British warplanes to defend Israel. He is one of the authors of this situation, and when push comes to shove, he and Trump will drag us all in to a wider war too. That’s what all the militarism, “defence” spending, “war footing” etc has all been about.

Everyone who has played a part in cheering that on is responsible too, putting our very existence and future generations in jeopardy.
Is your view that a war with Iran is totally unnecessary? That their nuclear ambitions could have been otherwise deterred, indefinitely, without conflict?

Maybe a forceful rebuke of Israel (including, say, an end to US military support) in response to Gaza would have discouraged Israel from its attacks on Iran. But that logic feels backwards to me—the West continued to support Israel despite its obvious lurch towards genocide *because* of the threat of Iran and its nuclear program.

Now that this conflict has started, what benefit would it be to the UK, US, etc. for Israel to lose? The harsh reality is that the genocide in Gaza doesn't change the strategic calculus vis-a-vis Iran. The US and other Western powers may indeed resent Israel's belligerence if Iran is not actually close to a bomb, or if the conflict goes south quickly, but otherwise this is basically going according to plan—Israel does the heavy lifting in a war to prevent Iran from getting the bomb, while the rest of the Western coalition waits for opportunities to obliterate the Iranian nuclear program (and maybe its leadership) without having to dedicate much in terms of boots on the ground.

1. Is war against Iran unnecessary?

It is unjustified. Iran is accused of seeking to develop nuclear weapons. Israel is widely known to already possess nuclear weapons in some capacity, in breach of international law (which largely no longer exists thanks to the West's indulgence of Israel's murderous policies). This is the problem of nuclear weapons. How can you justify attacking another country for having a nuclear weapons programme, when you have a nuclear weapons programme? The very claim is absurd.

Iran is a sovereign nation. There is no justification for Israel attacking it. Israel is waging an unjust war which will slaughter numerous innocents.

What of the threat of Israel's nuclear programme?

2. Now the conflict has started, why would it be in our interests for Israel to lose?

Wow, what an awful perspective.

"Now that the Nazis have started to conquer Europe, wouldn't it be better to just let them finish the job? They might get rid of a few pesky communists in the process!"

It is not in anyone's interests other than Israel's for this war to be occurring at all. It's not about backing one side or another, ideally. It should be about seeking peace as a matter of urgency. But such peace requires fundamental regime change in Israel at the very least.

by **Jamiet99uk** » Mon Jun 16, 2025 8:05 pm

Octavious wrote: ↑
Mon Jun 16, 2025 1:51 pm

Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑
Mon Jun 16, 2025 12:56 pm
If you woke up this morning to find you were the Prime Minister of the UK, or the President of the USA, what would you do about Israel's current actions?
The current actions specifically referring to the strikes on Iran? Pretty much what Starmer is doing. As much as possible stay out of it, but make sure increased forces are at hand to react to any threats against British interests.

I'm genuinely curious about what you'd do differently. Cry "Rule Britainnia!" and send out the gunboats to beat a bit of civilisation into Johnny Foreigner?

Maybe what I would do differently would be mostly symbolic but sometimes symbolism matters.

I would place every member of the Israeli government and all senior IDF commanders on the sanctions list.

I would immediately place a trade embargo on Israel, ceasing all exports military or otherwise, and blocking the import of any Israeli goods. A drop in the ocean but a signal.

I would publicly declare the UK's support for South Africa's ongoing case against Israel in the International Court of Justice.

I would place travel restrictions on people with Israel-issued passports travelling to or from the UK or transiting through this country.

I would seek to use the UKs position on the Security Council to bring international action against Israel despite the knowledge that the USA would block it.

If these actions did not yield a significant impact (which I don't believe they would) I would liaise with UN agencies and the Red Cross / Red Crescent to sponsor a plan to deliver an increase in humanitarian aid to Gaza.

Ultimately, gunboats? Yes. I would deploy Royal Navy units to international waters in the Mediterranean Sea to prevent the interception of any UK-flagged vessels seeking to transport aid to Gaza provided such vessels submitted to a search by Royal Navy forces to confirm their humanitarian cargoes.

Reasonable and humane steps in the face of a murderous regime hellbent on genocide.

by **Esquire Bertissimmo** » Mon Jun 16, 2025 6:27 pm

Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑
Sun Jun 15, 2025 1:51 pm
The big prize for both Israel and the US here is the elimination of Iran as a nuclear power and a threat to their dominance in the region.

The Israeli military will talk about taking out commanders and strategic targets but clearly their real aim is provocation. They wanted to provoke Iran into responding and they hope nobody will remember or care that Israel started this.

The objective for Israel, with the US standing by their side, no matter what Trump might say, is to draw the region, and western powers, into a wider war.

This has been made possible because over the last 20 months, governments of the world have been tested, and have stood by and done NOTHING while a genocide happened in Gaza. They’ve dutifully provided political cover, continued to supply weapons and ammo, and they’ve cracked down on opposition to the mass slaughter.

Keir Starmer lies about calling for ‘calm’ while mobilising British warplanes to defend Israel. He is one of the authors of this situation, and when push comes to shove, he and Trump will drag us all in to a wider war too. That’s what all the militarism, “defence” spending, “war footing” etc has all been about.

Everyone who has played a part in cheering that on is responsible too, putting our very existence and future generations in jeopardy.

Is your view that a war with Iran is totally unnecessary? That their nuclear ambitions could have been otherwise deterred, indefinitely, without conflict?

Maybe a forceful rebuke of Israel (including, say, an end to US military support) in response to Gaza would have discouraged Israel from its attacks on Iran. But that logic feels backwards to me—the West continued to support Israel despite its obvious lurch towards genocide *because* of the threat of Iran and its nuclear program.

Now that this conflict has started, what benefit would it be to the UK, US, etc. for Israel to lose? The harsh reality is that the genocide in Gaza doesn't change the strategic calculus vis-a-vis Iran. The US and other Western powers may indeed resent Israel's belligerence if Iran is not actually close to a bomb, or if the conflict goes south quickly, but otherwise this is basically going according to plan—Israel does the heavy lifting in a war to prevent Iran from getting the bomb, while the rest of the Western coalition waits for opportunities to obliterate the Iranian nuclear program (and maybe its leadership) without having to dedicate much in terms of boots on the ground.

by **Octavious** » Mon Jun 16, 2025 1:51 pm

Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑
Mon Jun 16, 2025 12:56 pm
If you woke up this morning to find you were the Prime Minister of the UK, or the President of the USA, what would you do about Israel's current actions?

The current actions specifically referring to the strikes on Iran? Pretty much what Starmer is doing. As much as possible stay out of it, but make sure increased forces are at hand to react to any threats against British interests.

I'm genuinely curious about what you'd do differently. Cry "Rule Britainnia!" and send out the gunboats to beat a bit of civilisation into Johnny Foreigner?

by **Jamiet99uk** » Mon Jun 16, 2025 12:56 pm

If you woke up this morning to find you were the Prime Minister of the UK, or the President of the USA, what would you do about Israel's current actions?

by **Jamiet99uk** » Sun Jun 15, 2025 10:46 pm

Esquire Bertissimmo wrote: ↑
Sun Jun 15, 2025 9:48 pm
Intentions aside, UK policy has pretty much nothing to do with this conflict

It hasn't stopped it, and it has emboldened Netanyahu who has been told he can do whatever he wants with no consequences.

by **Esquire Bertissimmo** » Sun Jun 15, 2025 9:48 pm

Intentions aside, UK policy has pretty much nothing to do with this conflict

War, what is it good for?

Post a reply

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

Re: War, what is it good for?

Illegal wars

Re: War, what is it good for?

Re: War, what is it good for?

Re: War, what is it good for?

Re: War, what is it good for?

Re: War, what is it good for?

Re: War, what is it good for?

Re: War, what is it good for?

Re: War, what is it good for?

Re: War, what is it good for?

Re: War, what is it good for?

Re: War, what is it good for?

Re: War, what is it good for?

Re: War, what is it good for?

Re: War, what is it good for?

Re: War, what is it good for?

Re: War, what is it good for?

Re: War, what is it good for?

Re: War, what is it good for?