Very sad times


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Politics : Very sad times

1 · 2 · Next
Author Message
Profile Chris SProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 32325
Credit: 14,273,691
RAC: 9,127
United Kingdom
Message 1391577 - Posted: 17 Jul 2013, 10:30:22 UTC

Certain people in the British MOD and the Government, should be completely and utterly ashamed of themselves and perfectly rightly too. I wonder how they sleep at night and look their families in the face. They will go down in history as totally infamous and serve them damn well right too.

Warning - For those of a nervous disposition the following images may prove to be distressing.

Sad news



Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1391631 - Posted: 17 Jul 2013, 14:47:55 UTC

Why not a floating museum?

My father was in tears when the U.S.S. New Jersey was decommissioned.

I'm sorry for your loss.
____________
Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12987
Credit: 7,663,443
RAC: 7,601
United States
Message 1391640 - Posted: 17 Jul 2013, 15:24:50 UTC

Better you see the inside or her like that, rather than like this:

Profile Chris SProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 32325
Credit: 14,273,691
RAC: 9,127
United Kingdom
Message 1391646 - Posted: 17 Jul 2013, 15:44:14 UTC

Thankyou ID. Many many people in the UK are very angry at her fate, many years before she could have served out her operational life. And yes, she could have been a floating museum, a fitting end to her service. If I ever meet certain people face to face they will regret it, I can promise you that.

Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1391674 - Posted: 17 Jul 2013, 16:43:38 UTC - in response to Message 1391646.

Thankyou ID. Many many people in the UK are very angry at her fate, many years before she could have served out her operational life. And yes, she could have been a floating museum, a fitting end to her service. If I ever meet certain people face to face they will regret it, I can promise you that.


+1
____________
Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

297902
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 31 Dec 99
Posts: 1128
Credit: 5,930,100
RAC: 15,935
Uruguay
Message 1405548 - Posted: 20 Aug 2013, 13:33:12 UTC

Not worth a thread on it's own.
____________
My Halloween costume was so good they sentenced me to 25 Years to Life.

Profile The Simonator
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 18 Nov 04
Posts: 5223
Credit: 2,103,422
RAC: 1,139
United Kingdom
Message 1405551 - Posted: 20 Aug 2013, 14:01:29 UTC

Gives them chance to start work on the sixth Ark Royal.
____________
A man reading a thesaurus effects an ambulatory ingress of a tavern.

Profile Bill Walker
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 4 Sep 99
Posts: 3438
Credit: 2,196,033
RAC: 925
Canada
Message 1405556 - Posted: 20 Aug 2013, 14:31:47 UTC

You can't save them all Chris, there isn't enough time or money or dock space. You could publish equally "upsetting" (to somebody) photos of planes, tanks, truck, fire engines, train locomotives, etc. being recycled. I felt a few moments sadness when the last drafting machines left my place of employment back in the 1980s. Where are the drafting machines and slide rules that laid out the lines of the Ark Royal? Why weren't they saved? Where does this stop?

As for the MOD people being ashamed, you should be asking did they get a fair price for the scrap metal? That is what you pay them to do.

How much are you willing to pay in extra taxes to save and maintain the old hardware? I spend a lot of time tracking down "preserved" ex-military aircraft, and often find them disolving in the weeds somewhere because they were "saved" by somebody who didn't understand the upkeep process and costs. That is probably sadder than knowing the airplane had been recycled into something useful.
____________

Message 1405559 - Posted: 20 Aug 2013, 14:43:57 UTC

Very sad times

Yes, These are Sad Times for Chris S.

He has Gone Posting Mad.

Better if He had Gone Fishing.

Ripping The Lips out of da Fisheees is So Calming.

PO Fisheees.

FO SHO.
____________


Profile Chris SProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 32325
Credit: 14,273,691
RAC: 9,127
United Kingdom
Message 1405595 - Posted: 20 Aug 2013, 19:02:57 UTC

You can't save them all Chris, there isn't enough time or money or dock space

No we can't Bill, that is obvious, But the ARk Royal was rather more special than most. And Navy experts say they could have done with a carrier and Harriers in recent Med area conflicts, rather than sending planes from Scotland.

Profile Bill Walker
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 4 Sep 99
Posts: 3438
Credit: 2,196,033
RAC: 925
Canada
Message 1405610 - Posted: 20 Aug 2013, 19:34:41 UTC - in response to Message 1405595.

And Navy experts say they could have done with a carrier and Harriers in recent Med area conflicts, rather than sending planes from Scotland.




They always want more Chris. I rephrase the question: how much more tax are you willing to pay to avoid repeating your humiliating defeat in the recent Med area conflict?

Also, which Med area conflict was that? I guess I missed the humiliating defeat bit.
____________

Profile Chris SProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 32325
Credit: 14,273,691
RAC: 9,127
United Kingdom
Message 1405877 - Posted: 21 Aug 2013, 9:42:31 UTC

The med conflict I meant was Libya. The Ark Royal and Harriers were decommissioned on 11th March 2011, UK military action started on 19th March 2011.

I guess I missed the humiliating defeat bit.

Me too.

Profile Bill Walker
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 4 Sep 99
Posts: 3438
Credit: 2,196,033
RAC: 925
Canada
Message 1405921 - Posted: 21 Aug 2013, 12:17:57 UTC - in response to Message 1405877.

The med conflict I meant was Libya. The Ark Royal and Harriers were decommissioned on 11th March 2011, UK military action started on 19th March 2011.

I guess I missed the humiliating defeat bit.

Me too.



My point being, did your military really NEED Harriers and carriers, or did they just WANT Harriers and carriers?
____________

Sirius B
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 11780
Credit: 1,786,092
RAC: 1,867
Syria
Message 1405923 - Posted: 21 Aug 2013, 12:19:15 UTC - in response to Message 1405921.

The med conflict I meant was Libya. The Ark Royal and Harriers were decommissioned on 11th March 2011, UK military action started on 19th March 2011.

I guess I missed the humiliating defeat bit.

Me too.



My point being, did your military really NEED Harriers and carriers, or did they just WANT Harriers and carriers?


Falklands proved that point.
____________

Profile Bill Walker
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 4 Sep 99
Posts: 3438
Credit: 2,196,033
RAC: 925
Canada
Message 1405930 - Posted: 21 Aug 2013, 12:28:03 UTC

Historically, a lot of time, money and lives have been wasted by militaries that prepared for the last war. The successful ones are planning for the next war.

The root cause for Argentina's defeat in the Falklands is that their policy makers undertook actions that their military could not support. The UK has to decide if the Falkands is still defensible, given the budget realities the UK faces now and in the future.

Back to my question that nobody wants to answer: how much more tax are you willing to pay to keep Harriers and carriers? (Hint: remember that in a democracy you need a majority of voters to agree on your answer to this question.)
____________

Profile Chris SProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 32325
Credit: 14,273,691
RAC: 9,127
United Kingdom
Message 1406087 - Posted: 21 Aug 2013, 18:56:05 UTC

My point being, did your military really NEED Harriers and carriers, or did they just WANT Harriers and carriers?

The quote that I read was "We could really have done with a carrier and Harriers rather than flying jets from Scotland". That is in the middle of NEED and WANT, and infers that it would have made life a lot easier in a combat situation to have had the best tools to do the job. As it was we did the best with what we had.

Back to my question that nobody wants to answer: how much more tax are you willing to pay to keep Harriers and carriers? (Hint: remember that in a democracy you need a majority of voters to agree on your answer to this question.)

It has been decided that future wars will be fought with a coalition of nations against a common enemy, you will never see another Falklands again. Therefore we are going down the eurofighter route, where any pilot from any nation can fly the same aircraft.

My point about the Ark Royal and the Harriers was that they were due to be de-commissioned in 2016 anyway, but were scrapped 6 years early to save money. I and others believe that to have been a stupid decision, it would not have cost that much to have kept them. The carrier should have been saved as a floating museum, but wasn't. But at least the USA bought all the Harriers which they will use for as long as they are able, maybe another 10 years.



Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12987
Credit: 7,663,443
RAC: 7,601
United States
Message 1406092 - Posted: 21 Aug 2013, 19:19:25 UTC - in response to Message 1406087.

It has been decided that future wars will be fought with a coalition of nations against a common enemy, you will never see another Falklands again.

So Argentina is free to move in ....
And Spain can as well ....


____________

Profile Chris SProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 32325
Credit: 14,273,691
RAC: 9,127
United Kingdom
Message 1406097 - Posted: 21 Aug 2013, 19:39:43 UTC

Oi! that is not what I intimated.

Spain could not and would not move into Gib because of the Navy and Army presence already there. Any military build up by Argentina towards a move to the Falklands would be detected within minutes and immediately countermanded. Never ever underestimate the United Kingdom. If you do, you do so at your peril.

A full blown conflict, war was never declared remember, in the South Atlantic will not happen again, I am fairly sure of that.

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12987
Credit: 7,663,443
RAC: 7,601
United States
Message 1406108 - Posted: 21 Aug 2013, 20:21:42 UTC - in response to Message 1406097.

Oi! that is not what I intimated.

Careful choice of words goes a long way. So does careful planing at the country level.

____________

Profile Bill Walker
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 4 Sep 99
Posts: 3438
Credit: 2,196,033
RAC: 925
Canada
Message 1406190 - Posted: 21 Aug 2013, 23:33:39 UTC

I think Chris meant "you will never see an exact repeat of the Falklands again". The Argentineans could be plotting their next move as we speak, but things have changed.

Chris makes two good points. Satellite surveillance (now a multi-nation undertaking) goes a long way to making an exact repeat of the Falklands much less likely.

Future conflicts are very likely to be multi-national. Like Libya, and Bosnia, and Afghanistan, and.... If you wanted to keep friends on your side for future Falkland-like events, you might consider helping your allies in cases where your short-term national objectives are a little fuzzy. Like British troops in Iraq for example. Or Canadian troops in Afghanistan.

Both these points are good reasons to scrap the carriers and Harriers and spend your limited money elsewhere. Canada scrapped our last carrier in 1970, we got over it.

____________

1 · 2 · Next

Message boards : Politics : Very sad times

Copyright © 2014 University of California