Skip to content

This is legally interesting

The UK’s RAF Akrotiri base in Cyprus has been hit by a drone strike, causing limited damage and no casualties, Cypriot authorities and the Ministry of Defence (MoD) have said.

That base is sovereign UK territory. So, legally, they’ve attacked the UK. If you really stretch it doesn’t that mean we can call on Nato to beat up Iran? Certainly, it’s now – legally, all that international law stuff – OK for us to respond, no?

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

36 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Marius
Marius
9 days ago

The UK security services say that the IGRC has made numerous attempts to attack people on British soil. We have long-standing justification for attacking Iran.

Starmer’s refusal to ban the IRGC, something that even the appeasing wankers of Europe have done, is simply traitorous.

Jonathan
Jonathan
9 days ago

Respond with what exactly?

JuliaM
9 days ago
Reply to  Jonathan

A strongly worded letter?

dearieme
dearieme
9 days ago
Reply to  Jonathan

I’m sure Sir Keir Wanker can find an island to give them.

Norman
Norman
9 days ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Two corporals and a bike?

Boganboy
Boganboy
9 days ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Lots and lots of nukes???

Bloke in Cyprus
Bloke in Cyprus
9 days ago
Reply to  Jonathan

I suppose giving away the SBAs is the most likely response…

Norman
Norman
9 days ago

…to the Turks.

Ted S., Catskill Mtns, NY, USA
Ted S., Catskill Mtns, NY, USA
9 days ago
Reply to  Jonathan

HR Karens?

Bloke in South Dorset
Bloke in South Dorset
9 days ago

Ted, that’s got to be a breach of the Geneva Conventions!

Nessimmersion
Nessimmersion
9 days ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Well OTOH, given the Murkan propensity for friendly fire, we’re as well keeping our few remaining fighters out of it.
(The Murkans just shot down 3 of their own for some reason possibly because there were no allies in the area)

Marius
Marius
9 days ago
Reply to  Nessimmersion

I guess that shows that, when they do it to us, it isn’t personal.

PJF
PJF
9 days ago
Reply to  Nessimmersion

The official story is that it was Kuwaiti forces that shot down the US F-15s.

Norman
Norman
9 days ago

How fortunate our PM is also a distinguished International Lawyer. I expect immediate stern action.

Tom
Tom
9 days ago
Reply to  Norman

Well he’s a lawyer at least. Somewhat to the embarrassment (and, trust me, we don’t embarrass easily) of the rest of us.

rhoda klapp
rhoda klapp
9 days ago
Reply to  Tom

He will redeem all on the imminent announcement of Operation H|esitant Weasel. Only an announcement as is Labour tradition. If it is accompanied by a two-hour speech, that will teach our enemies to behave.

Norman
Norman
9 days ago

And what was all that shit over the weekend about Cyprus “not being the target” for those drones heading towards it? “Oh, sorry, squire, we set them off in the wrong direction.”

Lord T
Lord T
9 days ago

I’m confused.

I someone attacked a member of NATO then NATO responds. Yet, if a member of NATO attacks someone then that is seen as an individual action by that nation.

So any retaliation, even against the initial aggressor, is seen as an attack on the whole of NATO so we should now all join in.

john77
john77
9 days ago
Reply to  Lord T

Is retatiation in self-defence defined as an attack in the NATO Treaty?

jgh
jgh
9 days ago
Reply to  john77

They’ve got to get their pretaliation in first.

Bloke in Cyprus
Bloke in Cyprus
9 days ago

Pafos Airport evacuated and Air Raid Sirens at Akrotiri at the moment…

Western Bloke
Western Bloke
9 days ago

Legally we can get involved, yes. Should we get drawn into this? Some caution, I think.

Steve
Steve
9 days ago

The UK can call on NATO but they are not obligated to support the UK:

Article 5 is one of Nato’s core principles. It says that an armed attack against one or more members will be considered an attack against all.

In response, each other member would take “such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area”.

The guarantee does not cover bases in foreign countries or territories outside the alliance area – which is why it did not apply during the Vietnam War or the Falkland Islands conflict. (al Beebra)

Tho doesn’t matter as the Euros are keen to bomb Tehran anyway.

Article 5 is also not the automated”press this button and Uncle Sam destroys your enemy” feature it’s portrayed in the Daily Mail. Breathlessly reported headlines like “Will Poland declare Article 5? And How Much Will Your House Price Go Up By When You Die Of Radiation Sickness?” (No and zero) in response to the Rooskies allegedly annoying a Polish airport with drones. “Such actions as it deems necessary” includes nothing. But bits of paper don’t fight wars, men do.

Gamecock
Gamecock
9 days ago

Hitting Akrotiri with a drone doesn’t sound like much of a response. And college students stuck in Dubai. Looks like Iran was a paper tiger. Uncoordinated “fire everything you have . . . at something.”

Details of strikes on Iran are not being published here in US. “Iran hit hard,” but nothing on what was hit hard. 3rd day now, and still no details.

Norman
Norman
9 days ago
Reply to  Gamecock

The first drone to hit Akrotiri landed an hour after Starmer announced UK support of defensive measures. That’s considerably less than the transit time of a Shahed to Cyprus from Iran. Shaheds are not fast. So some insane bearded cunt set it off well before Starmer shit his pants.

And this will be the story of the rest of the conflict. Hiroo Onoda syndrome.

Norman
Norman
9 days ago
Reply to  Gamecock

Well, clearly, Khamenei was hit hard enough, as was the top layer of government. Brits are not being told details about the rest, either.

Gamecock
Gamecock
9 days ago
Reply to  Gamecock

A friend sent me this link:

https://understandingwar.org/research/middle-east/iran-update-morning-special-report-march-2-2026/

Some details. Long, haven’t finished reading. Overall attack strategy coming into focus.

Bloke in Powys
Bloke in Powys
8 days ago

NATO ArtV is something people throw about like a mad woman’s shit, but seemingly don’t understand.

If a member country is attacked they can ask the NAC to consider ArtV.
If there is unanimity, the NAC can declare ArtV. (‘If’ is doing some bloody heavy lifting there.)
An ArtV response can be anything from an expression of concern to nuclear war. There is absolutely no automaticity that it means warfighting.
If ArtV is declared, member nations are under no obligation to participate, or even facilitate.

Vis-a-vis the current situation it’s immediately apparent the potential for consensus amongst the member nations is zero; the absence of ‘North Atlantic’ in the operational theatre being at least a minor factor.

The Original Jim
The Original Jim
8 days ago

Can someone explain to me how a drone that trundles along in a straight line at a pace slower than a Gloster Gladiator is such a threat in this day and age?

Norman
Norman
8 days ago

Low radar signature; lots of them; tend to cost more to shoot down than they cost to make.

The Original Jim
The Original Jim
8 days ago
Reply to  Norman

Yes, if you’re trying to shoot them down with missiles in some sort of highly complex (and expensive) Iron Dome defence system. Why can’t a plane just come up behind it and blast it out of the sky? Cost: some fuel and ammunition? Surely a standing CAP could intercept these things hundreds of miles from the intended targets? And aren’t modern gun based anti-aircraft systems able to hit something travelling at 200mph in a straight line?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfRTuBONZTk

PJF
PJF
8 days ago

Why can’t a plane just come up behind it and blast it out of the sky? 

The Ukrainians are doing just this. F-16s with Vulcans, helicopters and AN-28 transport planes with miniguns, to Yak-52s (basically Chipmunks) with shotguns out the open canopy. Along with FPV-drone drone hunters, they’re taking out Shaheds and equivalents in enormous numbers.

But as Norman points out, they come in enormous+ numbers and you have to be able find them. Ground guns are also used to good effect but the same issues apply.

Jet versions of the Shaheds are causing big trouble. Starlink equipped types were too (made them into FPVs instead of clever V1s) but that has been stopped by Elon.

Bloke in South Dorset
Bloke in South Dorset
8 days ago
Reply to  PJF

“Yak-52s (basically Chipmunks) with shotguns out the open canopy”

Whilst that sounds fun, if you’re killing a drone with a shotgun, aren’t you rather close to the exploding payload?

PJF
PJF
8 days ago

Yes, that’s why they aim for the engine and are rather brave.

Did you see the Iraqis messing with the caput US LUCAS (Shahed equivalent) in the desert? If that thing had gone off if would have ruined the video. I wonder if the Yanks, realising it was going down, disarmed the warhead.

Bloke in Powys
Bloke in Powys
8 days ago

The next time you pass something on the M4 doing 80mph, whilst you are doing 900mph, come back and tell us how easy it was to spot and shoot at.

Gamecock
Gamecock
8 days ago
Reply to  Bloke in Powys

Supermarine Spitfire would be perfect . . . now that they aren’t tipping V1s anymore.

36
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x