Anecdotally I used to work with an old chap who had been an RAF officer (but ground based not pilot/flightcrew) back then.
He found out after then end of the bomber era that all the pilots he knew were in fact planning on deserting should they ever get the order to take a nuke to Russia.
Claimed they had their flight plans, refuelling, radio codes etc all planned to make a run for South America where they would surrender and try to exchange their planes and bombs for citizenship and a new life in the southern hemisphere which they hoped would be less effected by a North America/Eurasia nuclear war.
Never worked out if he was telling the truth...
WWIII is postponed for now because Israel "won".
Iran's airspace is practically "free for all" to roam this time for the fighter jets deployed by USA and Israel.
However, the next time things will be very different and will not be free for all to roam, which in a way will definitely trigger Israel preemptive strike. Probably the WWIII will happen at that time. Let's say in 20 years time. 🤔
I am genuinely surprised, and really quite encouraged, by that poll's findings.
22% in favour is remarkably low and even the 30% 'don't knows' is impressive imo.
I don't think I know anyone who didn't think it was a bad idea, though that is obviously my own bubble/echo chamber. I'm a bit concerned that less than 50% agree with me.
Well the UK prime minister seemed to think bombing Iran was a good idea.
Presumably he saw it as part of the "de-escalation" which he was calling for.
Well the UK prime minister seemed to think bombing Iran was a good idea.
Presumably he saw it as part of the "de-escalation" which he was calling for.
The main quote i saw was some splinter inducing fence sitting where he referred to the US "alleviating the risk". He certainly wasn't condemning the US, I suspect he'd been told that wording meant he wasn't outright supporting it either. But if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck
Well the UK prime minister seemed to think bombing Iran was a good idea.
he seemed to think not pissing Donald off just before the NATO summit was a good idea
Exactly that ^^
It's all about not upsetting Donald Trump
Exactly that ^^
It's all about not upsetting Donald Trump
We really don't want Donald to send a bunker buster to obliterate Sizewell in a fit of misplaced rage, to be fair.
Exactly that ^^
It's all about not upsetting Donald Trump
So what happens in 4 years time when jd ****face Vance gets the top job?, do we develop an altogether greater obsequious towards his desires as that’s what he, and his squad of complete ****s will expect?.
Couple of old duffers crapping in a tin bucket full of sand when the wind blows surely...
TBH I always remember something about taking doors down and making a makeshift shelter 🙁
Let's get some yippies on the job.
Exactly that ^^
It's all about not upsetting Donald Trump
So what happens in 4 years time when jd ****face Vance gets the top job?, do we develop an altogether greater obsequious towards his desires as that’s what he, and his squad of complete ****s will expect?.
Hopefully in 4 years time we and Europe will have learnt the lessons of the Trump years and be less reliant on the US.
I am aware that the word "hopefully" is doing a lot of lifting in that sentence.
What do you think would have happened if last week the UK government had issued a statement criticising the US bombing of Iran as an illegal and dangerous escalation, and called for immediate compliance with the United Nations Charter?
I know there are just two countries in the world which all UK governments believe are uniquely allowed to totally ignore international law but would do you think would actually happen if the UK made clear its opposition to this ridiculous and dangerous situation?
So what happens in 4 years time when jd *face Vance gets the top job?, do we develop an altogether greater obsequious towards his desires as that’s what he, and his squad of complete *s will expect?.
Probably, yes. The UK thinking it can punch above its weight is one of the major reasons behind disastrous decisions in the last quarter of a century.
It would be nice to be part of a larger bloc where we can't be picked off individually with bribes trade deals and the constant threat of having them reviewed. But we aren't.
The perils of aligning ourselves too closely with one superpower should be obvious to anyone who knows anything about post 2000 international affairs. It would have been nice if we hadn't put ourselves in the position where that became more necessary, not less.
🤷♂️
reporting about the alleged threat the "mad ayatollahs" pose to both Israel and the wider world plus their alleged connections with terrorism
I think the world could well do without the decrepit theological authoritarian dictatorship which (like all revolutions) as become exactly the same as the regime it replaced; complete with secret police, torture chambers, unlawful detention and disappearances, who's support for regional terrorism is well evidenced, and I don't think the US should've bombed Iran.
I think the world could well do without the decrepit theological authoritarian dictatorship which (like all revolutions) as become exactly the same as the regime it replaced; complete with secret police, torture chambers, unlawful detention and disappearances, who's support for regional terrorism is well evidenced
Are you referring to Iran or the US ?
This is pretty much all for show.
Isn't that the point of all armies/weaponry?
It’s certainly the point of a nuclear deterrent. The clue’s in the title with that one.
Exactly that ^^
It's all about not upsetting Donald Trump
Watching the footage of the NATO summit, it seems like everyone had agreed to nod in the right places, tell the huge orange man-baby what he wanted to hear, blow a bit of smoke up his arse, then work on the principle that he’ll have forgotten all about it by the time he gets back to Washington
decrepit theological authoritarian dictatorship which (like all revolutions) as become exactly the same as the regime it replaced; complete with secret police, torture chambers, unlawful detention and disappearances,
It is always special when someone living in the UK makes a comment like that. It was the British with help from the CIA who organised the coup that overthrew liberal democracy in Iran and replaced it with a brutal, but compliant, one-man dictatorship.
The consequences of which we are still witnessing today.
Iran today might not be the liberal democracy which Britain was indispensable in overthrowing but it certainly has a greater democratic character, however small, than the one-man dictatorship which Britain helped to install.
When was the last time a "reformist" won a presidential election in Saudi Arabia, darling dictatorship of Britain and the USA? When was the last time that there was any presidential election in Saudi Arabia?
Iranians deserve better, all peoples deserve genuine democracy, what they don't deserve is to be lectured by those with no commitment to democracy.
Well, Lyse Doucet reported from Tehran earlier today. From an open air, semi impromptu concert. She'd just described how some shops and cafes were not yet reopened but female joggers (heads uncovered) were back out enjoying their exercise. There was a nice rendition of Fauré's Pavane in the background and a couple of local blokes who were there just sounded glad to be back out and about in their city.
It seemed a far cry from the image of Iran that is often portrayed to the so-called West. Sure, we all know that there are plenty of rural backwaters with interrelated, illiterate peasants who are notionally conservative because that's what their betters tell them to be. But that's true of nearly every country, including the UK, US, France, Greece etc etc.
Not as different as you might think. Plus, if Iraq told the West anything, it is that a surefire way to push moderates in behind any government is to start bombing their country.
Yeah I only learnt yesterday that the hijab law was no longer being enforced on the streets of Tehran, which I guess must make Iran a tad more liberal than Saudi Arabia in that respect.
It is actually quite an important albeit symbolic step forward you would have thought that it would have been reported by the western media, if they weren't only obsessed with negative stuff about Iran.
And the reason I found yesterday was because I was reading an article discussing the effect that the Israeli and US bombing of Iran is likely to have on Iranian society.
It was suggested that it might strengthen the hand of hardliners after a period when reformers have had the upper hand, and it was suggested that among other things some women were concerned the hijab law would be strictly enforced.
The West bringing death and destruction to Iran didn't apparently strengthen the position of reformers as the understandable hatred of Israel and the US made even the opponents of the regime rally behind the government.
https://www.iranintl.com/en/202503052260
So today this weird and wonderful forum has opened my eyes to things about Iran I wasn't aware of. Every day's a school day on here.
Yeah I only learnt yesterday that the hijab law was no longer being enforced on the streets of Tehran
It’s worth noting that it took some poor girl being beaten to death in the street by ‘the morality police’ and the subsequent brutal put down of the resulting protests for that to be the case
Yup, true, but electing a reformist president must have undoubtedly helped .
"President Masoud Pezeshkian said on Wednesday he cannot implement a law that Iranians oppose, after hardliners largely thwarted his agenda by pushing out top aides and rejecting his overtures to Washington."
Netanyahu and Trump have now probably strengthened the hand of hardliners. Not only does the West murder and starve Palestinian children by the thousands but then they cause death and destruction to Iran in unprovoked attacks, surely overtures to these people would be indefensible?
It’s all fairly academic though innit, Ernesto?
There are no good guys here.
The Israeli and the Iranian regimes are both run by hardline fundamentalist lunatics. Basically, they’re both utterly mental and their singular and solitary consideration is clinging on to power, and to hell with how many people have to die to facilitate that.
Also: it’s a pretty wild claim to class attacks on Iran as ‘unprovoked’. The Iranian regime has been committed to nothing other than provocation for years, with its proxies all over the region.
Just because the Israelis are twunts, that doesn’t legitimize the behavior of the Iranians. They’re twunts too. As I said: there are no good guys here.
Netanyahu and Trump have now probably strengthened the hand of hardliners.
Thus increasing the likelihood of Netanyahu's forever war that he needs to stay in power and out of jail.
Sigh.
The Israeli and the Iranian regimes are both run by hardline fundamentalist lunatics. Basically, they’re both utterly mental and their singular and solitary consideration is clinging on to power, and to hell with how many people have to die to facilitate that.
Hang on - I thought Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East? That means that if they’re run by fundamentalist lunatics it’s because they agree with fundamentalist lunacy.
Not academic, the comments by the Iranian president are significant.
it’s a pretty wild claim to class attacks on Iran as ‘unprovoked’.
Well they certainly violated Article 51 of the United Nations Charter which covers the right to self-defence.
The right to self-defense is triggered by an armed attack. This means the attack must be a use of force, not just a threat.
Attacking a country because it has nuclear weapons is not self-defence, even less if they are attacked because it is claimed they are building nuclear weapons.
I suspect that most Iranians will see the attack on their country by Israel and the United States as "unprovoked", the hardliners will milk that for all it's worth.
Hang on - I thought Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East? That means that if they’re run by fundamentalist lunatics it’s because they agree with fundamentalist lunacy.
I suspect that most Iranians will see the attack on their country by Israel and the United States as "unprovoked”
I doubt they’re that naive
I don't think photos are used enough to make a "political point"
I reckon that MPs should turn up to the House of Commons carrying placards with photos on them which they can wave at the appropriate moment.
It would make political debates so much quicker and simpler.
I suspect that most Iranians will see the attack on their country by Israel and the United States as "unprovoked”
I doubt they’re that naive
Do you think that the Iranian people are unique the Middle East and don't see Israel and the United States as aggressive warmongering nations?
Or do you believe they are not and that attitude is prevalent throughout the Middle East?
Do you think that the Iranian people are unique the Middle East and don't see Israel and the United States as aggressive warmongering nations?
Or do you believe they are not and that attitude is prevalent throughout the Middle East?
Maybe others don’t see the world in the same binary manner you do comrade?
It’s all fairly academic though innit, Ernesto?
There are no good guys here.
The Israeli and the Iranian regimes are both run by hardline fundamentalist lunatics.
May as well add in the U.S. governmental regime as well, perhaps get them all to meet in a giant conference hall to sort things out, and lock the doors………permanently.
May as well add in the U.S. governmental regime as well
Given its unquestioning support of the Israeli regime, no matter what they do, they’re pretty much one of the same. They seem very relaxed about genocide
Do you think that the Iranian people are unique the Middle East and don't see Israel and the United States as aggressive warmongering nations?
Or do you believe they are not and that attitude is prevalent throughout the Middle East?
Maybe others don’t see the world in the same binary manner you do comrade?
Yes maybe you are right and, unlike me, the good people of the Middle East see Western civilization in a completely non-binary manner! 🤣
Maybe the good people of the Middle East would find it more than a little bit patronising to be roped in together as some sort of homogeneous blob?
Maybe the good people of the Middle East would find it more than a little bit patronising to be roped in together as some sort of homogeneous blob?
Thing is, it's worse than just patronizing, it's a large part of the problem. There are untold different religious and ethnic groups in the region and each group has its own agenda. Most other countries in the region do not trust Iran and are quite happy for Israel and the U.S. to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities. This doesn't mean they necessarily like the U.S. or Israel, just that Iran is a much more direct threat to them. The U.S., Russia, China, etc. think they can make alliances, but the countries in the region only make alliances based on self-interest, not any shared ideology. Same goes for any pro-Palestinian groups who think that Iran or any other country in the region shares their world-view. Iran's "alliance" with anti-Israeli factions is based purely on advancing Iranian power in the region, not on any humanitarian concern for Palestinians.
Yup. Most western commentators can just about manage to draw lines like Shia/Sunni and Kurd/Arab. But there's a heck of a lot more than that going on.
But, if you view the world simplistically like Trump, bombing people generally pushes moderates and dissenters in behind the government/establishment and reinforces that binary perception.
If the UK had been attacked militarily during Boris Johnson's premiership, I would have put aside my qualms whilst the situation was dealt with.
Trump is a shit. And he's played right into the hands of the Israelis who are led by genocidal, racist, nazi nutters.
Maybe the good people of the Middle East would find it more than a little bit patronising to be roped in together as some sort of homogeneous blob?
I guess, if anyone actually did that. It is the multitude of differences within the Middle East which the Western powers have fully exploited to sow division and protect Western interests.
From The Arab Revolt through to the Lebanese Civil War through to the Iraq-Iran War through to Israeli support for Hamas to counter the influence of the secular PLO, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc,
What's that got to do with the fact that Iranian hardliners will exploit the recent Israeli and US bombing of Iran to strengthen their position and counter moves by reformers to seek approachment with the West?
A former minister in Islamic Republic makes the point very eloquently in this article :
https://www.newarab.com/analysis/why-israels-war-gambit-could-strengthen-irans-hardliners
“Instead of weakening the regime, foreign aggression often strengthens it, providing a pretext for internal crackdowns and consolidation of power,” he explained. “To assume that regime change would usher in a secular, pro-Western Iran is dangerously naive.”
Twelve aircraft and the F35 has an Availability Rate of around 50%
Their availability will get better as nickc says.
It's probably worth mentioning that the RAF won't be able to refuel them in midair, though, which is nothing to do with red paint.
That 2008 UK decision was flawed at the time and effects other RAF aircraft now, so they'll either have to land or be refuelled by other NATO members.
I know there are just two countries in the world which all UK governments believe are uniquely allowed to totally ignore international law but would do you think would actually happen if the UK made clear its opposition to this ridiculous and dangerous situation?
There isn't a point to objecting, article 2(4) has been widely ignored almost since its acceptance
Article 2 (4) 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.
The power of veto often stopped any legal resolution so states don't ask.
Occasionally the UN would nod military action through and then the inevitable protest would be voted down, e.g. Yugoslavia in 1999 on humanitarian grounds (yes, I know), but it's still widely ignored outside the humanitarian remit.
The problems in Iran's case were that the UN said that diplomacy was still an option and regime change as a stated aim is off the table (...political independence of any state).
Thus, it appears that international practice, by relying on and discussing the scope of various exceptions to the rule, in principle strengthens the rule that the use of military force between States is generally prohibited. The actual relevance of the prohibition, however, can only be properly assessed if its historical development (see section B below), its scope and content (see section C), and the exceptions to it (see section D) are taken into account. https://opil.ouplaw.com/display/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e427
Baba Vanga knows.
I've been listening to that 'Wargames' podcast someone up there^ recommended, really good.
Also, quite worrying, makes you realise just how far we've fallen. One thing that was mentioned in the sunning up at the end was that an equivalent of the Iron Dome for the UK would cost 'an absolute minimum of £25bn'. I can't help thinking that it would be a much better investment than HS2. Or would it take us 30 years to **** it up completely before abandoning it entirely?
