Where is the room for ‘grey’ here?. They were/are brutal child murderers. They tortured a 2 year old child to death. I dont know what your experience of children is, but, 10 year olds do not commit acts of depravity like this.

Their actions were those of the most hideously disturbed adult and, if they are capable of that depth of crime, they should have been judged on those terms. That they were physically 10 years old is completely and utterly irrelevent. Their crimes are the marker of how they should have been prosecuted.

I’m not saying you can’t judge children simply because they’re children.I’m saying these two boys are being discussed as though they had adult characters when they didn’t and that learning to restrain the impulse to violent behaviour is one of the ways we move from being children to being grown up.

I hate to do this, because I know what you will be reading, but I think you need to find out and understand the depth of the torture that a defenceless and uncomprehending 2yr old was subjected to by these two 10yr olds before you can list them as children.

Whatever their physical ages were – their minds were certainly not those of children.

Bumblebee

Whether you want to describe them as ” these two creatures ” or worse, they were CHILDREN. How can they possibly be judged for their actions as though they were on equal terms with adults ?

Thats where we disagree. A child, in my definition of the term – as a father of three girls, does not do the things that those two did. There were no innocent actions from them at any point in time to equate their conduct with that of ‘a child’. I did not view them as at the time and certainly don’t now.

For my money we institute a programme to convert one of the outer Scottish islands as a penal colony – provision of the bare minimum of necessities only. Basic shelter, potable water supply, basic food provisions or facilities for the inhabitants to grow their own. If these creatures, child murderers and those of that level of crime against society, wish to exist outside of societies rules they can go and live without societies benefits…no medical care, no electricity, no fast food. If they cant hack that they are free to die of exposure or drowning at their convenience.

So when/if these ships are delivered,…..dont look for them to be anything but much larger versions of what is already available……and best case at that.

Seeing as that is what is required of them what is your point?.

Whether you believe or not that there will only be one squadron of STOVL jets is irrelevent. The mission of CVF is to be a Strike Carrier filling the UK MoD ‘Carrier Strike’ requirement. That is to be a platform capable of sustaining a sortie-rate, with fixed-wing tacair, on par with that of a US CVN. That requirement defines the general size of the airgroup and is unachievable with 12 aircraft.

That is not to say that CVF will never sail with 12 aircraft aboard. It is being delivered as a flexible capability. If the tactical scenario warrants it could deploy with a squadron of STOVL jets, a large rotary element from CHF and a sizeable EMF. Is that an ‘expensive way to deploy 12 jets’….no because its doing the work of several vessels all in one. Its called operational efficiency – why send a carrier and a pair of amphibs when the mission, like Op Palliser in Sierra Leone for example, doesnt need 36 F-35B’s to undertake it!. Why not land some of the jets and use the freed up space in the big hull to do the wider job if its going anyway!.

When you understand, Hawkdriver, that CVF isnt meant to be a Nimitz then you’ll have moved forward somewhat!

“Executed? Murdered? What pray is the difference? Jamie Bulger is no less dead however you describe it.”

What is being missed is the emphasis on the word ‘tortured’. It isnt that these two creatures killed Jamie Bulger – that would be bad enough, but, could lead to some sympathy for the ‘lack of adult judgement’ defence if it was some childish stunt that went wrong.

That wasn’t what happened to Jamie Bulger though. He was tortured to death in a way that adults find hard to put into a frame of reference. Their actions were cruel, depraved and far outside the scope of what any 10 year old child should have been capable of.

The core of civilised human society, anywhere we have grouped together as a species, is the protection of the weak and vulnerable to the betterment of all. That is the basic premise which we live by and all accept. These two willfully breached that trust and, very simply, proved they have no place in civilised society. Now whether you isolate them by incarceration or by execution is largely a question of economics, but, the end result must be, and this goes for all those who prey on the weak and vulnerable at this level of severity, the same.

Permanent exclusion from society.

Off course thet dont have… but this is because of the same 170 years after the UK take the island and btw…take it using FORCE.

After we initially discovered it uninhabited. It was not part of the mainland with an indigenous population that we moved on. Argentina has no cultural claim on the islands on the basis of prior inhabitation.

Agree… but no Argentina is not messing up with they fundamental rights…they will not bacame argentinian or will be departed back to UK nor will loose they homes…. only they will living in argentina soil.

So they will have full democratic rights, up to and including, the right to cede themselves from Argentine governance?. If they dont have this right then their fundamental rights are ‘messed up’. As you have been informed the will of the ONLY population with any claim to call themselves ‘Falkland Islanders’ is to remain with Britain. Whether that is because their ancestry is British or not is completely irrelevent as there is simply no other population to ask. There is no subjugated indigenous population to free from the yoke of their British oppressors on the islands because no-one there is oppressed!.

IMHO they have…bacause the island belong to spain before.. and the spain agree with the argentina independence… and with this the island bacame part of argentina.

Yet Spain had deserted the islands in 1811 and they we not in her possession when the nascent Argentine state declared independance in 1816. Not to mention that the Americans cleared the islands of all governance in 1831!.

You mean after trying to re-take the islands …because the island belong to then before when UK take it by force

No the island belonged to Spain…not Argentina. The island was evacuated by Spain in 1811 and wasnt occupied by Argentina until 1820. Now if they are saying that the islands are theirs because Spain once governed them then why is Britains claim any less valid?. We governed them before Spain did!.

And right there is part of the fleet to support a new doctrine using Mistral-type LHDs… every nation that has large amphibs has been using them as support/command ships for their anti-piracy operations off the Horn of Africa… why shouldn’t the Russians?

Jonsey, every change has to begin somewhere… and it is easier to buy a large ship and then convince the money-men to fund support for it, than it is to build up the support first, for something you plan to acquire sometime later.

Huh?. You are suggesting they build a ship without a firm understanding of the whole-life costs involved in running it?. If you are going to bring in foreign tech you need to know whether you can actually support it. Its even easier for the money-men to turn round and say that your budget is fixed and if you cant afford to sortie your ships thats your issue!.

Light LPH’s have been pressed into service as command ships, but, no nation that has bought them did so for that purpose. Apart from that kind of peacetime mission, along with disaster relief and peacekeeping support etc, these smaller ships dont fit with the rest of the Russian military. Would the Russians bring in, blank-slate support, ships primarily just for peacetime missions?.

When they have an escort fleet that needs a major re-equipment programme (as witnessed by the above post – just 2 new FFG’s for the BSF???) and need, for exped warfare, a significant ramp up of their RAS capabilities. Sorry I dont buy this at all – when I see the steel cut in France I’ll happily admit I was wrong, but, too many of the dots dont connect here!.

Perhaps, but I see no real value for the Northern Fleet.

—–

Anyone here care to justify their opinions for “no-go” for Baltic / Black Sea fleet? Helicopters would be good support for close-range beach assaults.

What is their value in the Northern Fleet? (I see some value for the Pacific).

Cant imagine any value in the Northern Fleet whatsoever. Pacific would make some sense, but, only in an almost paramilitary role as the Pacific Fleet has no assets to support expeditionary landings even just of the ‘modest’ scale that Mistral-type vessels support.

As to the Black Sea that was quite clearly explained. There is no job that couldnt be done better by existing assets, matching existing and perfectly effective Russian Naval Infantry doctrine, that can be done by Mistrals.

If its putting troops ashore in Georgia why put a battalion ashore with choppers when you are close enough to put a regiment in (with significant mechanised elements plus heavy armour, self-propelled artillery and logistics support) for the want of building more ACV’s of a type already in service and with an existing support infrastucture. Choppers and an additional airmobile battalion may be useful – but worth buying in a foreign design and starting up a whole new support train in a fleet that needs modern escort hulls and SSK’s as a priority?. Hardly?!.

What else is there in the Black Sea or the Med that you can do with a battalion of troops, a few light armoured vehicles and some chopper support?. You going to go after Turkey with a pair of Mistrals and a landing force of 2 battalions and a handful of 2S9’s???.

Simplest answer for you Dionis is what you think the Mistrals will provide in the Black Sea that fits with established doctrine, training and experience and matches with fleet operational requirements?.