Israel Under Attack

[K Frame]

Women heads of state on average are much more warmongering than male counterparts.

The basis for that assessment is... what exactly?

[dogmush]

The basis for that assessment is... what exactly?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kimelsesser/2022/03/08/sheryl-sandberg-says-female-leaders-dont-go-to-war-heres-what-research-says/

Authors of the book Why Leaders Fight analyzed every world leader from 1875 to 2004 and statistically examined gender differences in military aggression. They found that 36% of the female leaders initiated at least one militarized dispute, while only 30% of male leaders did the same.

..

One study found that female leaders combat gender stereotypes that women are weak by acting particularly tough during international military crises. For the same reason, female leaders have a harder time backing down from threats.

https://www.nber.org/papers/w23337

Are states led by women less prone to conflict than states led by men? We answer this question by examining the effect of female rule on war among European polities over the 15th-20th centuries. We utilize gender of the first born and presence of a female sibling among previous monarchs as instruments for queenly rule. We find that polities led by queens were more likely to engage in war than polities led by kings. Moreover, the tendency of queens to engage as aggressors varied by marital status. Among unmarried monarchs, queens were more likely to be attacked than kings. Among married monarchs, queens were more likely to participate as attackers than kings, and, more likely to fight alongside allies. These results are consistent with an account in which marriages strengthened queenly reigns because married queens were more likely to secure alliances and enlist their spouses to help them rule. Married kings, in contrast, were less inclined to utilize a similar division of labor. These asymmetries, which reflected prevailing gender norms, ultimately enabled queens to pursue more aggressive war policies.

There's more out there if you look, but it's a pretty well documented tendancy.

[De Selby]

The morality of exterminating a race because your holy book says the land belongs to foreigners aside, how insane is it that the damage to US interests inherent in what’s already happened along with the risk of WWIII just doesn’t seem to occur to the minority American political view being expressed on this board?

[Perd Hapley]

Exterminating a race - anyone know what he's talking about?

[K Frame]

Ah, the spectre of "World War III is imminent if the US does anything at all!!!"

Hint for you...

Despite the most fervent and hopeful predictions of the JEWS SHOULD BE SLAUGHTERED! crowed, World War III sure as *expletive deleted*ck didn't kick off in 1973 when the US AND the Soviet Union were pouring incredible amounts of weapons into both sides of the last concerted Arab effort to destroy Israel.

So shut the *expletive deleted*ck up with the squawking WORLD WAR III WORLD WAR III parrot tropes because it's tired and complete bullshit and you know it.

[WLJ]

If Iran can deliver a handful of nukes Israel being a much smaller country could be crippled in short order.  Yes Israel would likely light up Tehran but Iran being much larger and their dying for Allah mindset can absorb such a hit better than Israel. The only real question is if they ever get that capability are they that crazy to start it and I hate to say more than likely yes. This means Israel's priority is to sure make Iran never has that capability so expect something big soon.

WW-III in either case? Highly doubtful but the former would change ME dynamics massively while the latter will proabily produced not much beyond a lot of teeth gnashing on Iran's part and a lot of up and down mouth movement and CO2 expelled at the UN

[Ben]

If Iran can deliver a handful of nukes Israel being a much smaller country could be crippled in short order.  Yes Israel would likely light up Tehran but Iran being much larger and their dying for Allah mindset can absorb such a hit better than Israel. The only real question is if they ever get that capability are they that crazy to start it and I hate to say more than likely yes. This means Israel's priority is to sure make Iran never has that capability so expect something big soon.

WW-III in either case? Highly doubtful but the former would change ME dynamics massively while the latter will proabily produced not much beyond a lot of teeth gnashing on Iran's part and a lot of up and down mouth movement and CO2 expelled at the UN

WW1 and WW2, while somewhat dissimilar, were still very similar in the conventional warfare sense. WW3 will bear little similarity to those wars. With a heavy use of unrestricted warfare and 5th generation warfare, it will be a completely different animal. In fact in some sense, it can be argued that we are already in the shallow end of WW3.

[Northwoods]

The morality of exterminating a race because your holy book says the land belongs to foreigners aside, how insane is it that the damage to US interests inherent in what’s already happened along with the risk of WWIII just doesn’t seem to occur to the minority American political view being expressed on this board?

If Side A were to unilaterally disarm and ask for peace, and Side B would respond by engaging in peaceful diplomatic and economic partnership, is Side B a genocidal warmonger?

If Side B were to unilaterally disarm and ask for peace, and Side A would respond by engaging in an extermination campaign, is Side A a genocidal warmonger?

Even DeSelby knows which is which, and who the actual genocidal warmonger is. He just won't admit it.

[WLJ]

WW1 and WW2, while somewhat dissimilar, were still very similar in the conventional warfare sense. WW3 will bear little similarity to those wars. With a heavy use of unrestricted warfare and 5th generation warfare, it will be a completely different animal. In fact in some sense, it can be argued that we are already in the shallow end of WW3.

Considering how many times we've been told "this will start WW-III" the pass 80 years I'm taking a wait and see attitude. Israel and Iran nuking each other would be world changing event but I'm not convinced it would start WW-III. Of course it depends somewhat on just how you define and draw the line on what constitutes a Word War. Related to that is that many consider the Seven Years War as the First World War so we've already had at least 3 but that's a topic for another thread.

[WLJ]

Iran getting nukes worriers  the F out of me because they're bat *expletive deleted*it crazy, no telling what they would be willing to do with them. Nuke hidden in a cargo container in NY harbor among other things? All joking nuking NY would be a good thing aside.

[WLJ]

Reportedly a drone that originated from Iraq

Steve Lookner reposted
Emanuel (Mannie) Fabian
@manniefabian
Two Israeli soldiers were killed and more than 20 were wounded in a drone attack from Iraq early Thursday morning, the IDF announces.

The slain soldiers are named as:

Sgt. Daniel Aviv Haim Sofer, 19, a signals officer cadet in the Golani Brigade's 13th Battalion, from Ashkelon.

Cpl. Tal Dror, 19, an IT specialist with the Golani Brigade's 13th Battalion, from Jerusalem.

According to an IDF probe, two explosive-laden drones were launched from Iraq in the attack, one of which was shot down by air defenses and the second impacted an army base in the northern Golan Heights.

In addition to the two slain soldiers, another 23 were wounded in the attack, including two seriously and 21 lightly.

https://x.com/manniefabian/status/1842204245723853210

[WLJ]

Steve Lookner reposted
Dr. Jeffrey Lewis
@ArmsControlWonk
Our first count is that 32 missiles struck Nevatim Air Base (pins) -- although three impact points are obscured by clouds in the 50 cm Skysat and had to be made with 3 m Dove images (white pins).  @DuitsmanMS
 @sam_lair
 @dex_eve
 @JamesMartinCNS

Image at the link

https://x.com/ArmsControlWonk/status/1841985294368964944

[K Frame]

Yes, Iran having nukes would be very concerning.

But not for the reason you think.

They may be crazy, but they're still smart enough to know that any nuclear launch by them would mean an immediate retaliatory strike against them that would be unsurvivable. North Korean is equally crazy but intelligent.

The true worry would be Iran supplying a small nuke to one of its client terror groups. Even so, Iran's smart enough to know that such a use by one of its proxies would be considered to be a direct nuclear strike BY Iran. Which would, once again, likely lead to a regime destroying retaliatory strike.

What really astounds me is how so few people truly learned the bitter lesson of European "diplomacy" post 1935.

OMG! We have to appease Germany or we might have another war! Besides, Hitler pinky swore that if we gave him this in response to his threats that he would be satisfied!

It's truly amazing just how well that worked out.

The ONLY viable response to rogue aggressor states is equal force, otherwise the aggressor state goes completely feral.

History has proven that time and time again. It just baffles me that so many people have been so failed by their primary school educations

[WLJ]

Yes, Iran having nukes would be very concerning.

But not for the reason you think.

They may be crazy, but they're still smart enough to know that any nuclear launch by them would mean an immediate retaliatory strike against them that would be unsurvivable. North Korean is equally crazy but intelligent.

The true worry would be Iran supplying a small nuke to one of its client terror groups. Even so, Iran's smart enough to know that such a use by one of its proxies would be considered to be a direct nuclear strike BY Iran. Which would, once again, likely lead to a regime destroying retaliatory strike.

I said crazy not stupid
As I said in one example of what they could do it doesn't have to be a launch. A launch is easily traced back and they know that we could easily turn Iran into glass. If one went off hidden in a container on a container ship in harbor proving where the nuke itself came from may be doable but a bit problematic. Iran? Russia? China? NK? Pakistan?

And that's just one of a dozen different ways they could do it thus "among other things".

[HankB]

. . . Israel would likely light up Tehran but Iran being much larger and their dying for Allah mindset can absorb such a hit better than Israel. . . .

If they could, after being nuked themselves, Israel would light up more - a lot more - than just Tehran. There are six cities in Iran with over 1 million people, I expect they'd all be gone. Eighteen cities with over 500,000 - a good many of those would be history as well. As well as various military and industrial targets.

Iran getting nukes worriers  the F out of me because they're bat *expletive deleted*it crazy, no telling what they would be willing to do with them. Nuke hidden in a cargo container in NY harbor among other things? All joking nuking NY would be a good thing aside.

That's a concern of mine, too. Current wet sock puppet in the White House would probably just sit around wringing his hands.

[Perd Hapley]

The basis for that assessment is... what exactly?

Yeah! Jill Biden hasn't started any wars! What's that guy talkin about?

[WLJ]

If they could, after being nuked themselves, Israel would light up more - a lot more - than just Tehran. There are six cities in Iran with over 1 million people, I expect they'd all be gone. Eighteen cities with over 500,000 - a good many of those would be history as well. As well as various military and industrial targets.

Unfortunately Iran has the advantage there. Imagine if out the of the 180 or so missile they launched the other day 5 or 10 had nuke warheads mixed in with the lot. Most of Israel's airfields would be toast or severely damaged in short order and unless they have their version of Chrome Dome ongoing they may not have much left to strike back with. Now just how survivable their nuke strike capability would be in such a case is really anyone's guess, too many wildcards here including the question of whether or not Israel has any dispersed or in the ground missile launch capability, which would be the smart thing to do, I'm not aware but if someone has info on that please speak up.

Now all of this assumes they do actually have nukes and Iran will which is why things could get very interesting soon to prevent the latter.

This raises questions. How would the world react if it was Israel who did a nuke strike first? Would they?

[Pb]

I've read that Israel does have subs capable of launching nukes.

[WLJ]

Yeah cruse missiles, reading up on some it right now. How much of what you find on the internet is true is an open question and I'm sure Israel likes it that way. How much is bluff IDK. They have done home based satellite launches so nuclear capable short or middle range missile (Jericho) and MAYBE even ICBMs are not out of the question.

[De Selby]

Ah, the spectre of "World War III is imminent if the US does anything at all!!!"

Hint for you...

Despite the most fervent and hopeful predictions of the JEWS SHOULD BE SLAUGHTERED! crowed, World War III sure as *expletive deleted*ck didn't kick off in 1973 when the US AND the Soviet Union were pouring incredible amounts of weapons into both sides of the last concerted Arab effort to destroy Israel.

So shut the *expletive deleted*ck up with the squawking WORLD WAR III WORLD WAR III parrot tropes because it's tired and complete bullshit and you know it.

Are you listening to yourself? Some of the world’s most crucial energy production centres are right at the centre of this war. An attack on Iran could very easily result in wars on Saudi, Kuwaiti, and UAE facilities which almost certainly draws in the United States. Russia and China may not sit idly by and watch Iran go the way of Iraq.

Sitting and thinking this is just free entertainment for people who hate Arabs is beyond dumb.

[De Selby]

If Side A were to unilaterally disarm and ask for peace, and Side B would respond by engaging in peaceful diplomatic and economic partnership, is Side B a genocidal warmonger?

If Side B were to unilaterally disarm and ask for peace, and Side A would respond by engaging in an extermination campaign, is Side A a genocidal warmonger?

Even DeSelby knows which is which, and who the actual genocidal warmonger is. He just won't admit it.

If side A unilaterally disarms, they get forcibly relocated away from their homeland. This is just a straight up Pollyanna view of Israel that has no basis in fact.

[Brad Johnson]

The ONLY viable response to rogue aggressor states is equal force, otherwise the aggressor state goes completely feral.

Very much agree, though I would change "goes" to "has already gone". Attempting reasoned, intelligent interchange is a waste of time and money. All they understand is "destroy or be destroyed". It is their ethos, their mantra - pretty much the focus of their existence, both personal and cultural. They view diplomacy as weakness and those attempting it as inferior. The only way to stop them is to completely and unrecoverably remove their ability to wage war, up to and including the lunatics calling the shots. Short of that, any overt display of concession on their part is a ruse, buying time until they can strike again.

Brad

[Northwoods]

The ONLY viable response to rogue aggressor states is equal force, otherwise the aggressor state goes completely feral.

History has proven that time and time again. It just baffles me that so many people have been so failed by their primary school educations

Si vis pacem parabellum.

[Northwoods]

If side A unilaterally disarms, they get forcibly relocated away from their homeland. This is just a straight up Pollyanna view of Israel that has no basis in fact.

Isreal has offered more times than can be counted every concession demanded, short of their own extermination, and it has only garnered more violence in exchange.

Those few Arabs that have chosen to live peaceably in Isreal with the Jews have it 1,000,000x better than Arabs living in Arab states, never mind the Arabs living in Gaza, or the West Bank.

[Hawkmoon]

The morality of exterminating a race because your holy book says the land belongs to foreigners aside, how insane is it that the damage to US interests inherent in what’s already happened along with the risk of WWIII just doesn’t seem to occur to the minority American political view being expressed on this board?

I'm confused. What view are you talking about? And minority of whom? Minority of the participants on this forum, or minority of U.S. citizens, or minority of everyone in the United States?