what other response would you expect from Key Publishing forum than that all four Vanguards should be moored immediately and Vulcans and Victors put back in service armed with nukes by tomorrow evening! 😀

Seriously guys, you freak out over nothing.

I did like the Vulcan, beautiful plane. But most people here i’ve spoken would rather see the Vanguard’s replaced

I’d like to see them complemented with some new type of strategic bomber (new V bombers yey!) for use in Afghanistan and possibly a secondary nuclear role. Won’t happen though.

Some completely irrelevant points:

Those crusiers are ugly beasts. And why are the Harpoon launchers placed right behind the rear gun? Wouldn’t it open up the field offired if they just swapped the positions of the 2?

Anyway, found some pics of the ATF on Shipbucket. Odd looking idea. I have a feeling that the fact that 2 large superstructures are needed (fore and aft of flight deck) would mess radar coverage, mesaning you have to double the capability for full coverage. Inefficient to say the least. Obviously the weapons are an odd combo (and outdated now) too.

The people or a group of people in a country do not decide they want to break free. It is up to the government to decide. It was an internal matter of that country and tell me if anyone in NATO countries were suffering as a consequence of what was happening in Balkans.

You seem to be forgetting that a government is supposed to work for the people and that the people no longer wanted to be together. The government didn’t want to allow it because it would have lost power, it wasn’t acting in the interests of the people.

And yes people in a country decide they want to break away all the time, it has happened hundreds of times throughout the last 100 years and many without the government deciding that.

Or was there a huge refugee inflow to the NATO nations (like from East Pakistan to India before the Bangladesh War) ?

A powerful Yugoslovia with a resurgant Russia was not ideal for NATO. If NATO is so pissed off about Suffering then why don’t they do something about North Korea or Myanmar, they do not because they will be going into China’s backyard and they have (UN) had a bad experience of getting their hands burnt once.

Yugoslavia would not have been powerful again, it was tearing itself apart either way, NATO stepped in to save lives and restore order. You’re right, we should do something about Myanmar and North Korea, but they don’t border us, but they do border powerful countries that would react with hostility. In short, we couldn’t do it in an acceptable manner, so we haven’t.

This is a hypocritical view point because no one invaded any of the NATO nations to go to war against Yugoslovia. It is because of this moralistic view point that world leaders have to find big lies (WMD) to start a War.

What are you talking about, Iraq wasn’t even a NATO operation. And if we had the moral high ground we would use it as an open justification, in the West morals are a good reason to act. I have no idea why you seem to think it is bad to act on your beliefs in human rights etc.

NATO is a bully who picks on smaller nations, then again so is Russia and almost all major powers in the world.

Bully implies NATO does it for fun or some personal gain. When have they really? Now Russia does like to throw its weight around to establish its still in charge of the area it considers “theirs”. See actions in Eastern Europe and the Balkans. Now if we look at some countries within NATO (See USA and UK) have been known to act like bullies outside of NATO actions.

Well, to be honest, I wouldnt be surprised if we did.

Hmm yes, but the American’s have been very insistent that we are getting the same kit since we are paying the same price as them for it. But it wouldn’t surprise me if they tried to make sure they edged out the other nations in terms of the kit. My mind still goes back to those arguments about whether the partners were going to be given lower stealth versions.

Internal matter of a country. Ethnic violence holocaust etc. People killing each other within a country. NATO intervened because the Yugoslav forces were much weaker than what it had and a divided Yugoslavia served their future purposes more. This is the same reason why no one invades African sh*tholes. And when the country which has a crisis is powerful (like Russia in Chechnya) NATO pisses in its pants.

All in all NATO acted first in the internal dispute of a sovereign state and broke it up into pieces. Things like this make your Irans and North Korea’s go the nuclear path thinking if we had a Nuke these b*stards won’t be having a go at us easily.

I am not against war but it pisses me off when people try to justify invasions rather than stating out the obvious facts behind it. 😉

Really no one invades African ****holes? I can cite more than a few attempts by Western/NATO nations (+ UN missions involving Western troops) to try and intervene and sort stuff out in Africa. When we do people like you will just switch the argument and scream about neo-colonialism. And for the most part these “invasions” had no relevance or benefit for the invaders. For one fairly recent example i’d go with Sierra Leone. Or we could go with Somalia etc.

And why exactly would NATO **** it’s pants because the Russians are coming down hard on yet another group who are sick of the Russians being in charge? It’s my understanding that nearly every nation between Berlin and Moscow had the same idea.

Yugoslavia was broken up because the people living there didn’t WANT to be together anymore. You can’t blame a divorce on the judge who grants it now can you?

I’ve no idea how they get them over Afghanistan but yes im pretty sure USN F-18’s do provide CAS over Afghanistan. I dont see a problem flying over Pakistan as they would be flying pretty damn high so people would not really notice. There is aircraft in Afghanistan but still a lot of F-18 sorties are generated from offshore afaik.

You sure they’re not land based now, i’m sure I saw F18’s taking off from Kandahar on TV.

I didn’t think Pakistan would be too happy with it and they would protest or something.

Nice wee story basically deterrent works because of the MAD theory, you nuke me i nuke you we all nuke each other everybody dies. (Well apart from those who have bunkers, like the people from Utah Shelter Systems)

Percy generally doesn’t give a flying fook who drops what as long as it gets dropped on target and percy lives. Quite a bit of the Air power in Stan is provided by the USN sitting hundreds of miles away out at sea bobbing around, fair enough they get tanked while there but seems a nice way of doing power projection. Just because you are inland does not mean the sea does not concern you.

Are you sure on that last bit? Wouldn’t the USN birds have to cross Pakistan/Iran to get there? Which is a no-no, no?

just listening to Mark Fitzpatrick of IISS on BBC website. Says we have already reduced nuclear capability by 75% to 160 warheads, & reducing from 4 to 3 boats will save £5bn. This 75% reduction hasn’t been met with a major increase in conventional weapons. Just face saving for votes whilst exposing the weakness of the nation.

75%? Our peak stockpile was about 300 wasn’t it? How can 160 be 25% of 300?

Not me ur running from…. think the wife is already on the M4 headed west…

It’s alright Bristol is a big city and I won’t even be there until tomorrow. Off to see the lazy PhD student of a brother.

Then there are the ones the saxons gave a good shoeing to

Apart from the ones replaced after the Luftwaffe flattened much of the city?

Shakes head…you people, honestly.