No Fly Zone

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,550
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
Fuji is not PM of Canada.
I'm amused by the "we" should do something which really means that "we" approve it and the US does it with a little bit of help....

All those countries with 3 or more aircraft carriers get a vote, the rest should just sit quietly while the adults decide.

OTB
 

landscaper

New member
Feb 28, 2007
5,752
0
0
The we refered to is the "west" the group of nations that have been deemed to be the cafeteria monitors of the world. Fuji's idea that Nato etc should " do something " is all well and good except for a couple of things.
1) Most of the western European nations have large Muslim populations that have the possibility of going nuts if the west invades a Muslim country see Sapin and he train bombing following Afghanistan , that is a major issue for them they do not want to inflame their own security concerns.
2) The US is already in an couple of wars , the current president is less than happy about it but he can not risk the publicity of a) withdrawing enough troops from one of the other zones to deal with this b) activating more troops could result in mutinies oin the ground in the states. The troops are tired , the budget is insane and his personal popularity can not take much more and stay in positive numbers , positive as in above zero. The political machinery will not allow him to damage their power retention policies..

That leaves the eastern european nato members most of which have muslim populations and are iffy from a military point of view.

U.N.
China just removed 30 odd thousand of its citizens from Libya, all those planes went in full and came out with people on them what went in is a question, although the fact that the planes were allowed to land and remove people with no fuss no muss and no notice until after the fact hints at an understanding of some sort. I expect the SC will veto any UN involvment.
Russia, a large question, they could probably do the no fly zone. the question is where would they base the aircraft. I don't see nato mebers supplying support, which leaves arab league countries , they will not want to be seen as supporting the no fly zone for the same reason they are not willing to do it themselves, they want to be able to blame somebody else if it goes sideways or if Gahdaffi stays i9n power ( which at this point seems likely)

So who does provide the bodies and machinery to assist rebels against their legitimate government. Knowing that it would set a precedent for future problems
 

rld

New member
Oct 12, 2010
10,664
2
0
I'm amused by the "we" should do something which really means that "we" approve it and the US does it with a little bit of help....

All those countries with 3 or more aircraft carriers get a vote, the rest should just sit quietly while the adults decide.

OTB
Aircraft carriers are outdated technology. IF that is the test...

It almost sounds like you don't appreciate the heavy lifting Canada did in Korea and A-stan...almost.
 

blackrock13

Banned
Jun 6, 2009
40,084
1
0
Aircraft carriers are outdated technology. IF that is the test...

It almost sounds like you don't appreciate the heavy lifting Canada did in Korea and A-stan...almost.
Apparently not China's about to launch a beauty, with many more expected by 2020.
 

rld

New member
Oct 12, 2010
10,664
2
0
Apparently not China's about to launch a beauty, with many more expected by 2020.
Way too costly for real ability to deliver. And just because China's showing off industrial muscle by launching one doesn't change how we understand the current art of war...
 

WoodPeckr

Protuberant Member
May 29, 2002
46,949
5,755
113
North America
thewoodpecker.net
Apparently not China's about to launch a beauty, with many more expected by 2020.
Aircraft carriers are status symbols and RED China wants to join the club. However in the grand scheme of things today, Aircraft carriers are obsolete sitting ducks that modern sea skimming anti-ship missiles will take out like shooting fish in a barrel....:eek:
 

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
79,966
8
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
Why didn't Canada act?

OTB
No-one has acted yet. As I've said on multiple threads I think all action should receive the sanction of the UN SC. I don't think any nation should act unilaterally, but I do think the UN SC should move quickly, and that all nations should then respond.

I certainly have never called for unilateral action by anyone.
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,550
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
Aircraft carriers are outdated technology. IF that is the test...

.....
Tell that to the Japanese who are being helped by the Ronald Reagan.

Carriers are the only real way to project power quickly.

OTB
 

WoodPeckr

Protuberant Member
May 29, 2002
46,949
5,755
113
North America
thewoodpecker.net

rld

New member
Oct 12, 2010
10,664
2
0
Tell that to the Japanese who are being helped by the Ronald Reagan.

Carriers are the only real way to project power quickly.

OTB
Earthquake rescue and reconstruction is not part of the art of war.

I stand by my conclusion, too expensive, two vulnerable.

Lovely show.
 

hinz

New member
Nov 27, 2006
5,672
1
0
Apparently not China's about to launch a beauty, with many more expected by 2020.
LMAO, the "beauty" is nothing but refurbished Russian Junk.

And those so called follow up are essentially Chinese clone/upgrade based on the same Russian Junk dated late 1980s, unless they manage to revive Ulyanovsk. :rolleyes:
 

hinz

New member
Nov 27, 2006
5,672
1
0
Aircraft carriers are status symbols and RED China wants to join the club.
Nope, they just learn well from your MIC, namely using the CBGs to protect their sea route and more importantly give them option to access ME oil.

It's going to be interesting when both US and Chinese aircraft carriers in the same neighborhood.

However in the grand scheme of things today, Aircraft carriers are obsolete sitting ducks that modern sea skimming anti-ship missiles will take out like shooting fish in a barrel....
Sure, like taken out by their own "aircraft carrier killer" DF-21D or 3M80 anti-ship missiles in own arsenals, LOL. :cool:
 

WoodPeckr

Protuberant Member
May 29, 2002
46,949
5,755
113
North America
thewoodpecker.net
No difference since both use the same platform.
BIG obvious difference! In that this humanitarian operation will not be subject to an attack like a combat operation would.....:rolleyes:

Which one? The crap like Harpoon?
They have advanced far beyond Harpoon technology.
In an older thread years ago somewhere here in Terb-land this was already discussed and our US Naval Admirals ADMIT there is NO effective counter defense to these new anti-ship missiles.
 

WoodPeckr

Protuberant Member
May 29, 2002
46,949
5,755
113
North America
thewoodpecker.net
Nope, they just learn well from your MIC, namely using the CBGs to protect their sea route and more importantly give them option to access ME oil.

It's going to be interesting when both US and Chinese aircraft carriers in the same neighborhood.



Sure, like taken out by their own "aircraft carrier killer" DF-21D or 3M80 anti-ship missiles in own arsenals, LOL.
Now you are just being a silly fool....again...:rolleyes:
 

blackrock13

Banned
Jun 6, 2009
40,084
1
0
LMAO, the "beauty" is nothing but refurbished Russian Junk.

And those so called follow up are essentially Chinese clone/upgrade based on the same Russian Junk dated late 1980s, unless they manage to revive Ulyanovsk. :rolleyes:
Since you don't what kind of reverse engineering analysis was done and what is on the new ship today, I find it hard to understand where you get your insight. Taking something outdated and making it better is not unheard of. China's ability to produce an anti carrier missile that has the US carrier fleets paying attention tells me they can do something right now and then.
 

rld

New member
Oct 12, 2010
10,664
2
0
Since you don't what kind of reverse engineering analysis was done and what is on the new ship today, I find it hard to understand where you get your insight. Taking something outdated and making it better is not unheard of. China's ability to produce an anti carrier missile that has the US carrier fleets paying attention tells me they can do something right now and then.
but undermines your argument of the value of carrier in the modern war environment.
 

landscaper

New member
Feb 28, 2007
5,752
0
0
Since you don't what kind of reverse engineering analysis was done and what is on the new ship today, I find it hard to understand where you get your insight. Taking something outdated and making it better is not unheard of. China's ability to produce an anti carrier missile that has the US carrier fleets paying attention tells me they can do something right now and then.
Those particular ships had problems from the keele up, not to mention the issues with the aircraft they did not fly so well.

Could the Chinese have renovated and improved the ships ? Hell yes they could hardly do worse, good luck to them. They are going to need it.

That anti ship ballistic missile a concern , how effective it will be without a nuclear warhead is the question that has yet to be answered
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,550
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
You don't think that the many US troops stationed on the ground in Japan have anything to do with the speed of the US response?
Hard to move troops, easy to move a carrier - perhaps the tsunami response in Indonesia would be an easier example....

OTB
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts