The Israel/Iran Crisis - how worried should we be?

[PrincessPrecious]

www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/05/obama-iran-israel-nuclear-military-strike?newsfeed=true

Israel has talked of attacking Iran to stop it developing nuclear weapons. How serious would the implications of this be? Many people think it would be another Iraq situation, a horrible war but not on a nuclear/world wide scale but I have heard some people say it could develop into WW3. I don't see how this could happen as would Iran have powerful allies willing to defend it? I know Russia and China are not always in favour of NATO decisions but would they start a war over it? What does everyone else think?

Germany surrendered a few months before the bomb was ready. So in a weird sort of way they had a lucky escape. They surrendered in April/May and the first tests of nuclear bomb was in July.

Even if they did have a bomb, there are a couple of good reasons why bombing Japan would be better than Germany.

1. Japan bombed Pearl Habour and attacked the US first. So there's a strong revenge motive
2. Japan is an island far away from the US and the allies. Any nuclear fallout will have no impact on the US/Soviets or UK. If they'd detonated the bomb on Germany the fallout would be unpredictable and could affect the Soviets (not a good idea) and/or the rest of us (not something you want to do to 'friends)

That said, I think had Germany have not surrendered, the decision may have been to bomb both at the same time for maximum impact. True shock & awe on an epic scale. Obviously just pure speculation on my part.

"[Bush & Blair] may have been swivel-eyed and variously religious but the saving grace of a democratic system means they didn't have absolute power."

"Variously religious"

I can't remember what approval Bush got before the war, but I kind of remember that the UK public was overwhelmingly against it and Blair still managed to take the UK to war.

That sounds rather close to "absolute power" to me.

Iran's Ahmadinejad doesn't have absolute power, afaik.

"biggest worry is that Iran does build a nuke and lobs one over to Israel"

I don't understand how this is a real worry. I'm sure crescent will correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that Jerusalem is one of Islam's holiest cities. Reducing the holy sites down to pebbles and making the whole city radioactive for generations isn't something any Islamist state is likely to do.

Also, Iran isn't that far from Israel and it is quite likely that it would get nuclear fallout if a nuke were to go off in Israel.

crescentmoon

unless america had capacity to drop a nuclear bomb only after germany ended the war then germany could have been forced to give up the war much earlier than 1945? why nuke the japs into surrendering but not nuke the germans into surrendering?

The Americans hadn't built the nukes by April 1945.

according to this site the decision to use the atomic bomb on japan was made in 1943?

That site is incorrect. The first atomic bomb was not even tested until July 1945. The factories to build the weapon weren't constructed until late 1943.

how much of that was because of the 'otherness' of the japanese? especially considering how badly the US was treating its own ethnic minorities at that time? hiroshima and nagasaki was about sending out a message to the soviets, the middle east and rest of the world.

It may have been about sending a message to the Soviets - which IMO was a good thing - but the rest of your post is factually inaccurate.

crescentmoon*
*
that link i posted is from the official Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum website, not a random personal page or the website of conspiracy theorists.

And it's still nonsense. No decision to bomb Japan was made in 1943.

the best thing i ever did was to emancipate myself from the mentality that something told by bbc/ skynews is more true than if told by aljazeera. or that a european historian is less biased than a non european historian.

How wise of you. Presumably my groaning bookshelves of history books on WW2 are invalid because they were 'written by Europeans' whereas your ability to google a Japanese site is more valid.

the hiroshima peace memorial museum's site has links and sources "courtesy of US national archives" - so with the american's permission. and it gives a very different story to the lead up to the decision to use the atomic bomb on hiroshima and nagasaki. its links are easy to read and follow and make for fascinating reading.

And they're wrong. Japan has never admitted its complicity in the atrocities it carried out. It still refers to the en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre Rape of Nanking as 'an incident'. Unlike Germany it has never dealt with the crimes it perpetrated in Manchuria, China and Burma.

have i misunderstood the entry here on this page about the hyde park agreement and japan?

Yes, you have. By late '44 the Allied High Command was beginning to think that Germany would be beaten by Christmas. The main reason for this was that the German army in France had been shattered by Operation Totalize in the east and Operation Cobra in the West. As a result, Germany was already being written out of the war. Already Admiral King (C in C US Navy) was pressing for the transfer of landing craft and supply ships from the Channel to the Pacific.

It was only with the failure to cross the Rhine (operation Market Garden) in late September 1944 that the Allies realised that they would be fighting beyond Christmas.

The Hyde Park agreement needs to be seen in this context. Japan was now seen as the main problem. While the Japanese Navy and Air Force were in very poor shape, the army remained dug in across the Philippines and Marianas. It was anticipated that the campaign against the Japanese would extend in to 1946.

my personal feeling is that one group cannot go around dictating what everyone else should do. no matter what the excuses might be. at any rate iran flat out denies building nuclear weapons. the iaea supprts this. there will be a war, and unfortunately it will involve everyone. as another poster said especially with russia on the stage. we live in a world of power struggles. israel is intending to go to war with iran, this is immensly clear.

Personally I belive that Bibi Netanyahu is just as much a fanatic as Ahmedinajad. He is champing at the bit to nuke Iran AFAICS. God help us all if Romney gets in.

crescentmoon

history is all about 'His' Story. it is written by the conqueror, not the conquered.

'He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future.' (Nineteen Eighty Four).

Yes, yes. Very Hobsbawm.

what i have liberated my thoughts to do is give equal weight to the non european historical account.

No you haven't. What you've done is discount the European account in a vague search for 'the truth'. And to obtain that 'truth' you're relying on dubious sources.

I have a copy of a book which would appeal to you. It's called "The Russian Version of the Second World War" and it's the textbook used in Soviet schools. It explains, for example, that Britain and France were secretly plotting with Germany to destroy Russia. It explains how Finland, with a tiny population and no army, secretly launched an attack against Russia and Russia was forced to retaliate. It doesn't mention the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.

This is the problem with giving equal weight to other accounts. In many cases it's not what they say but what they don't say that's important. Japan still nurses a grievance over Hiroshima and Nagasaki but it has never dealt with what caused Little Boy and Fat Man to be dropped over Japan.

do your 'groaning bookshelves of ww2 books' mention the 2.5 million volunteer indian army recruits that served in world war 2 for Britain - the largest volunteer army in the world?

I have a several books on the Indian and Burma campaigns. There is a huge amount written about the Indian divisions. They aren't written out at all.

or do they mention how the liberation of Paris was made whites only?

Yes.

if the non European soldiers fighting FOR the Allies were discounted for the sake of Western morale and propaganda, what then about the foreigners fighting AGAINST the Allies?

Have you read the Chinese accounts of the Manchurian campaign? It ought to appeal to you because no evil white people wrote it.

It details, quite clearly, the brutality, the rape and torture, which the Japanese claim never happened.

as with all war there will be the untold stories as well as the lies! if you beleive there is 100% truth on every side all of the time you must be deluding yourselves!

the second world war is an intresting one for me. i specifically find the fact that researching the holocaust is illegal in many european counties to be rather hilarious........it says a lot mind you!

"Japan still nurses a grievance over Hiroshima and Nagasaki but it has never dealt with what caused Little Boy and Fat Man to be dropped over Japan."

Err... honor?

You seem to be saying that it is their fault that over 250,000 their civilians were nuked and horrifically killed. Is that because they didn't give up defending their country?

It is potentially very volatile and could easily escalate.

emonslemons

as with all war there will be the untold stories as well as the lies! if you beleive there is 100% truth on every side all of the time you must be deluding yourselves!

the second world war is an intresting one for me. i specifically find the fact that researching the holocaust is illegal in many european counties to be rather hilarious........it says a lot mind you!

Which countries?

CoteDAzur

Err... honor?

You seem to be saying that it is their fault that over 250,000 their civilians were nuked and horrifically killed. Is that because they didn't give up defending their country?

It was the fault of the generals in charge of the country. But I'm saying that Japan has never dealt with the crimes it committed in China, Manchuria and SE Asia. Germany has worked hard to admit to and atone for its crimes. Japan never has.

crescentmoon

*Why should I care about the soviets? Weren't they Europeans and on the part of the Allies?^

No and No. The Soviets were not Europeans. They were a mixture of nations. I'm sure that the Kazaks and Uighurs would find the description 'European' as odd as the Georgians and Armenians.

Further the Soviets were on the side of Nazi Germany from 1939 to mid 1941.

The rest of the world bled and still bleeds because of te stupid rivalries between the Americans and the Russians.

And thankfully for our freedoms and our health the Americans won that battle.