Politics Riots in Gaza and Israel

[Chazman]

It's harakiri not hairykeira.

Thanks, I know. HariKari is the acceptable conversational slang to harakiri.

 

[Jake84]

I understand many over here rejoice Israeli actions because of some deep-seated aversion against muslims and folks in the Middle East in general, but Israel itself is increasingly falling prone to religious extremism and nationalism at the detriment of their immediate Arab neighbours.

I wanted to reply to this part here, nah, probably not. A number of our users are actually Muslims and hailing from Arab or North African countries and are appreciated, just read the Algerian or Tunisian armed forces photos. We also have our fair share of Turkish members.

IDF_TANKER is correct and I would agree that it’s definitely a complex issue that’s been going since post WW2 and before even when as you aptly mention the European Jewish population was fleeing pogroms and persecutions all over Europe and Eastern Europe particularly.

Hence why unlike what you said I doubt many here are so much rejoicing over the Israeli air strikes and much less about the retaliation from Hamas and all.

This year things are worse, for reasons discussed before. Unfortunately I see no end in sight for both Palestinians and Israelis.

 

[nicememe]

There is this thing called: Mutual Assured Destruction.

mutually*

Also, it exists mainly in theory. Nobody got to test it yet.

But I would generally agree that Iran's pursuit of nukes is pretty natural and inevitable. It's the biggest powerhouse in the region after all.
No matter how long I tried to look at the situation as an outsider, but Israel always looked as the main trouble-maker to me. But I think he's kind of seen the same way by the majority of the world, with the exception of the US.
USA's threats towards Iran over its development of nuclear potential stem entirely out of political obligations towards Israel. And the US verbal/political support towards Israel during any kind of confrontation with its Arab neighbours is also entirely out of political obligations, and not out of any kind of moral sense of justice.

But unlike some mentioned here, I don't think there is any political settlement to the problem. The middle eastern map in the context of Israel and Iran just looks and feels like something I could only describe as "weird" and "extremely awkward". Political solutions can only solve mediocre problems. This on the contrary looks to me like a huge geopolitical problem spanning generations. Good thing I don't live there.

 

[Chazman]

mutually*

Also, it exists mainly in theory. Nobody got to test it yet.

You don't think MAD's been tested? I sure think it has.

 

[Chazman]

One of the reasons why the Israelis have moved heaven and earth to prevent a nuclear Iran is not necessarily because they fear Iran throwing a nuclear warhead on Israeli soil (Iran isn't so foolish to do so), but because they fear that Iran would completely outflank them with its proxies under its nuclear umbrella.

Simply put: Israel is an extremely small country with no strategic depth. It can't afford being surrounded by all kinds of militias with high precision-guiding munition.



Israel too. And this has hardly changed the strategic picture.

And yet, the mullah's claim they will destroy Israel the moment they get a nuke.

 

[nicememe]

You don't think MAD's been tested? I sure think it has.

Sure, point me to a time in history when 2 nuclear powers mutually destroyed each other with nukes.
Protip: you can't. Because nobody really has the balls to push the button.

 

[Mardonius]

And yet, the mullah's claim they will destroy Israel the moment they get a nuke.

Iran isn't going to nuke anyone, even if they acquire such capability. Iran is a rational and strategic actor; nuking any country is nothing more than suicide.

 

[Chazman]

Sure, point me to a time in history when 2 nuclear powers mutually destroyed each other with nukes.
Protip: you can't. Because nobody really has the balls to push the button.

The whole point of MAD is that both sides know that they are both mutually assured of destruction. ProTip*: That's the point.

 

[Chazman]

Iran isn't going to nuke anyone, even if they acquire such capability. Iran is a rational and strategic actor; nuking any country is nothing more than suicide.

Not according to Iran's leaders.

 

[Faheka]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[nicememe]

The whole point of MAD is that both sides know that they are both mutually assured of destruction. ProTip*: That's the point.

How can both sides know that they are mutually assured of destruction, if there is no physical proof of such?
MAD is entirely based on assumptions. Not on facts.

 

[Mardonius]

Not according to Iran's leaders.

Iran hasn't threatened to nuke any country.

 

[Mardonius]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

This whole back-and-forth shooting between Hamas and Israel overshadows the fact that there appears to be a civil war going on in Israel between Jewish and Arab Israelis at the same time.

 

[Jake84]

Iran hasn't threatened to nuke any country.

Chazman might be talking about former Iranian leader and president Ahmadinejad who apparently would have said such thing, but that was way back and I’m not sure of his exact quote or if he really stated it and meant it.

Even the chubby fool of North Korea has no immediate or short term plan to nuke South Korea.

 

[Chazman]

How can both sides know that they are mutually assured of destruction, if there is no physical proof of such?
MAD is entirely based on assumptions. Not on facts.

Welp, you have a point. I mean one side can have 2,000 warheads and the other side can convince everyone that it has 2,000 warheads, even if it doesn't. In that case, the side with the actual warheads is convinced of MAD and doesn't attack. That is.......unless the side that is faking does such a good job of it, that the side with nukes vaporizes them while believing they are under attack.

I'm fairly confident that MAD kept the US and USSR at a standoff for half a century.

 

[FLYNAVY]

"Surely hamas has to know that Israel has stealthy F-35s that can carry nukes. @ some point the rocket count is going to hit the magic number. Would like to know what that number is."

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Chazman]

Chazman might be talking about former Iranian leader and president Ahmadinejad who apparently would have said such thing, but that was way back and I’m not sure of his exact quote or if he really stated it and meant it.

Even the chubby fool of North Korea has no immediate or short term plan to nuke South Korea.

The most recent Iranian I've heard who spoke on the matter, claims that Iran is NOT interested in developing nukes. But.....

 

[Faheka]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Mardonius]

Welp, you have a point. I mean one side can have 2,000 warheads and the other side can convince everyone that it has 2,000 warheads, even if it doesn't. In that case, the side with the actual warheads is convinced of MAD and doesn't attack. That is.......unless the side that is faking does such a good job of it, that the side with nukes vaporizes them while believing they are under attack.

I'm fairly confident that MAD kept the US and USSR at a standoff for half a century.

MAD; deterrence, etc. are in the end theoretical concepts that are presumed to work in reality. There is some indication that it works, but there is no conclusive evidence that the concept is definitive or forms an end-state to status quo of nuclear powers.

The relative peace between nuclear powers we have been enjoying might change in the near or distant future. Countries are changing their nuclear posture as we speak.

 

[nicememe]

Welp, you have a point. I mean one side can have 2,000 warheads and the other side can convince everyone that it has 2,000 warheads, even if it doesn't. In that case, the side with the actual warheads is convinced of MAD and doesn't attack. That is.......unless the side that is faking does such a good job of it, that the side with nukes vaporizes them while believing they are under attack.

I'm fairly confident that MAD kept the US and USSR at a standoff for half a century.

Launching nukes is a complicated bureaucratic process where the entire chain of command from political to military has to commit to the mission.
How can you know that the chain of command of one country committing to the launch would imply a perfectly mirrored commitment from the chain of command of another country?
Protip: you can't know that. Because this issue relates to depths of human psychology that haven't been explored, ever in history. Experts in the field still today have no idea whether proliferation would contribute to greater peace or lesser peace, but they opt for letting "sleeping dogs lie" by sticking to anti-proliferation as the seemingly safer option. All history (of the cold war) has proved so far, is that the issue of nukes has a weird effect on human psyche, creating unpredictable gaps in the command chain. Where half of the officers may commit, but meet opposition from the other half. So you can only make far-fetched assumptions. (and I'm not even mentioning the effect of proliferation on the nature of military and political bureaucracies)
Assuming mutually-assured destruction is as plausible, as assuming one country launching a strike and the other refusing to retaliate. Until today, all nuclear actors opted for letting "sleeping dogs lie", however, regardless of the history of the cold war, they didn't actually stop pursuing "first strike" capability, which only signifies that MAD as a theory is quite contested even within the political elites of nuclear powerhouses.

Opting for a seemingly safer option out of a fear of the unknown doesn't imply "proof" of anything.