• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

The Middle East conflict

GusB

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2016
Messages
8,141
Location
Elginshire
The nub of the issue though is would a nuclear armed Iran use the weapons as a deterrent, or would they actually use them? On the one had you (rightly in my opinion) describe the Iranian government as ‘really quite mental’ and yet seem content they would only have nuclear weapons as a deterrent.
The leaders of Iran may be fanatics but they're not stupid. Do you really think that they'd be daft enough to launch a nuclear strike on another country when they know that very shortly their country would be completely obliterated?

If we look at the conduct of Iran in this war in hitting civilian targets in neighbouring states, their slaughter of 40000 of their own people, their ideology in exporting terror for 47 years, I think there’s ample evidence that they would in fact use nuclear weapons.

I’d be genuinely interested to learn what your stance is on the ideology of the Iranian government, preferably without whstaboutary in reference to Isreal.
Your hypocrisy is beyond the pale. You bleat about the atrocities being committed by one regime against its own people while completely ignoring those committed by another within the boundaries that it considers to be its own territory.

I'll say it again - 70,000+ deaths in Gaza. Israel has bombed schools, universities, hospitals and residential buildings - all civilian targets. It continues to facilitate settler violence in the West Bank, evicting Palestinians from their homes and destroying their livelihoods, while imposing prison-like conditions with biometric scans and constant surveillance. Palestinians are arrested and imprisoned without trial, tortured and sexually abused. Now they can be hanged for "acts of terrorism", such as throwing stones.

This isn't "whataboutery" because it's all related.

Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of people in Lebanon have been displaced from their homes.

BEIRUT – It has been just over a week since the new escalation in conflict started on 2 March, when Israeli evacuation warnings to residents of more than 53 villages and densely populated areas in Lebanon and intensified airstrikes forced families across Lebanon to flee within minutes. Lives have been upended on a massive scale.

According to the authorities, as of today, more than 667,000 people in Lebanon have now registered on the government’s online displacement platform – an increase of over 100,000 in just one day – and numbers continue to rise.

Around 120,000 of the displaced are sheltering in government-designated collective sites, while many others are staying with relatives or friends, or are still searching for accommodation. Many – often displaced for the second time since the hostilities in 2024 – fled in a rush with almost nothing, seeking safety in Beirut, Mount Lebanon, northern districts and parts of the Bekaa.

Sorry, but you don't get to complain about what Iran is doing and completely ignore the crimes that Israel is committing.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
78,365
Location
Yorkshire
When Iran threatens to wipe Isreal off the map, we better believe them.
What about when the USA threatens to send Iran back to the Stone Ages, do you believe that, and do you think anything should be done about that?

Also, what did the quote "wipe Israel off the map" actually mean? This isn't a direct quote and was based on an indirect translation.

The phrase was subject to controversy; did it mean the destruction of an entire place or did it actually indicate regime change from lands which are deemed to be occupied?

There are various pages dedicated to the controversy such as:

Did Iranian President Ahmadinejad say Israel should be wiped off the map? There is a body of opinion who argue he did not, and he has been misquoted. The BBC does attribute the quote to him so I thought it might be useful to set out why....

I'm not sure if you are justifying Israel having nuclear weapons and Iran not, and if you are doing so on the basis of this controversy?

Also, Trump previously claimed that the US had already destroyed Iran's nuclear weapons months ago, back in June 2025; Trump has never redacted this claim or corrected it, but he now seems to have 'forgotten' it.
Tonight I can report to the world that the strikes were a spectacular military success. Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated....

...Don’t take any of the above as my giving support for the current US/Isreal action, I’m very undecided on the matter...
I am surprised, concerned and disappointed is anyone here is "undecided" over whether to actually support (!) the current US/Isreal action; the actions that have been taken are absolutely bonkers, put the world at risk, and are going to cause economic pain for many years to come. These dangerous actions should surely be condemned.

On another note, I've been listening to these podcasts by Mallen Baker, which seem to be pretty spot-on to me; several of them have covered events in the Middle East conflict, which expose the hypocrisy and insanity of Trump, such as this one:
President Donald Trump, who just yesterday was threatening to commit war crimes against Iran if it didn't open the Strait of Hormuz, is now on whiplash mode again, and is now talking up the prospect of leaving Iran after a bit more bombing, whether the Strait is open or not. Those countries who need that oil, he said, can sort out the mess (that he is single-handedly responsible for) for themselves. Needless to say, many are not happy at this proposition. But out of the two scenarios, there is cause to think this will endure as the likeliest one to actually be executed. Let's discuss.
 
Last edited:

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
33,678
Location
Scotland
You state that “Iran now has every reason to want to kill Americans” and yet hasn’t this always been the case? Their regular chorus of ‘death to America’ and regarding Isreal as the ‘little Satan’ and the USA as the ‘great Satan’ doesn’t imply they wanted friendly relations with either country.
America has, until now, been a sufficient bogeyman to use to keep the population in line, without actually requiring any direct military action. Now that they've actually attacked in such a manner (eg killing 150 innocent children) a response is required.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

While opinions clearly differ on how close Iran is, what's not arguable is that they are enriching uranium with this goal in mind and negotations to prevent this have failed.
Every party to the JCPOA (except the USA) agreed that Iran was in compliance, and was not trying to obtain weapons. The only thing that DJT achieved by deciding to unilaterally tear the agreement up was move Iran closer to nuclear weapons.
 
Last edited:

nw1

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2013
Messages
9,430
Despite Nutternyahoo banging on for years about Iran being "this close" to having a nuclear weapon,
My name for him starts the same way but then ends with a word whose spelling has quite a few letters shared with the common name for methoxybenzene.

Whatever, I hope that both him and the pea-brained orange imbecile get banged up for life for war crimes, together with the Iranian belligerents and ideally Vlad. Preferably all in the same nice comfy cell.

I do wonder, once again, whether both Benny and Vlad have something on the orange moron, and that's why he's constantly sucking up to them.
 
Last edited:

Dave61

Member
Joined
8 Mar 2026
Messages
154
Location
Long Eaton
They didn't stay out of the conflict, they hosted Iran's enemies at military bases.
I thought that they had denied the USA from using their bases for attacks and that they had mostly been evacuated before the conflict had begun?
So yes there were bases but they are not using them to launch bombing attacks.
Still I guess Iran is trying to pull any lever it can to put pressure on the USA to stop the attacks.
 

AlterEgo

Verified Rep - Wingin' It! Paul Lucas
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
29,460
Location
LBK
I thought that they had denied the USA from using their bases for attacks
The US used those bases to conduct reconnaissance, logistical support, signals, and basically every other military purpose than "literally firing missiles or launching fighter jets".

and that they had mostly been evacuated before the conflict had begun?
No. The families of service people were (because the bases are legitimate military targets during war). Meanwhile the United States manned the military functions as normal and continues to use those bases in the war effort. They didn't just abandon them!
 
Last edited:

Annetts key

Established Member
Joined
13 Feb 2021
Messages
3,809
Location
West is best
Iran is really quite mental...
I would argue that Trump and Pete Hegseth are also quite mental, and they have the second largest number of nuclear weapons available in the world...

Personally I would like it if all the countries in the world gave up having nuclear weapons (and they were all dismantled and destroyed). However, the genie is out of the bottle and is never going back in. So, alas, for the forceable future, we are stuck with some countries having nuclear weapons even if the leadership of some of these countries have questionable mental issues.

Because of what has happened over the last four years, I can see more countries looking to find a way of getting nuclear weapons or forming alliances with countries that already have them.

And I agree with some others, in that the leadership of both Israel and the U.S.A., should join the leadership of Russia and Iran in being tried in The International Court of Justice, in The Hague.
 

brad465

Veteran Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
11,479
Location
Taunton or Kent
I would argue that Trump and Pete Hegseth are also quite mental, and they have the second largest number of nuclear weapons available in the world...

Personally I would like it if all the countries in the world gave up having nuclear weapons (and they were all dismantled and destroyed). However, the genie is out of the bottle and is never going back in. So, alas, for the forceable future, we are stuck with some countries having nuclear weapons even if the leadership of some of these countries have questionable mental issues.

Because of what has happened over the last four years, I can see more countries looking to find a way of getting nuclear weapons or forming alliances with countries that already have them.

And I agree with some others, in that the leadership of both Israel and the U.S.A., should join the leadership of Russia and Iran in being tried in The International Court of Justice, in The Hague.
I'd say this video pretty much sums up what we think of the whole situation:


(Video of Norm as a presenter titled "Now this might strike some viewers as harsh...")
 

The Ham

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
12,036
I'd say this video pretty much sums up what we think of the whole situation:


(Video of Norm as a presenter titled "Now this might strike some viewers as harsh...")

I'm not sure if I've said this before, however, someone described it quite well, but they said that a lot of the internet had started to sound like a group of 10 year old boys, with that sort of level of maturity.

They then said that has appeared to follow through to politics, with everything being at face value and little to no nuisance or compensation.

That's not a criticism of 10 year old boys, as that's a reasonable level of maturity for their life stage, it's just that they should mature from that and become a functioning person with that wider understanding and care for others.

Rather than just being stuck in the "my xxxx is better than yours, so we'd win against yyyyy'.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
113,392
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
What about all the commodities that are manufactured from oil?
Basically everything in your house is has a petrochemical element, basically all packaging and a lot of chemicals too.

Save the oil for things you can't use anything else for. That is stop burning it.

Passivhaus is very expensive and labour intensive, if you want to make houses unaffordable then sure go ahead

Full Passivhaus is, but there are options that are more achievable that get you most of the way.
 

Dave61

Member
Joined
8 Mar 2026
Messages
154
Location
Long Eaton
Save the oil for things you can't use anything else for. That is stop burning it.
I don't think it is that simple as it is used for many things , this article shows in general terms the products made from crude oil (as well as what plastics are made of);


It also says that:
"In Europe, only a small proportion (about 4 – 6%) of our oil and gas reserves goes towards the production of plastics, with the rest used for transport, electricity, heating and other applications".

So to really cut the oil demand out and awful lot of things need to be made "green" and other sources found otherwise we will just be burning off the unwanted by-products producing the stuff for "other applications"
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Gloster

Veteran Member
Joined
4 Sep 2020
Messages
12,996
Location
Up the creek
Going back to the war itself, does anybody else think that all the hype about the rescue of the second aircrew member suggests that things are not going well and they need to produce a little bit/lot of good news to distract. Particularly when it looks, at the time I write, as though things may not have gone smoothly with the rescue, although the US forces may not have suffered casualties.

All hail the living American heroes. Meanwhile, more Iranians have been freed from living under an odious regime by being killed, but who cares about that?
 

philosopher

Established Member
Joined
23 Sep 2015
Messages
1,513
Going back to the war itself, does anybody else think that all the hype about the rescue of the second aircrew member suggests that things are not going well and they need to produce a little bit/lot of good news to distract. Particularly when it looks, at the time I write, as though things may not have gone smoothly with the rescue, although the US forces may not have suffered casualties.

All hail the living American heroes. Meanwhile, more Iranians have been freed from living under an odious regime by being killed, but who cares about that?
Iran likely would have used the captured aircrew as a bargaining chip and may have killed him if they did not get what they want. This would have put the US government in a very difficult situation, giving into Iran would be seen as a surrender, not giving into Iran could be allowing a serving US airman to die.

So the US government probably saw the rescue as extremely important to ensure their negotiating position to end the conflict is not compromised.
 

Annetts key

Established Member
Joined
13 Feb 2021
Messages
3,809
Location
West is best
Going back to the war itself, does anybody else think that all the hype about the rescue of the second aircrew member suggests that things are not going well and they need to produce a little bit/lot of good news to distract. Particularly when it looks, at the time I write, as though things may not have gone smoothly with the rescue, although the US forces may not have suffered casualties.

All hail the living American heroes. Meanwhile, more Iranians have been freed from living under an odious regime by being killed, but who cares about that?

An A10 crashed (with its pilot having to be rescued) and one, maybe two helicopter crews suffered injures due to gun fire means the rescue was also a disaster...

Original source was a YouTube video:

Trump CRASHES OUT as 4 MORE US AIRCRAFT HIT in WAR!!!​

MeidasTouch host Ben Meiselas reports on Donald Trump crashing out as 4 US Aircraft have been hit by Iran in 24 hours including two helicopters and two planes as the disastrous war continues to spiral out of control.

From the transcript: (note, edited to only show the relevant sections):

Now, we're learning that actually multiple aircrafts have been hit by Iran. It's not just the F-15E, which we reported about earlier. There is a second combat plane that was hit and also two helicopters that were hit. This other plane that was struck down. It is a A10 Warthog that crashed near the straight of Hormuz. This is in addition to the F-15E that was shot down over Iran. So, two aircraft shot down A10 Warg as well as the F-15E.
Also, it's being reported uh that uh two helicopters uh were hit as well. The damage uh were still assessing, but does indeed seem significant. It's the US Air Force's HH60G pave hawk combat search and rescue helicopters that were involved in the search and rescue efforts for that F15E Strike Eagle that was down today over southern Iran. I mean, you just think about it. You had Donald Trump and Pete Hegsith saying that we've got air superiority, that no one can hit our jets. We loiter over Iran and we rain down death is what Donald Trump and Hegs said and we're seeing the exact opposite of that uh today. You know, it's notable as well because earlier Central Command US Centcom posted the following fact check as they were calling it claim.
Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps says it downed an enemy fighter jet over the Kashm island in the straight of Hormuz. Then they go fact. All US fighter aircraft are accounted for.
Iran's IRGC has made the same false claim at least half a dozen times. But now it's been confirmed that basically four different types of aircraft have indeed been hit in a very short period of time. In essence, Centcom is lying and the other data seems to be accurate, which is what we've been saying for quite some time. And it is horrifying that we continue to get lies from the Trump regime and then we have to continue to discover what's really happening. again F-15, an A-10 Warthog, and two of the combat search and rescue uh HH60G helicopters have indeed been hit. So, Donald Trump was called by NBC and he was asked, "Well, does this change the circumstances of what's taking place?" "Downing of the US jet won't affect negotiations with Iran,"


The BBC has this (link), note, edited to only show the relevant sections.

What we know about downed F-15 jet and US airmen's rescue​

Gabriela Pomeroy, Grace Eliza Goodwin, Ghoncheh Habibiazad and Chris Partridge, BBC News weapons analyst

Published 4 April 2026
Updated 5 April 2026

The US has rescued the missing crew member of the US F-15 fighter jet which was shot down on Friday over southern Iran.

Trump paused a number of other operations in Iran to focus on the rescue, directing dozens of special operations forces personnel to the effort, the BBC's US partner CBS reported.

"This type of raid is seldom attempted because of the danger to 'man and equipment.' It just doesn't happen!" the president said on social media.

The missions are often conducted by helicopters, which fly low over enemy territory, alongside other military aircraft that conduct strikes and patrol the area.

Two transport planes that were intended to fly out rescue crews were unable to take off from a remote base inside Iran, and were then destroyed to keep them out of enemy hands, US media said. Commandos then flew out after three extra aircraft were sent.

The exact location where the F-15 was reportedly downed was unconfirmed, but two possible provinces were mentioned in Iran's state media - Kohgiluyeh and Boyer-Ahmad, and Khuzestan.

Two crew members were on board. The pilot was recovered in an earlier operation. That operation reportedly included an A-10 Warthog aircraft which was hit over the Gulf, with its pilot ejecting before being rescued.

One helicopter carrying the rescued pilot from the F-15E jet was hit by small arms fire, injuring crew members on board - but it landed safely, US media reported.
 
Last edited:

Gloster

Veteran Member
Joined
4 Sep 2020
Messages
12,996
Location
Up the creek
Iran likely would have used the captured aircrew as a bargaining chip and may have killed him if they did not get what they want. This would have put the US government in a very difficult situation, giving into Iran would be seen as a surrender, not giving into Iran could be allowing a serving US airman to die. So the US government probably saw the rescue as extremely important to ensure their negotiating position to end the conflict is not compromised.

I suspect that, as long as local forces did not lose their cool, the government would keep him alive. Much better to show that they are treating him as a POW, rather than acting in a barbaric fashion. It was Hegseth who declared that US forces will give ‘no quarter, no mercy’, which effectively means killing prisoners.
 

cactustwirly

Established Member
Joined
10 Apr 2013
Messages
8,414
Location
UK
I don't think it is that simple as it is used for many things , this article shows in general terms the products made from crude oil (as well as what plastics are made of);


It also says that:


So to really cut the oil demand out and awful lot of things need to be made "green" and other sources found otherwise we will just be burning off the unwanted by-products producing the stuff for "other applications"
Exactly you need to extract the ethylene fraction from the crude oil. So you'll be extracting other fractions for fuel at the same time.

Yes you can recycle plastics, but it currently isn't commercially viable and the recycled plastics currently are too poor quality compared to virgin plastic.
 

Annetts key

Established Member
Joined
13 Feb 2021
Messages
3,809
Location
West is best
Exactly you need to extract the ethylene fraction from the crude oil. So you'll be extracting other fractions for fuel at the same time.

Yes you can recycle plastics, but it currently isn't commercially viable and the recycled plastics currently are too poor quality compared to virgin plastic.
This is going off topic, but partly the reason for recycled plastic being lower quality is due to the poor collection system and consumers not understanding the different types and hence the sorting is not as good as it could be.

Before we had cheap oil, we did have some plastics.

To be honest, the world would be a better place if plastic products cost a bit more. It may then mean that used plastic was worth more which would drive up recycling rates.
 

cb a1

Member
Joined
9 Mar 2015
Messages
457
I can only go off what my chemistry teacher, an ex ICI chemist, told the class (this was in the early 80s) which was that he thought burning petrol and diesel was a terrible waste of an incredible feedstock for the chemical industry.
 

Mr. SW

Member
Joined
13 Sep 2023
Messages
534
Location
Armchair
I think in a couple of hundred years time people would be saying: "They had an incredible resource and what did they do? They set fire to it."
 

The Ham

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
12,036
Exactly you need to extract the ethylene fraction from the crude oil. So you'll be extracting other fractions for fuel at the same time.

Yes you can recycle plastics, but it currently isn't commercially viable and the recycled plastics currently are too poor quality compared to virgin plastic.

Currently about 4% to 8% if crude oil is used for plastics, this could increase significantly (how high I don't know, unless others know better).

With other travel (not road) accounting for 25% of oil use, there's still likely to be some oil needs beyond just car based travel.

To put this into numbers:
5 - plastics
25 - other travel
50 - road transport
10 - heating
10 - other uses


That works out as the following percentages with basically 0 road use:
10% plastics
50% all travel
20% heating (although this could also see reductions)
20% other uses

That's likely to be some way off, however with a further reduction in other areas there's still likely to be plenty of other uses for the rest of the crude oil to buy have to randomly burn it as it's a waste product.

Even if 99.8% of all road vehicles go electric, there's still going to be some historic vehicles which people would like fuel for (for example film and TV doing a historical plot line from the 1900's - for example one set in 1994)


[Yes I know the 1900's technically cover the period between 1900 and 1910, but some young people like winding up their parents by saying that they're parents were born in the 1900's when the parents were born in, say, the 80's]
 

brad465

Veteran Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
11,479
Location
Taunton or Kent
Currently about 4% to 8% if crude oil is used for plastics, this could increase significantly (how high I don't know, unless others know better).

With other travel (not road) accounting for 25% of oil use, there's still likely to be some oil needs beyond just car based travel.

To put this into numbers:
5 - plastics
25 - other travel
50 - road transport
10 - heating
10 - other uses


That works out as the following percentages with basically 0 road use:
10% plastics
50% all travel
20% heating (although this could also see reductions)
20% other uses

That's likely to be some way off, however with a further reduction in other areas there's still likely to be plenty of other uses for the rest of the crude oil to buy have to randomly burn it as it's a waste product.

Even if 99.8% of all road vehicles go electric, there's still going to be some historic vehicles which people would like fuel for (for example film and TV doing a historical plot line from the 1900's - for example one set in 1994)


[Yes I know the 1900's technically cover the period between 1900 and 1910, but some young people like winding up their parents by saying that they're parents were born in the 1900's when the parents were born in, say, the 80's]
If transport and oil-based heating is rapidly electrified, then the oil going through the Strait will, from a supply point of view, not be necessary. I would also hope that if there is sustained high oil prices, innovation towards alternatives for plastic, etc., accelerates in earnest. To an extent they already do, in the form of recycling, refill machines, paper, hemp, etc.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
33,678
Location
Scotland
Iran likely would have used the captured aircrew as a bargaining chip and may have killed him if they did not get what they want. This would have put the US government in a very difficult situation, giving into Iran would be seen as a surrender, not giving into Iran could be allowing a serving US airman to die
Highly unlikely. A live hostage is infinitely more useful than a corpse.
 

Cdd89

Established Member
Joined
8 Jan 2017
Messages
1,743
Highly unlikely. A live hostage is infinitely more useful than a corpse.
There is of course a variation on your point – which would be for Iran to capture the hostage, but keep it quiet in the short term, allowing the US to believe the survivor is still in need of rescue. This would draw in more US aircraft out of desperation, possibly less well protected.
 

The Ham

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
12,036
There is of course a variation on your point – which would be for Iran to capture the hostage, but keep it quiet in the short term, allowing the US to believe the survivor is still in need of rescue. This would draw in more US aircraft out of desperation, possibly less well protected.

Which of course may have the effect of gaining a few more hostages, but certainly a lot more damaged kit (if not destroyed) and probably harm to US personnel (again maybe a few more body bags - which is useful to Iran, as the US doesn't often have the stomach if the number of body bags gets too high).
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
28,665
Location
Nottingham
There is of course a variation on your point – which would be for Iran to capture the hostage, but keep it quiet in the short term, allowing the US to believe the survivor is still in need of rescue. This would draw in more US aircraft out of desperation, possibly less well protected.
It's reported that the crew member had a locator beacon, and I strongly suspect it would have some facility to indicate a capture and avoid this sort of situation arising.
The airman would have received training for a situation like this, and it would have involved turning his beacon signal on, getting to high ground, concealing himself and establishing communications.

According to reports in US media, the airman hid himself in a mountain crevice and restricted the use of his beacon - concerned the signal could be picked up by Iran.
 

AlterEgo

Verified Rep - Wingin' It! Paul Lucas
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
29,460
Location
LBK
Not much of the pilot rescue story is adding up from either side, not least the lack of any abandoned airport in the location the BBC gives.
 

Peter Mugridge

Veteran Member
Joined
8 Apr 2010
Messages
17,839
Location
Epsom
Not much of the pilot rescue story is adding up from either side, not least the lack of any abandoned airport in the location the BBC gives.
There's a conspiracy theory going round on Twitter ( so treat with caution ) claiming that the "rescue location" was very close to where the Iranians had a stockpile of their refined uranium and this was a cover story to capture the uranium.

Can't say that sounds very plausible for several reasons!!!
 

Cdd89

Established Member
Joined
8 Jan 2017
Messages
1,743
So while Trump's latest threats are horrifying and inexcusable, I am wondering if there is more strategy behind them than we are giving the Americans credit for.

The best evidence we've seen so far for a split in Iran is where the president apologised for regional strikes and argued attacks on them should stop unless their facilities are being used to launch attacks on Iran. The IRGC denounced the statement and have continued such actions. The second bit of evidence is Trump's repeated comments that Iran's newer negotiators are more reasonable; this should be very strong evidence since Iran likely wouldn't wish to present this willingness to negotiate externally, although it's weaker evidence since it comes out of the mouth of a delusional liar.

I therefore wonder if the purpose of Trump's messaging - confused and rambling though it is - is to threaten the pragmatic wing of Iran to put pressure on the military wing. If it is, it's probably misguided as it's more likely to embolden and validate the hardliners that the US is not a reasonable or rational counterpart, and the IRGC seems to hold more power during wartime - but I feel it's more interesting than the consensus opinion which is that Trump just says whatever nonsense comes into his head.
 

Annetts key

Established Member
Joined
13 Feb 2021
Messages
3,809
Location
West is best
Operation Epic Fury began on 28 February 2026. The conflict has now been going for 5 weeks and 3 days.

Despite Trump criticising European NATO members for a lack of defence spending, in the U.S.A. they too, over both Democrat and Republican administrations (including Trumps first term), they have only been buying the expensive hi-tech missiles (all types) at the bare minimum peacetime levels to keep the production lines just about going. The relevant administrations betting that any wars would be short. Or would have defences that could be overcome quickly, so that the U.S.A. could switch to conventional iron bombs fitted with guidance kits (JDAM) which are a lot cheaper and which the U.S.A. has vast stocks.

So, with Iran continuing to fire ballistic missiles and Shahed 136 type drones at both Israel and the Gulf states, is the United States running low on these expensive missiles? Because despite Trump saying that they have infinite stocks, that's clearly untrue, as they are moving air defence systems from South Kora.

Here's one report from earlier in March from The Guardian

Hasty redeployment of US missiles from South Korea to Middle East leaves Seoul rattled​

South Korea’s president has sought to reassure the public that the country is able to deter threats from the North

Justin McCurry in Tokyo
Wed 11 Mar 2026 05.27 GMT

It has been almost a decade since the sleepy South Korean village of Seongju was transformed overnight into a key location in the country’s ability to counter an attack from North Korea.

Early on a spring morning, camouflaged trucks carrying the US-made terminal high-altitude area defense (THAAD) missile-defence system rolled into Seongju, as the country’s government ignored protests from locals who said the deployment would make them a target for Pyongyang’s ballistic missiles.

The conservative government in Seoul, backed by Washington, insisted that Thaad was the most effective way to locate and destroy North Korean missiles before they threatened the South and the 28,500 US troops stationed there. The deployment also angered China and Russia, which said Thaad’s powerful radar could compromise their security.

But nine years on, the US has reportedly started moving parts of the system, along with other military hardware, out of South Korea for deployment in its war against Iran. US media has reported that the Pentagon is moving parts of a Thaad system to the Middle East, citing two officials.

The move, reported this week, has triggered doubts over Donald Trump’s security commitment to South Korea – the US’s most important east Asian ally along with Japan – and warnings that the nuclear-armed North could seek to ramp up pressure on its neighbour. Why, critics are asking, did South Korea invest so much political capital in a defence system that could one day be removed?

South Korea’s liberal president, Lee Jae Myung, sought to reassure the public that the country was able to deter threats from the North, even if the US redeployed weapons and other military assets to the Middle East.

Noting that Seoul had opposed the redeployment of US artillery batteries and air-defence units, Lee told a cabinet meeting: “If asked whether that would seriously hinder our deterrence strategy against North Korea, I can say with certainty that it would not.”
He added that South Korea’s defence budget is among the highest in the world and is estimated to be 1.4 times greater than North Korean gross domestic product.

The South’s foreign minister, Cho Hyun said on Friday that US and South Korean militaries were also discussing the possible redeployment of some US Patriot missile defence systems to the Middle East. South Korean media carried unconfirmed reports that some missile batteries were likely to be redeployed to US bases in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

“For operational security reasons we do not comment on the movement of specific military capabilities or assets,” an officials from United States Forces Korea told the Yonhap news agency.

Even if Lee is right to play down the security risk to South Korea, the weakening of US defences there have raised concerns that the war with Iran signals a downgrading in Trump’s commitment to North-east Asia, where North Korea’s nuclear weapons programme and the Taiwan Strait are potential flashpoints.

“There is a risk that North Korea could miscalculate the relocation of some of these weapons as a pretext for low-level provocations to test the allies’ defence posture,” said Choi Gi-il, a military studies professor at Sangji University.

Japan, too, is having to adapt to the US’s hasty redeployment of military hardware to the Middle East – a move that lends weight to criticism that Trump went into the Iran war without a clear plan, leaving American forces in danger of being sucked into a prolonged conflict.

Japan hosts about 50,000 US troops, more than half of them on the southern island of Okinawa. Two US guided-missile destroyers based in Yokosuka, south of Tokyo, are currently deployed in the Arabian Sea, according to a report by the US Naval Institute.
The head of Japan’s main opposition party has raised concerns about reports that the US was poised to send vessels based in Japan to the Middle East. “Japan has not permitted the stationing of US forces so they can sortie from those bases to fire missiles towards the Middle East,” Junya Ogawa told MPs this week.

The JoongAng Daily, a conservative South Korean newspaper, said any reduction in the country’s ability to defend itself “inevitably raises concerns”.

“The [South Korean] government should work to ensure that any redeployed assets return promptly once their missions end, minimising potential gaps in deterrence against North Korea. Efforts to strengthen Korea’s own defence capabilities should also accelerate.”

Source: (link)
We are now in April, and Iran are still firing ballistic missiles and Shahed 136 type drones and there is no sign that they are running out. And does the U.S. really have air supremacy over Iran?

So with surface to air missiles still having to be used and maybe air to air missiles and maybe the U.S. also still needing to use land/ground attack missiles, the situation will be getting worse. Even with emergency contracts to the missile manufacturers, there is no way that new supplies will be able to keep up with the rate of firing that is going on.

When do you think that the U.S. military will have to tell Trump that they have to scale back operations, due to a lack of missiles? Or risk say, China or Russia getting ideas...

This is what RBC-Ukraine says:

US running low on key weapons, rebuilding may take years​

Sun, April 05, 2026 - 21:50

This is already the third type of arms, stockpiles of which are rapidly dwindling in the US due to the war against Iran
The United States has used a large portion of its available stockpile of JASSM-ER stealthy cruise missiles during operations in Iran. Replenishing expended weapons could take years because production rates are insufficient, Bloomberg reports.
According to sources familiar with the operation's confidential details, the United States has already used about two-thirds of its total inventory of JASSM-ER missiles.

In late March, an order was issued to transfer missiles worth $1.5 million each from Pacific bases and facilities in the United States to US Central Command bases or Fairford in the UK.

After the redeployments, the United States will have only about 425 operational JASSM-ER missiles remaining from a prewar stockpile of 2,300. This would be enough for just one large-scale sortie by 17 B-1B bombers.

In the first four weeks of the war alone, US aircraft launched more than 1,000 of these missiles. The JASSM-ER has a range of over 600 miles, allowing it to strike fortified targets deep inside Iran without entering the range of its air defenses.

As a result, the Pentagon's main concern is now the speed of replenishment. Lockheed Martin can produce a maximum of 860 missiles per year, while more than 1,000 were used in just one month of fighting in Iran. Restoring the arsenal could take years, potentially affecting US defense capabilities and its ability to sustain operations involving China.

However, the shortage is not limited to JASSM-ER missiles. Gulf countries have nearly depleted their stocks of missiles for Patriot air defense systems during the US-Israeli operation in Iran.

In addition, in the first four weeks of the war against Iran, the United States has already launched more than 850 Tomahawk missiles. Some Pentagon officials are concerned about how quickly stocks of precision weapons are being depleted.

Overall, estimates say that in just the first 12 days after the start of the operation in Iran, the United States expended stockpiles of precision-guided weapons that had been accumulated over years. Replenishing them will take a long time and come at a very high cost.

Source: (link)
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
33,678
Location
Scotland
When do you think that the U.S. military will have to tell Trump that they have to scale back operations, due to a lack of missiles?
Your question presumes that (a) they haven't already done so; and (b) that either Trump or his Secretary of Defence will listen.
 

Top