[News] The World at War

[Zeberdi]

Please no political discussions other than just news* - lets see how long the thread lasts but with a major escalation of hostilities in the ME, escalation of attacks by Russia on Ukraine and simmering internal unrest threatening to boil over into a civil war in other countries, have we entered a downward spiral of conflicts that the World at war is the new status quo? Are permanent de-escalations and mutual ceasefires no longer realistic aspirations?

(*edit - ‘other than any political comments just on the news’ I meant - obviously the topic is inherently political so can’t be avoided)

The latest developments in the ME is particularly concerning with Iran firing missiles on Tel Aviv and other sites across Israel:

Tehran strikes back at Israel after wave of attacks across Iran

US President Donald Trump says not too late for Tehran to halt bombing campaign by reaching a deal on nuclear programme.

www.aljazeera.com

Middle East countries call for urgent de-escalation after Israel’s strikes on Iran

Foreign ministers condemn strikes amid fears of wider war, but reaction from Iran’s proxies is relatively measured

www.theguardian.com

 

[Greg Bobkin]

Yes we have.
No they're not.

 

[Flounce]

Whilst I do not condone what Israel has done in Iran. The thought of Iran having nuclear weapons is frankly terrifying to me.

 

[abc]

I’m not sure. The world has always tragically had war going on somewhere. We had a long period of European peace pre Putin but since 1945 we’ve had Korea, Suez. Vietnam, Falklands, Ireland, Afghanistan, two gulf wars and countless others. The Cold War had many periods (eg Cuban misfile crises) that I suspect felt more dangerous than the events of today.

Maybe ‘today’ feels worse simple because it is ‘today’?

 

[Westdene Seagull]

As a slight aside but connected, The World at War is a series well worth watching - can probably get the box set on Amazon or somewhere. I don't know who originally said it but current events show history indeed goes in circles and humans are too stupid to learn from the past.

 

[Zeberdi]

Whilst I do not condone what Israel has done in Iran. The thought of Iran having nuclear weapons is frankly terrifying to me.

I think they will retain their capabilities even if Israel bomb the heck out of them - the most important sites are buried deep underground and will be virtually impossible to take out by air.

What really scares me is the US entering into a direct conflict with Iran to ‘protect’ Israel and trying to ‘finish the job’. If Iran is weeks away from 90% enrichment of uranium (weapons grade) then Iran feeling under existential threat from the US could precipitate that surely?

Interesting background to Iran’s nuclear development programme (that they use for domestic energy) here

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/06/13/middleeast/iran-nuclear-program-explainer-intl-dg

 

[Hugo Rune]

Powerful countries with evil dictators = War

Has, and always will be.

The 'evil' bit is important here. Dictatorship alone does not always result in war mongering.

 

[jakarta]

Only going to be one winner if Israel really take on Iran.

A 1st world country with nuclear weapons and backed by the USA versus a 3rd world medieval theocracy with no nuclear weapons.

 

[el punal]

I’m not sure. The world has always tragically had war going on somewhere. We had a long period of European peace pre Putin but since 1945 we’ve had Korea, Suez. Vietnam, Falklands, Ireland, Afghanistan, two gulf wars and countless others. The Cold War had many periods (eg Cuban misfile crises) that I suspect felt more dangerous than the events of today.

Maybe ‘today’ feels worse simple because it is ‘today’?

Oh for the Middle Ages! At least then wars and battles were only fought* from April to October. This was down to climate and weather. If the ground was too wet thousands of armoured clad soldiers and horses would get bogged down in a soggy morass. Once past October there would be no provisions available to feed them, and everyone could bugger off home for Christmas if the plague or famine didn’t get them first.

* With the odd exception of course!

 

[abc]

Oh for the Middle Ages! At least then wars and battles were only fought* from April to October. This was down to climate and weather. If the ground was too wet thousands of armoured clad soldiers and horses would get bogged down in a soggy morass. Once past October there would be no provisions available to feed them, and everyone could bugger off home for Christmas if the plague or famine didn’t get them first.

* With the odd exception of course!

I always liked the Asterix version of the Roman invasion of Britain when we fought hard and were repelling the invaders until 3pm when we stooped fighting for a tea break!

 

[Sorrel]

The speed, scope and ambition to get viewers means it’s easy to consume news 24 hours a day. Taking a day off is sometimes a good idea.

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

The speed, scope and ambition to get viewers means it’s easy to consume news 24 hours a day. Taking a day off is sometimes a good idea.

I saw on a TV programme on I player, a stat along the lines of .... "you're less likely to die a violent death today than at any time in human history"

The stuff in the Middle East and Ukraine is hugely upsetting. But I guess the suffering is on our screens right in front of us all the time, so it's easy to get the impression that we're sliding towards oblivion ... which of course we may be.

I don't belittle the sufferring of those involved. It's just that 15 years ago, details wouldn't have appeared on our phone and 50 years ago probably we'd have primarily found out about all of this by reading in newspapers, which inevitably loses the emotional heft

 

[Eeyore]

Only going to be one winner if Israel really take on Iran.

A 1st world country with nuclear weapons and backed by the USA versus a 3rd world medieval theocracy with no nuclear weapons.

I can assure you there will be no winners.

I'm reminded of the words of my late Dad who served in the navy during the 40s and 50s, often in the Palestine area.

'There will always be trouble in the Middle East, always'

 

[abc]

I saw on a TV programme on I player, a stat along the lines of .... "you're less likely to die a violent death today than at any time in human history"

The stuff in the Middle East and Ukraine is hugely upsetting. But I guess the suffering is on our screens right in front of us all the time, so it's easy to get the impression that we're sliding towards oblivion ... which of course we may be.

I don't belittle the sufferring of those involved. It's just that 15 years ago, details wouldn't have appeared on our phone and 50 years ago probably we'd have primarily found out about all of this by reading in newspapers, which inevitably loses the emotional heft

Also, in a very good way, we value life more. Loss of ‘just’ a few lives is news and horrifies us but contrast that to nearly 20 000 deaths (60 000 casualties) on the first DAY of the Somme.

Perhaps seeing it all on our screens makes it more real and instant as you rightly say but also makes us less inclined to see casualties of war as a distant statistic as opposed its effect on real people

 

[abc]

I can assure you there will be no winners.

I'm reminded of the words of my late Dad who served in the navy during the 40s and 50s, often in the Palestine area.

'There will always be trouble in the Middle East, always'

Those that fought in past wars or served in peace time often have the greatest wisdom.

My Father, rear gunner in bombers during WW2, was adamant that the EEC/EU was the only way of guaranteeing peace in Europe and so was worth all it faults because nothing is more valuable than peace

 

[keaton]

As a slight aside but connected, The World at War is a series well worth watching - can probably get the box set on Amazon or somewhere. I don't know who originally said it but current events show history indeed goes in circles and humans are too stupid to learn from the past.

It's on U to stream for free. Excellent series, and much help in my history GCSEs

 

[Zeberdi]

Also, in a very good way, we value life more. Loss of ‘just’ a few lives is news and horrifies us but contrast that to nearly 20 000 deaths (60 000 casualties) on the first DAY of the Somme.

Perhaps seeing it all on our screens makes it more real and instant as you rightly say but also makes us less inclined to see casualties of war as a distant statistic as opposed its effect on real people

I agree re. probably valuing life more or perhaps expectancies have brought a sense of entitlement? - maybe given the advance of modern medicine there’s the expectancy we should all live 8 or 9 decades. In 1916, it was around 50.

Western Countries are a lot more diverse now and cosmopolitan. People on NSC have relatives in Ukraine, Israel and America among other Countries so we are a lot more vested in wars (and civil unrest) taking place on the other side of the World now even when our own forces aren’t directly involved.


edit - why anyone on NSC thinks a thread highlighting violent conflict is funny beggars belief

 

[Triggaaar]

I saw on a TV programme on I player, a stat along the lines of .... "you're less likely to die a violent death today than at any time in human history"

I think that stat is probably wrong. It was probably less likely 5 years ago.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Those that fought in past wars or served in peace time often have the greatest wisdom.

My Father, rear gunner in bombers during WW2, was adamant that the EEC/EU was the only way of guaranteeing peace in Europe and so was worth all it faults because nothing is more valuable than peace

Not sure that there is an easy rule of thumb.

Whether implacable support for the EU/EEC is wise or not is debatable.
It happens to be precisely my view that being in it was critical,
albeit I have never been remotely close to national service.

My dad fought in WWII but whether he had any wise views on the state of the world was a mystery.
He never commented on the news.

As for the middle east....I can't say it won't end well, but am inclined to say it won't end.
I am generally in agreement with @Nobby Cybergoat and @Eeyore. And you, I would imagine.

Anyway the thread is supposed to be news not opinion so I should shut up

 

[Zeberdi]

Only going to be one winner if Israel really take on Iran.

A 1st world country with nuclear weapons and backed by the USA versus a 3rd world medieval theocracy with no nuclear weapons.

Israel-Iran strikes: What are the worst-case scenarios?

The BBC's James Landale looks at what could happen if the fighting escalates and expands.

www.bbc.co.uk