Trumps attack on Iran - 2026 edition

How will the upcoming attack on Iran go.


  • Total voters
    19
The year is 2050.

Russia, China and North Korea have joined forces and are bearing down on the UK.

Oh hello there, fancy seeing you here. Come away in, we'll put the kettle on. And we have some very tasty biscuits and cake for you as well. Now, what's all this about ...
If they've gone through Ukraine, Poland, Germany and France then we're not going to be holding out either. And while you fear monger about nonsense we have starved the parts of the armed forces that do any work of funding for an invisible white elephant.
 
The future of our navy. Cheaper, easily maintained and saves a fortune as well as looking menacing in a fleet.

1775059708333.png
 
The year is 2050.

Russia, China and North Korea have joined forces and are bearing down on the UK.

The year is 2026 and the combined force of Russia, China and Iran are bearing down on us.

We're doing nothing and are reliant on the USA and Israel to protect us.
 
Saudi and UAE are still vocal about joining in, I hope they do. Netanyahu has suggested to the Crown Prince of Saudi that the only long term solution would be to construct a pipeline away from Hormuz, across Saudi direct to the Med, seems like a good solution.
Surprised they didn’t come up with that before
 
Surprised they didn’t come up with that before

Just another variation on a choke point.

There have been proposals for building a suez-type canal across Oman, but that would still be a choke point, so we'd still be over a barrel.

Just a barrel in another location.


Renewables.... ;-)
 
Just another variation on a choke point.

There have been proposals for building a suez-type canal across Oman, but that would still be a choke point, so we'd still be over a barrel.

Just a barrel in another location.


Renewables.... ;-)
Apparently It would only be around $200 billion or so, which the US has already spent on the war. Then again it would cost money to travel through it, and would be slower, so all in all it's not great economics. Also thats for a Panama canal sized option which won't even allow the large tankers to use it.
 
Apparently It would only be around $200 billion or so, which the US has already spent on the war. Then again it would cost money to travel through it, and would be slower, so all in all it's not great economics. Also thats for a Panama canal sized option which won't even allow the large tankers to use it.

If you couldn't safely and reliably get through a twelve mile or so wide strait, I doubt the cut would be any better (y)
 
The future of our navy. Cheaper, easily maintained and saves a fortune as well as looking menacing in a fleet.

View attachment 411762
Do we need the kind of navy that sends (or rather fails to send) aircraft carriers to remote parts of the world? Question also whether we need a nuclear deterrent when neither Pootin or Trumpf are deploying them in their respective ventures.
 
Just another variation on a choke point.

There have been proposals for building a suez-type canal across Oman, but that would still be a choke point, so we'd still be over a barrel.

Just a barrel in another location.


Renewables.... ;-)
Wind farms in windy rural locations and rejoin the EU. It’s been years since we had a referendum.
 
In 1982 within a two week period of readiness we sent 127 ships to the falklands to fight a war. We sent 25000 troops plus 5000 suport staff. Today we could barely muster up a sea worthy ship to send to Iran. The one ship we had HMS Dragon sat in Portsmouth for 3 weeks before it could set sail. Just imagine if Iran sank that, what position would we be in,.
We were very lucky in 1982. If the Argentinians had waited 6mths, Maggie and John Nott would have sold off our aircraft carriers and scrapped the amphibious landing ships. No effective task force would then have been available.
 
Last edited:
I just did a quick check. This year we're spending as much on equipment for the nuclear deterrent program as we are on all other equipment purchases for the Army, Airforce and Navy together. Or another metric is that the nuclear deterrent costs as much as the entire British Army right now.

We waste money on fancy shiny things at the expense of doing the basics.
 
I just did a quick check. This year we're spending as much on equipment for the nuclear deterrent program as we are on all other equipment purchases for the Army, Airforce and Navy together. We waste money on fancy shiny things at the expense of doing the basics.

The fancy shiny things are intended to make the basics somewhat redundant.
 
Back
Top