https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2025/jun/13/israel-iran-strikes-defence-minister-tehran-middle-east-live
Reports stating that Israel have launched an attack against Iran
Solar, like wind, is very weather dependent. They're great for supplementation but they aren't a consistent supply. I feel like our government were too happy to hand big money contracts associated with Irish Water rather than think of a proper solution which could have involved building new reservoirs with hydro power which provides a more consistent supply of energy and reduces water stress.
I agree with the sentiment that we should be decoupling from fossil fuels for our energy grid and have felt this way for a long time because of the volatile nature of the pricing.
Hopefully the EU get on board and does a deal with Iran / gulf states regarding supply and passage oil. The gulf states might not want or need Trump then.
Taco loves deals so he would be delighted surely.
In fairness, there's a lot of retracting to go round. Multiple people on this thread were blaming the Israelis for this strike, long before there was any evidence to support it (and despite the reality of geography making that highly unlikely).
That sounds perfectly rational, actually.
Yes we will still need other sources like the interconnector and many other things but that needs to be as blended a mix as possible.
We really should have a mix of oil, gas and coal power stations as backup facilities.
Tomahawks can be fired from jets. You're incorrect to imply they can't be.
The notion that Iran could have them is still bonkers, though.
Can anyone who blamed the Israelis also retract here, while we're at it? Or is it different "rules"?
Unfortunately the 700MW inter-connector to France being built is over budged and overdue now approaching children’s hospital cost levels
We also shutdown 1000MW money point coal plant which should have been kept for energy emergencies
All while demand continues to grow due to EVs, heat pumps, massive population growth and datacenters and other industries we need for jobs and taxes
Anyways let’s leave it there as we went way out there on a tangent and get back to this stupid war
As Ireland's greatest statesman of the 20th century, John Hume, would have described this - more "whataboutery" from you.
The truth has come out that the US military are responsible for the atrocity in Minab, as published by BBC Verify on the news last night and in the Guardian newspaper today.
It is telling that you cannot or will not correct the false narrative you repeatedly pushed on this thread about the US attack on the Minab school.
No it isn't, anyone who incorrectly blamed the wrong party for the murder of 168 people, the majority being children, in a school should without hesitation retract their claims.
And again, if he has to retract, then the multiple posters who blamed Israel also need to retract. I presume you will call for that as well.
Grand then. So I presume you're calling for everyone on this thread who blamed the Israelis for this strike to retract?
Did you even read my post?
"anyone who incorrectly blamed the wrong party for the murder of 168 people, the majority being children, in a school should without hesitation retract their claims"
I haven't been following the thread very closely, so haven't seen the accusations against the IDF.
But, yes, certainly anyone pushing a false narrative is either disingenuous or worse, and should withdraw their accusations.
I did. I was just looking for clarification that that is exactly what you are calling for. Thank you!
I retract my previous posts and now fully blame the Americans for murdering 168 people, mostly children.
In fairness a discussion on our energy supply is very relevant to the thread considering the war's impact on us.
But yes, Moneypoint coal should be retained as a backup. For 40 years it gave the country a stable supply of energy.
We should also have retained oil capacity at other locations.
I did not blame Israel but Israel's UN ambassador (Danon) was one of the first to suggest it was the Iranians that were responsible. He then said Iran were using the school as a human shield. He also lied further by saying Israel does not attack civilians.
Yeah, that was blatantly obvious propaganda bunkum, on the same level as the posters who rushed in to blame the Israelis. It's the same level of evidence-free bias. When you look at the geographic reality, the Iranian misfire allegation is marginally more plausible (misfires happen all the time). But right from the start, by far the most likely explanation has been the one that is emerging as reality now (and FWIW, I've been saying this here for many days).
Fair dues
Really, which jets ?
B-52s for sure. Way back from decades ago, they were re-configured to be, essentially, an aerial platform for Air Launched Cruise Missiles. Their primary purpose was strategic, as part of the nuclear triad (the other two components of the triad being ICMBs and SLBMs). Tomahawks were originally designed to carry a small nuclear warhead.
Iran has no jets capable of launching Tomahawks. But then Iran has no Tomahawks, so why would they. Trump talking billix as usual.
Just to add, I would guess B-1s and B-2s as well, for the same reason, but I can't remember off the top of my head.
Now German based attacked in Jordan, both countries wanted nothing to do with Trumps war
No bomber can fire Tomahawks because a tomahawk needs a launcher to launch it upwards.
GM-109H/L Medium Range Air-to-Surface Missile (MRASM) – a shorter-range, turbojet powered air-launched cruise missile with conventional non-nuclear warheads intended for USAF and Navy. AGM-109H for USAF, 5.84 m (19 ft 2 in) long, with TERCOM en-route and DSMAC terminal guidance, and payload of runway cratering submunitions for use against airfields. AGM-109L for US Navy, 4.87 m (16 ft 0 in) long, with unitary warhead for use against ships or high value land targets, and imaging infra-red seeker and datalink.[24] Never entered service, cost US$569,000 (1999)
GM-109H/L Medium Range Air-to-Surface Missile (MRASM) – a shorter-range,
turbojet
powered
air-launched cruise missile
with conventional non-nuclear warheads intended for USAF and Navy. AGM-109H for USAF, 5.84 m (19 ft 2 in) long, with TERCOM en-route and DSMAC terminal guidance, and payload of runway cratering submunitions for use against airfields. AGM-109L for US Navy, 4.87 m (16 ft 0 in) long, with unitary warhead for use against ships or high value land targets, and
imaging infra-red
seeker and datalink.[24] Never entered service, cost
US$
569,000 (1999)
That's what I was remembering. So we're both right. An air-launched variant existed, but never went into service.
So a Tomahawk can only be launched by boat, submarine or a land launcher ?
Whilst there are cruise missiles in the US arsenal that can be launched from the B-1 and B-2, the AGM-154 and AGM-158 to be precise, neither aircraft can take Tomahawk, which isn’t a weapon in the US Air Force’s inventory. USAF evaluated the Tomahawk in the 1980s but opted to go with the AGM-86 ALCM (Air Launched Cruise Missile) instead. Both of those aircraft (B-1 & B-2) were designed with stealth in mind, that’s obviously the whole point of the B-2. As a result, these aircraft need to carry their weapons in an internal bomb bay that simply isn’t big enough for the AGM-86, at least on the B2.
The B-52 doesn’t have that problem. Its bomb bay is massive due to the original requirement to carry (I think) two thermonuclear bombs behind each other, weapons that were massive in size in the 1950s. So it has plenty of space to take the AGM-86. Furthermore, the B-52 is the exact opposite of stealthy, having a radar cross section the size of the Cliffs of Moher, so lobbing cruise missiles from afar is pretty much the only thing that particular platform is good for.
For what it’s worth, the Air Force does have a cruise missile that looks very similar to the Tomahawk, the AGM-86 ALCM that I mentioned in my previous post. The only visual difference is that the ALCM has an air intake for its jet engine on the top of the missile, whilst the Tomahawk seems to have a completely smooth fuselage.
Israel and the USA are joint parties to attacking Iran, they are attached at the hip on this therefore the ramifications for what happened applies to both of them. For all we know, Israel could have provided the location of the collective strikes.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://we.vanillicon.com/v2/eaabbaf8a16773590ee22dd6c15f1d68.svg)
