Iran - Israel/US War: Israel-US declare war on Iran, Iran responds

LOL, Indian media fantasizing and paranoic about Pakistan:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
KingQamaR said:
I thought bombing nuclear facilities was against international law.
Click to expand...
Targeting nuclear facilities is a complex issue under international law, but generally, it is strongly prohibited due to the immense humanitarian and environmental risks involved. Here's a breakdown of the key legal principles:

1. International Humanitarian Law (IHL) / Law of Armed Conflict:

  • Principle of Distinction: IHL requires parties to a conflict to distinguish between civilian objects and military objectives. Civilian nuclear facilities, like power plants, are generally considered civilian objects and are thus protected from direct attack.
  • Special Protection for Works and Installations Containing Dangerous Forces:Article 56 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions specifically addresses "works or installations containing dangerous forces," which explicitly includes nuclear electrical generating stations, as well as dams and dykes.
    • This article states that these facilities "shall not be made the object of attack, even where these objects are military objectives, if such attack may cause the release of dangerous forces and consequent severe losses among the civilian population."
    • Crucially, this protection is not absolute. It ceases if the facility provides "regular, significant, and direct support of military operations and if such attack is the only feasible way to terminate such support." Even then, all practical precautions must be taken to avoid the release of dangerous forces.
  • Proportionality: Even if a nuclear facility could be considered a legitimate military target under the narrow exceptions, any attack must still adhere to the principle of proportionality. This means that the expected military advantage must outweigh the anticipated civilian casualties and damage. Given the catastrophic potential of a nuclear incident, it is extremely difficult to justify an attack on a nuclear facility under this principle.
  • Precaution in Attack: Parties to a conflict must take all feasible precautions to avoid or minimize civilian casualties and damage to civilian objects. This includes taking into account the severe risks associated with attacking nuclear facilities.
  • War Crimes: Launching an attack against works or installations containing dangerous forces in the knowledge that such attack will cause excessive loss of life, injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects may constitute a grave breach of Additional Protocol I and thus a war crime.
2. UN Charter:

  • Prohibition on the Use of Force (Article 2(4)): The UN Charter generally prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. Any attack on a nuclear facility within a sovereign country would likely be considered a violation of this fundamental principle, unless it falls under the narrow exceptions of self-defense (Article 51) or authorization by the UN Security Council.
  • Self-Defense: The right to self-defense is narrowly interpreted and generally requires an "armed attack" to have occurred. Preventive strikes, especially against facilities that are subject to international inspection and safeguards, are on very uncertain legal footing.
3. Other Relevant International Instruments:

  • Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT): While the NPT primarily focuses on preventing the spread of nuclear weapons and promoting peaceful nuclear energy, it reinforces the understanding that nuclear facilities are intended for peaceful purposes and should be subject to international safeguards (IAEA inspections). Attacking such facilities undermines the entire non-proliferation regime.
  • IAEA General Conference Resolutions: The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) General Conference has repeatedly declared that attacks against peaceful nuclear installations are prohibited under international law.
  • Bilateral Agreements: Some countries have specific bilateral agreements prohibiting attacks on each other's nuclear facilities (e.g., India and Pakistan).
  • Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone Treaties: Treaties establishing nuclear-weapon-free zones often include provisions prohibiting attacks on nuclear facilities within those zones.
In summary:

While there are highly restrictive exceptions for nuclear power plants that are providing direct and significant support to military operations and when no other feasible option exists, the general consensus in international law is that bombing nuclear facilities is a serious violation of international law due to the catastrophic potential for widespread harm to civilians and the environment. The emphasis is on protecting these facilities due to the "dangerous forces" they contain. Any such attack would face immense international condemnation and likely be considered a grave breach of international humanitarian law.
 
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
Developereo said:
You really think Pakistan is ready to dance with the US right now?
Especially with the India war on pause.
Click to expand...

Doubt US will tangle with Crazy Nuke powered nation. US is overstretched , couldn't even deal with Yemen. As Tel-Aviv burns US is desperately trying to save Israel from catastrophic defeat.
 
Mighty_Dragon_Strike said:
@RescueRanger

Hermes drone falls down, not quite like, the Haifa 'drone' video!

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
Click to expand...

I wonder what they used to shoot down this drone. Missile 358 or Manpads?

Some users on this thread suggested that heat signature is too low for drones to be targeted by Manpads.
 
Shazam256 said:
I wonder what they used to shoot down this drone. Missile 358 or Manpads?

Some users on this thread suggested that heat signature is too low for drones to be targeted by Manpads.
Click to expand...
I could not know this, even in my next life as I am not a military or weapons expert rather I am truth extraction specialist
 
AZ_HighCountry said:
Uranium hexaflouride would require refrigerated trucks.

My thought was prep for removing the rubble.

Issue is this is the first time this weapon has been deployed. Analysts aren't able to do typical BDAs like they could with Natanz and Esfahan.

The only way to properly assess is going to be boots on the ground and I doubt the IRGC is going to allow that.
Click to expand...
Their capabilities have been seriously degraded. This must I'm certain
 
IDF attacks 6 Iranian airports:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 50 (members: 8, guests: 42)

Pakistan Defence Latest

Country Watch Latest

Latest Posts

Share this page

Back
Top