Latest news with #Allied
Daily Record
7 hours ago
- Entertainment
- Daily Record
Fans have just days to watch 'masterpiece' war film with 'greatest ever actor'
The Bridge on the River Kwai is set to leave Amazon Prime Video imminently and fans of the 1957 war film are being urged to watch it now before it's too late Released in 1957, this war film remains a timeless classic, with critics continuing to regard it as one of the greatest of all time, but it's set to be removed from streaming platforms. The Bridge on the River Kwai, an award-winning film set during World War II, is hailed as a "masterpiece" by contemporary viewers. The movie boasts an impressive 96% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, with a plethora of five-star reviews. Written by Pierre Boulle, who also penned Planet of the Apes, and directed by renowned British director David Lean CBE, the film's success can be attributed to the exceptional collaboration between the creatives and its outstanding cast. One viewer praised the film on Rotten Tomatoes, saying: "There will never be another movie that approaches this one in ambition and grand scope. The screenplay, acting, location, and setting - it's as if designed by providence. Just brilliant." Another reviewer agreed, stating: "Not much to say other than that the bridge on the river Kwai is an absolute masterpiece in every aspect.", reports the Express. A fellow viewer echoed this sentiment, writing: "The best war movie I've ever watched. A true masterpiece!" In the year 1943, a contingent of British prisoners of war, led by the formidable Colonel Nicholson, arrives at a Japanese internment camp in Thailand. However, they're met with brutal living conditions. Under duress, their Japanese captors instruct them to construct a crucial bridge to support the Burma-Siam railway. But what their captors are not aware of is that the prisoners concoct a clandestine plan to undermine this ambitious construction project. Colonel Nicholson, in a determined effort to boost morale and fortify his comrades' spirits within the camp, convinces them that diligent work is the path forward. As a testament to his unwavering principles, he endures inhumane torment at the hands of the ruthless camp guards. In a separate turn of events, Allied forces orchestrate a perilous commando operation that seeks to annihilate the bridge. Alec Guinness shines as Colonel Nicholson, delivering what is being hailed as a masterful performance. The late actor, who had earned numerous prestigious awards, had earned his reputation as one of Hollywood's finest. Ultimately knighted by Queen Elizabeth II for his remarkable contribution to the arts, Guinness continues to be revered for his roles in several iconic, highly acclaimed films. A glowing review reads: "Hayakawa, Holden and Hawkins are all superb, but it's the towering performance of Guinness which elevates this movie to classic status and guarantees its place in movie immortality. Once watched, it's a film you will never forget." The film boasts an all-star cast, with Alec Guinness sharing the screen alongside William Holden, a major box office draw in the 1950s. The presence of these Hollywood heavyweights lends depth and authenticity to the wartime narrative, cementing The Bridge on the River Kwai's status as a landmark film. Critics have lavished praise on the movie, with one reviewer hailing it as having "One of the greatest and most satisfying endings in all film history". Another critic has described the 1957 epic as "One of the great, action-packed epics of the late 50s". As the film is set to depart Amazon Prime on July 1, now is the perfect opportunity to immerse yourself in the cinematic masterpiece that is The Bridge on the River Kwai.
NDTV
10 hours ago
- Politics
- NDTV
How Israel Is Targetting Key Iranian Nuclear Scientists
Atlanta: At least 14 nuclear scientists are believed to be among those killed in Israel's Operation Rising Lion, launched on June 13, 2025, ostensibly to destroy or degrade Iran's nuclear program and military capabilities. Deliberately targeting scientists in this way aims to disrupt Iran's knowledge base and continuity in nuclear expertise. Among those assassinated were Mohammad Mehdi Tehranchi, a theoretical physicist and head of Iran's Islamic Azad University, and Fereydoun Abbasi-Davani, a nuclear engineer who led Iran's Atomic Energy Organization. Collectively, these experts in physics and engineering were potential successors to Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, widely regarded as the architect of the Iranian nuclear program, who was assassinated in a November 2020 attack many blame on Israel. As two political scientists writing a book about state targeting of scientists as a counterproliferation tool, we understand well that nuclear scientists have been targeted since the nuclear age began. We have gathered data on nearly 100 instances of what we call "scientist targeting" from 1944 through 2025. The most recent assassination campaign against Iranian scientists is different from many of the earlier episodes in a few key ways. Israel's recent attack targeted multiple nuclear experts and took place simultaneously with military force to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities, air defenses and energy infrastructure. Also, unlike previous covert operations, Israel immediately claimed responsibility for the assassinations. But our research indicates that targeting scientists may not be effective for counterproliferation. While removing individual expertise may delay nuclear acquisition, targeting alone is unlikely to destroy a program outright and could even increase a country's desire for nuclear weapons. Further, targeting scientists may trigger blowback given concerns regarding legality and morality. A policy with a long history Targeting nuclear scientists began during World War II when Allied and Soviet forces raced to capture Nazi scientists, degrade Adolf Hitler's ability to build a nuclear bomb and use their expertise to advance the US and Soviet nuclear programs. In our data set, we classified "targeting" as cases in which scientists were captured, threatened, injured or killed as nations tried to prevent adversaries from acquiring weapons of mass destruction. Over time, at least four countries have targeted scientists working on nine national nuclear programs. The United States and Israel have allegedly carried out the most attacks on nuclear scientists. But the United Kingdom and Soviet Union have also been behind such attacks. Meanwhile, scientists working for the Egyptian, Iranian and Iraqi nuclear programs have been the most frequent targets since 1950. Since 2007 and prior to the current Israeli operation, 10 scientists involved in the Iranian nuclear program were killed in attacks. Other countries' nationals have also been targeted: In 1980, Mossad, Israel's intelligence service, allegedly bombed Italian engineer Mario Fiorelli's home and his firm, SNIA Techint, as a warning to Europeans involved in the Iraqi nuclear project. Given this history, the fact that Israel attacked Iran's nuclear program is not itself surprising. Indeed, it has been a strategic goal of successive Israeli prime ministers to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, and experts had been warning of the increased likelihood of an Israeli military operation since mid-2024, due to regional dynamics and Iranian nuclear development. By then, the balance of power in the Middle East had changed dramatically. Israel systematically degraded the leadership and infrastructure of Iranian proxies Hamas and Hezbollah. It later destroyed Iranian air defenses around Tehran and near key nuclear installations. The subsequent fall of Syria's Assad regime cost Tehran another long-standing ally. Together, these developments have significantly weakened Iran, leaving it vulnerable to external attack and stripped of its once-feared proxy network, which had been expected to retaliate on its behalf in the event of hostilities. With its proxy "axis of resistance" defanged and conventional military capacity degraded, Iranian leadership may have thought that expanding its enrichment capability was its best bet going forward. And in the months leading up to Israel's recent attack, Iran expanded its nuclear production capacity, moving beyond 60% uranium enrichment, a technical step just short of weapons-grade material. During Donald Trump's first term, the president withdrew the US from a multilateral nonproliferation agreement aimed at curbing Iran's nuclear program. After being reelected, Trump appeared to change tack by pursuing new diplomacy with Iran, but those talks have so far failed to deliver an agreement - and may be put on hold for the foreseeable future amid the war. Most recently, the International Atomic Energy Agency board of governors declared Iran in non-compliance with its nuclear-nonproliferation obligations. In response, Iran announced it was further expanding its enrichment capacity by adding advanced centrifuge technology and a third enrichment site. Even if the international community anticipated the broader attack on Iran, characteristics of the targeting itself are surprising. Historically, states have covertly targeted individual scientists. But the recent multiple-scientist attack occurred openly, with Israel taking responsibility, publicly indicating the attacks' purpose. Further, while it is not new for a country to use multiple counter-proliferation tools against an adversary over time, that Israel is using both preventive military force against infrastructure and targeting scientists at once is atypical. Additionally, such attacks against scientists are historically lower tech and low cost, with death or injury stemming from gunmen, car bombs or accidents. In fact, Abbasi - who was killed in the most recent attacks - survived a 2010 car bombing in Tehran. There are outliers, however, including the Fakhrizadeh assassination, which featured a remotely operated machine gun smuggled into Iranian territory. Israel's logic in going after scientists Why target nuclear scientists? In foreign policy, there are numerous tools available if one state aims to prevent another state from acquiring nuclear weapons. Alongside targeting scientists, there are sanctions, diplomacy, cyberattacks and military force. Targeting scientists may remove critical scientific expertise and impose costs that increase the difficulty of building nuclear weapons. Proponents argue that targeting these experts may undermine a state's efforts, deter it from continuing nuclear developments and signal to others the perils of supporting nuclear proliferation. Countries that target scientists therefore believe that doing so is an effective way to degrade an adversary's nuclear program. Indeed, the Israel Defense Forces described the most recent attacks as "a significant blow to the regime's ability to acquire weapons of mass destruction." Despite Israel's focus on scientists as sources of critical knowledge, there may be thousands more working inside Iran, calling into question the efficacy of targeting them. Further, there are legal, ethical and moral concerns over targeting scientists. Moreover, it is a risky option that may fail to disrupt an enemy nuclear program while sparking public outrage and calls for retaliation. This is especially the case if scientists, often regarded as civilians, are elevated as martyrs. Targeting campaigns may, as a result, reinforce domestic support for a government, which could then redouble efforts toward nuclear development. Regardless of whether targeting scientists is an effective counter-proliferation tool, it has been around since the start of the nuclear age - and will likely persist as part of the foreign policy toolkit for states aiming to prevent proliferation. In the case of the current Israeli conflict with Iran and its targeting of nuclear scientists, we expect the tactic to continue for the duration of the war and beyond. (Author: Jenna Jordan, Associate Professor of International Affairs, Georgia Institute of Technology and Rachel Whitlark, Associate Professor of International Affairs, Georgia Institute of Technology) (Disclaimer Statement: Rachel Whitlark is a nonresident senior fellow in the Forward Defense practice of the Atlantic Council's Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security. Jenna Jordan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.)
Asia Times
11 hours ago
- Politics
- Asia Times
The Israeli logic of assassinating Iran's nuclear scientists
At least 14 nuclear scientists are believed to be among those killed in Israel's Operation Rising Lion, launched on June 13, 2025, ostensibly to destroy or degrade Iran's nuclear program and military capabilities. Deliberately targeting scientists in this way aims to disrupt Iran's knowledge base and continuity in nuclear expertise. Among those assassinated were Mohammad Mehdi Tehranchi, a theoretical physicist and head of Iran's Islamic Azad University, and Fereydoun Abbasi-Davani, a nuclear engineer who led Iran's Atomic Energy Organization. Collectively, these experts in physics and engineering were potential successors to Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, widely regarded as the architect of the Iranian nuclear program, who was assassinated in a November 2020 attack many blame on Israel. As two political scientists writing a book about state targeting of scientists as a counterproliferation tool, we understand well that nuclear scientists have been targeted since the nuclear age began. We have gathered data on nearly 100 instances of what we call 'scientist targeting' from 1944 through 2025. The most recent assassination campaign against Iranian scientists is different from many of the earlier episodes in a few key ways. Israel's recent attack targeted multiple nuclear experts and took place simultaneously with military force to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities, air defenses and energy infrastructure. Also, unlike previous covert operations, Israel immediately claimed responsibility for the assassinations. But our research indicates that targeting scientists may not be effective for counterproliferation. While removing individual expertise may delay nuclear acquisition, targeting alone is unlikely to destroy a program outright and could even increase a country's desire for nuclear weapons. Further, targeting scientists may trigger blowback given concerns regarding legality and morality. Targeting nuclear scientists began during World War II when Allied and Soviet forces raced to capture Nazi scientists, degrade Adolf Hitler's ability to build a nuclear bomb and use their expertise to advance the U.S. and Soviet nuclear programs. In our data set, we classified 'targeting' as cases in which scientists were captured, threatened, injured or killed as nations tried to prevent adversaries from acquiring weapons of mass destruction. Over time, at least four countries have targeted scientists working on nine national nuclear programs. The United States and Israel have allegedly carried out the most attacks on nuclear scientists. But the United Kingdom and Soviet Union have also been behind such attacks. Meanwhile, scientists working for the Egyptian, Iranian and Iraqi nuclear programs have been the most frequent targets since 1950. Since 2007 and prior to the current Israeli operation, 10 scientists involved in the Iranian nuclear program were killed in attacks. Other countries' nationals have also been targeted: In 1980, Mossad, Israel's intelligence service, allegedly bombed Italian engineer Mario Fiorelli's home and his firm, SNIA Techint, as a warning to Europeans involved in the Iraqi nuclear project. Given this history, the fact that Israel attacked Iran's nuclear program is not itself surprising. Indeed, it has been a strategic goal of successive Israeli prime ministers to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, and experts had been warning of the increased likelihood of an Israeli military operation since mid-2024, due to regional dynamics and Iranian nuclear development. The wrecked cars in which four of Iran's nuclear scientists were assassinated in recent years are displayed on the grounds of a museum in Tehran in 2014. Photo: Scott Peterson / Getty Images via The Conversation By then, the balance of power in the Middle East had changed dramatically. Israel systematically degraded the leadership and infrastructure of Iranian proxies Hamas and Hezbollah. It later destroyed Iranian air defenses around Tehran and near key nuclear installations. The subsequent fall of Syria's Assad regime cost Tehran another long-standing ally. Together, these developments have significantly weakened Iran, leaving it vulnerable to external attack and stripped of its once-feared proxy network, which had been expected to retaliate on its behalf in the event of hostilities. With its proxy 'axis of resistance' defanged and conventional military capacity degraded, Iranian leadership may have thought that expanding its enrichment capability was its best bet going forward. And in the months leading up to Israel's recent attack, Iran expanded its nuclear production capacity, moving beyond 60% uranium enrichment, a technical step just short of weapons-grade material. During Donald Trump's first term, the president withdrew the US from a multilateral nonproliferation agreement aimed at curbing Iran's nuclear program. After being reelected, Trump appeared to change tack by pursuing new diplomacy with Iran, but those talks have so far failed to deliver an agreement and may be put on hold for the foreseeable future amid the war. Most recently, the International Atomic Energy Agency board of governors declared Iran in non-compliance with its nuclear nonproliferation obligations. In response, Iran announced it was further expanding its enrichment capacity by adding advanced centrifuge technology and a third enrichment site. Even if the international community anticipated the broader attack on Iran, characteristics of the targeting itself are surprising. Historically, states have covertly targeted individual scientists. But the recent multiple-scientist attack occurred openly, with Israel taking responsibility, publicly indicating the attacks' purpose. Further, while it is not new for a country to use multiple counter-proliferation tools against an adversary over time, that Israel is using both preventive military force against infrastructure and targeting scientists at once is atypical. Additionally, such attacks against scientists are historically lower tech and low cost, with death or injury stemming from gunmen, car bombs or accidents. In fact, Abbasi – who was killed in the most recent attacks – survived a 2010 car bombing in Tehran. There are outliers, however, including the Fakhrizadeh assassination, which featured a remotely operated machine gun smuggled into Iranian territory. Why target nuclear scientists? In foreign policy, there are numerous tools available if one state aims to prevent another state from acquiring nuclear weapons. Alongside targeting scientists, there are sanctions, diplomacy, cyberattacks and military force. Targeting scientists may remove critical scientific expertise and impose costs that increase the difficulty of building nuclear weapons. Proponents argue that targeting these experts may undermine a state's efforts, deter it from continuing nuclear developments and signal to others the perils of supporting nuclear proliferation. Countries that target scientists, therefore, believe that doing so is an effective way to degrade an adversary's nuclear program. Indeed, the Israel Defense Forces described the most recent attacks as 'a significant blow to the regime's ability to acquire weapons of mass destruction.' Posters featuring images of Iranian nuclear scientists are displayed in Tehran, Iran, on June 14, 2025. Photo: Fatemeh Bahrami/Anadolu via Getty Images / The Conversation Despite Israel's focus on scientists as sources of critical knowledge, there may be thousands more working inside Iran, calling into question the efficacy of targeting them. Further, there are legal, ethical and moral concerns over targeting scientists. Moreover, it is a risky option that may fail to disrupt an enemy nuclear program while sparking public outrage and calls for retaliation. This is especially the case if scientists, often regarded as civilians, are elevated as martyrs. Targeting campaigns may, as a result, reinforce domestic support for a government, which could then redouble efforts toward nuclear development. Regardless of whether targeting scientists is an effective counter-proliferation tool, it has been around since the start of the nuclear age – and will likely persist as part of the foreign policy toolkit for states aiming to prevent proliferation. In the case of the current Israeli conflict with Iran and its targeting of nuclear scientists, we expect the tactic to continue for the duration of the war and beyond. Jenna Jordan is associate professor of international affairs, Georgia Institute of Technology and Rachel Whitlark is associate professor of international affairs, Georgia Institute of Technology This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
New Indian Express
2 days ago
- Politics
- New Indian Express
Going back to no-go zones
Until the Second World War—when bombs were directed not by live satellite feeds or GPS, but by cartography—maps had areas of protection mapped out. Bombs were aimed for maximum damage to armaments production or arms transportation facilities, at airfields set outside urban spaces, at dams located far from cities, at shipyards, at supply lines. In 1939, when Germany invaded Poland, the mayor of Kraków declared it an open city after a Polish army division moved out. It was occupied by the German army with little fighting. In 1940, the Belgian government declared Brussels an open city, minimising destruction. Also in 1940, the French government moved to Bordeaux after declaring Paris an open city, thus saving the city's cultural sites. In 1941, the then Kingdom of Yugoslavia declared Belgrade an open city, preventing further destruction. In 1942, after the Dutch forces had left, Batavia (now Jakarta) was declared an open city, and the Japanese took it over with little destruction. In 1943, following the cessation of Allied bombing, the Italian government declared Rome an open city, halting razing even as German troops fled. In 1944, the retreating Germans declared Florence an open city, preventing rapine during the chase. Again in 1944, the harried Germans declared Athens an open city before departing. They did the same to Hamburg in 1945, leaving it preserved for the British troops to take over. But missilery brought its own dynamics of lack of human supervision. London was never declared an open city, and Hitler may never have respected that status even if it was. During the Blitz that reduced London to a smoking ruin, Hitler's V2 long-range ballistic missiles—the world's first, and named Vengeance Weapon 2 for the civilian damage it wreaked— caused carnage far above and beyond military targets. Britain, like Germany, had embedded its weapons and defence machinery among thickets of civilians, both to hide them from scrutiny and to cushion them with human flesh. The expansion of collateral-damage zones carried over exponentially into the US's post-war missile and bomb development, built by expatriated Nazi rocketeers brought into the US through Operation Paperclip. The zenith of the idea of mass obliteration of civilians was Operation Meetinghouse in March 1945, during which Tokyo was fire-stormed with incendiary bombs in what became the deadliest conventional air-bombing in WW2. (This was followed by the since-unmatched civilian slaughter of Hiroshima and Nagasaki five months later. But it might be instructive to note that more people died during the conventional bombing of Tokyo than in the nuclear bombing of Nagasaki.) By this time, war-makers had obliterated the combatant-noncombatant binary.
ITV News
3 days ago
- General
- ITV News
The Lancastria: What happened and why is the tragedy described as forgotten?
2024 marks 85 years since Britain's worst maritime disaster - but little is know about the wartime sinking of the Lancastria in 1940. It is estimated between 4,000 and 7,000 people died when a rescue mission for British troops went wrong. What was the Lancastria? The Cunard ship - originally named Tyrrhenia - sailed scheduled routes between Liverpool and New York until 1932, before she was then used as a cruise ship in the Mediterranean and Northern Europe. As the Second World War broke out in September 1939, Lancastria was in the Bahamas. She was ordered to sail from Nassau to New York for refitting as she had been requisitioned as a troopship, becoming HMT Lancastria. She made a number of sailings during the War after being refitted in Liverpool, before, in June 1940, she was sent to the French port of Saint-Nazaire to help with evacuating British nationals and troops. What happened on 17 June 1940? The Lancastria formed part of Operation Ariel, the effort to evacuate British civilians, troops and embassy staff from Western France, two weeks after the evacuation of Dunkirk. It is said that the Captain was ordered to take as many people as possible on board due to the loss of other evacuation vessels, and an estimated 5000-7000 people were on board despite the ship only being built for around 2,500. While still at anchor, the ship was dive bombed by Nazi planes, and capsized and sank within 20 minutes, killing at least 4,000 people. The loss of life equates to more than the Titanic and Lusitania combined. There were 2,477 survivors - with many taken aboard other British and Allied evacuation vessels - the trawler HMT Cambridgeshire rescued 900. Why is not much known about it? Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, ordered a blackout on media outlets reporting on the tragedy, as the British government feared it would further lower British morale, and provide Germany with propaganda. Media outlets eventually reported on the incident at the end of July, around five weeks after it happened, although Churchill's D-Notice preventing publication of official documents of evidence is not set to expire until 2040.
