Trumps attack on Iran - 2026 edition

How will the upcoming attack on Iran go.

  • Total voters
    20
The school that was hit was due to ***s poor intel

It was a former rev guard military building

Similar thing happened in Iraq when a bomb shelter full of civilians was hit
 
Even without the potential for a UN Security Council resolution, the United Nations remains an effective venue for making the case for war to the public, primarily by serving as a global stage for public diplomacy and setting the agenda for international discourse. While vetoes, particularly by permanent members, often paralyse the Security Council's ability to act, the public arguments presented within that forum allow nations to frame their military actions as necessary for international peace, security, or humanitarian intervention.
 
One issue the US and every one else in the region has is running short / low on them patriot defence missile systems

They are not easily replenished due to tech in manufacturing

They were talking about it today

US manufactured 700 last year and every one wants or is after them

Ukraine
Isreal
Gulf states
 
transam said:
One issue the US and every one else in the region has is running short / low on them patriot defence missile systems

They are not easily replenished due to tech in manufacturing

They were talking about it today

US manufactured 700 last year and every one wants or is after them

Ukraine
Isreal
Gulf states
Click to expand...

Thanks, that's very interesting. The figure of 700 produced last year seems to be for actual missiles rather than missile systems. They only seem to have 1600 missiles in total. I was not expecting that. I had assumed they had at least a factor of ten more than that.
 
MNW67 said:
Thanks, that's very interesting. The figure of 700 produced last year seems to be for actual missiles rather than missile systems. They only seem to have 1600 missiles in total. I was not expecting that. I had assumed they had at least a factor of ten more than that.
Click to expand...

And having to launch them at drones the Iranians
Probably have loads

It was suggested that the Iranians are banking on
A depletion in these defence missiles ????? Which than opens it up for missile attacks ?????
 
transam said:
And having to launch them at drones the Iranians
Probably have loads

It was suggested that the Iranians are banking on
A depletion in these defence missiles ????? Which than opens it up for missile attacks ?????
Click to expand...

I think they are using cheaper systems against drones. Looking at other options, I came across the Coyote drone interceptor, APKWS and NASAMS. I believe the Patriots are saved for use against missiles.
 
Afaik ??

The Ukraine have sent some personnel to the gulf as they have expertise in drone war fare in particular defending against drone attacks with electronics etc
 
aveatry said:
You have to remember that it has been proven that willy is a foreign agitator on here. You wont get a reply until he wakes up at 2.30am UK time.
Click to expand...
I feel rather ashamed that I even quoted his post in the first place.
I normally just scroll on by when I notice the yellow circle with a K, as I find that more polite than simply blocking the ******.
I lapsed, but will try harder in future.
 
transam said:
Afaik ??

The Ukraine have sent some personnel to the gulf as they have expertise in drone war fare in particular defending against drone attacks with electronics etc
Click to expand...

Yes, I read that as well. I wonder whether Trump will reward them :ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:
 
fillyboy said:
Presumably, that 'law' doesn't apply to the five permanent members of the UN security council who have the power of veto?
Click to expand...

The law does apply, but obviously the veto causes a huge problem. This is what I posted earlier:

Even without the potential for a UN Security Council resolution, the United Nations remains an effective venue for making the case for war to the public, primarily by serving as a global stage for public diplomacy and setting the agenda for international discourse. While vetoes, particularly by permanent members, often paralyse the Security Council's ability to act, the public arguments presented within that forum allow nations to frame their military actions as necessary for international peace, security, or humanitarian intervention.
Click to expand...
 
fillyboy said:
Indeed, it means the permanent members can say that 'law' doesn't apply to us, so it isn't really a law is it?
Click to expand...

It's getting a bit abstract. Let's apply the UN Charter 2.4 to the Iran war. It states:

'All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.'
Click to expand...

So, the starting point is that the USA is acting illegally under international law. There is no doubt that international law exists and that the USA is breaking it.

The issue you are querying is whether anything can be done about it by the United Nations. That is where the veto becomes a problem. The UN could, in theory, pass various measures against the USA for its illegal war. Anything from sanctions through to authorising an international military force to defend Iran against the USA. But none of that is going to happen in practice, because the USA has a veto.

However, the USA is still breaking international law and carrying out an illegal war.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top