To be worried in case our troops end up at war?

[CarriedAWayy]

We are a military family. I met DH when I was 19, some nearly 20 years ago now. DH has done some operational tours in that time but we now have two children and I am more fearful of war now than ever. I know this is part and parcel of being married to a soldier, but it doesn’t change the worry and fear.

As it happens, my husband is currently deployed and contact is minimal, so I can’t talk to him about my fears. I can’t really ask anyone in my circle, because I don’t want to push my worries onto my friends who are in the same position.

What do people think the likelihood is of our soldiers ending up at war again?

YABU - it’s unlikely to happen
YANBU - it’s likely to happen

the problem is if we as a nation disbanded the military and waved peace flags, how long before other countries choose to invade or attack etc, sometimes we have no choice when the enemy just wants war

I'm sorry to all who are worried about their loved ones in the military right now. I sincerely hope that our government will keep our involvement to the minimum necessary requirements, regardless of what the warmongering right wingers seem to want.

That's very insensitive. Yes the purpose of having a military is to defend us and fight wars but that doesn't mean wives and kids will not be worried about their loved ones.

That's actually a very disgusting statement that you made.

Those brave soldiers also feel fear but they push on to defend us, do you think soldiers also don't feel fear or have emotions?

America and Israel seem to like that sort of thing, did you say the same when Iran funded Hezbollah to kill and kidnap thousands of Isreali's??? Let me guess you're kept in the dark about all the attacks that Iran funded in the UK that was thankfully thwarted by MI6 and the intelligence agencies???

And do you know that majority of the conflicts and mess around the world in the Middle East and Africa can be traced to British imperialism??? How many countries did Britain divide haphazardly as part of colonialism that is still causing fighting and conflict today????? Please cut out the sanctimonious holier than thou act.

Are you also going to ignore the fact that Iran considers the UK enemies? Do you think when Iran gets nuclear weapons the UK will be invited for afternoon tea? Iran literally finds multiple terrorists groups like the Hezbollah Houthis etc to cause chaos and destruction around the world. Even their fellow Muslim middle eastern countries like Saudi Arabia UAE etc hate them 😂

www.bbc.com/news/articles/cgr40w2zereo

BN’s sons both did their time in the IDF.
IF either of his sons had wanted to re enlist when 7/10 happened I would expect they would be refused for security reasons.
Can you imagine if Hamas had managed to get their hands on one of them??

Op I don't think it will end up boots on the ground. But I totally get your concern.

What do people mean by illegal war, surely no war or fight is actually started legally?

My ds is in the navy too. I am worried but trying not to dwell too much. There's nothing can do.

Briefly from AI -

An illegal war under international law—specifically the crime of aggression—is the use of armed force by a state against the sovereignty, territorial integrity, or political independence of another state in violation of the UN Charter. Under Article 2 of the UN Charter, the threat or use of force is prohibited, except for self-defense against an armed attack or when authorized by the UN Security Council.
Åbo Akademi +2
Key Aspects of Illegal War (Jus ad Bellum)

• Prohibition of Force: The foundational rule is that states cannot use force to settle disputes.
• Aggression: Acts constituting aggression include invasion, military occupation, annexation, blockade, or allowing one's territory to be used by another state for aggression.
• Invalid Justifications: Unilateral "humanitarian interventions" without UN Security Council authorization are generally considered illegal.

The US and Israeli attacks on Iran fail on practically every count here. The issue is, they always claim their actions are "defensive" in nature and therefore meet the "pre-emptive self defence" criterion.

Israel insists what it's been doing in Gaza for the past year+ is a "defensive" operation, and they are always quite succinct with the language they use. This why, in the aftermath of the Gaza "ceasefire", they reiterated that they had ceased "offensive" operations, but carried on the bombing practically undiminished.

They are presumably busy "defending" themselves by bombing Lebanon, same as when they defended themselves by bombing Syrian politicians in July last year. You really have to wonder what on earth would constitute aggression and an "offensive" attack if you can just repeatedly bomb Sovereign States with total impunity provided you claim "pre-emptive self defence" every single time.

I am also worried. My DH is a US soldier.

Keir Starmer would never recover if we got involved. I think he knows this.

I wasn't suggesting we 'disband the military and wave peace flags'. Of course we need a (well funded) military for defence purposes. But aggressive war rarely achieves anything, and Western 'intervention' (enforced regime change for economic gain usually) is wrong. My other point was that I entirely sympathise with the fears of military personnel & their watching & waiting families.

Do you know the welfare co tacts for DHS regiment/unit/ ship, or barracks/ base?
There is usually a strong support network available for spouses partly run by professional family services and partly from senior officers spouses. The idea is to keep all in touch.

Do.you live On Base or Up the line? If in a service base then access should be easy. If you live away from the base then are relatives reliable and supportive? There are fewer families with a service past now, but there are support groups.

Good luck. It's natural to be concerned and even if dh is not in a war zone, anxiety can creep in. Help is there.

International law is not some static, crystalline structure handed down from Sinai. Indeed, it is formed by the practice of states. If the law is interpreted in a way that always leaves the law-abiding defenceless against the law-breaker, then the law is not just “flawed” – it is worse than useless. Other liberal democracies, such as Australia and Canada, have looked at the same facts and reached the opposite conclusion about “Operation Epic Fury.” They understand what our own Foreign Office seems to have forgotten: that nuance is not a loophole; it is a necessity.

First, there is the reality of the “Long War.” Since the Ayatollah’s 1979 proclamation of “Death to America,” Iran has been in a state of constant, if unconventional, armed conflict with the West. A state of war does not vanish because there is a temporary lull in the counting of bodies. Through its proxies – Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis – Tehran has waged a persistent campaign of kinetic aggression. When President Trump listed the decades of attacks, from the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing to the strikes on global shipping, he wasn’t just reminiscing; he was identifying a continuous theatre of operations. British lives lost to Iranian IEDs in Iraq furnish further such sad evidence, as do the many attempted terrorist attacks on our soil, which the Prime Minister referenced. If a conflict is established, the use of force is governed by the laws of war – distinction and proportionality – not the peacetime hurdles of Article 51.
Second, we must address the ticking clock of the Iranian “bomb.” The doctrine of self-defence, under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, includes the right to pre-empt an imminent and catastrophic threat. To suggest that the US and Israel must wait for a mushroom cloud to appear over Tel Aviv before the law “allows” them to act is a form of legalistic insanity. Negotiations with a regime that views diplomacy as a stalling tactic for enrichment are not a legal barrier to action once it is clear those negotiations have failed.

Exerts copied from a Spectator article: Author Jeff Blackett.

I agree with you on western intervention on others regimes

@juggleit is this the same Jeff Blackett, who wrote a letter to the telegraph justifying Israel’s attack on the innocent people of Gaza “Every innocent life lost is a tragedy, and perhaps it seems cold-hearted to approach death and destruction in such an objective and dispassionate way. But the law is, and must be, dispassionate because it is trying to regulate a terrible activity.” That must be a comfort to all the innocent victims that are going to be caught up in this. The same Guy whose wife and children are Jewish? Funny that.

Look what happened last time we went near these countries. Curtains for the government. It won’t be popular and we are not Trumps puppets. Ties with USA are much looser. I don’t think we will unless we are attacked.

No, it doesn’t, but you really need to make peace with those feelings and talk yourself down.
To use your analogy, a firefighter’s DP cannot live with anxiety that there may be a fire.
There WILL be fires - that’s why firefighters have jobs.

The armed forces do a lot of work other than being boots on the ground in hostile environments, where they have little contact with loved ones and a high risk of loss of life. Are you aware of that?

The grenfell tower analogy was used because that is on the extreme end of the spectrum of what a fire fighter’s job would involve. Just like those fire fighters who walked into the twin towers. I’m sure their families were worried when they heard the news and knew their loved ones were on shift or being called on.

Your understanding of the work of our armed forces is clearly lacking.

What does his wife and children being Jewish have to do with anything?

All the mock sympathy for innocent civilians killed during military strikes when both Iran and Hamas blatantly torture and kill their own people. So Which side are you on, collateral damage or murder? Hmmmm 🤔

Yes like when the RAF base in Cyprus intercepted drones trying to drop bombs on them.

I think there’s an increased chance of British military being directly involved and deployed.

All you can do is remind yourself that your DH chose this life and it was very likely to happen.

but it still does not make it easyier for those whose loved ones etc are required for war

That's a bit harsh.
He might have chosen a military life but realistically nobody wants their loved one in a active war or war zone.

The military life might appeal to lots of young people for lost of reasons.
The Royal Navy advert really bugs me, Born in Blyth but Made in the RN.

Who knows where Blyth is or what sort of career opportunities it offers. Lots of people go into military because of lack of opportunities in the area they live. Old mining villages, towns with big industry no more, seeing older friends coming out of uni with big debts and working in pubs.

Military recruitment adverts are full of fun times and adventure. Not the reality of war. Young people, think they are invincible and don't really think about the reality of what they are signing up to.

Even years ago Billy Connolly wrote a song 'Sergeant, Where's Mine?'

.