Brexit discussion thread IV

Sam Russell

Sassygirl1999 wrote: »

i understand you think things have moved on but obsolete is the wrong word
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/obsolete
obsolete:1.
no longer produced or used

clearly they are being produced by all the big armies, china is making more and more, japan may do so too

I think China have moved on from aircraft carriers and now build artificial islands in the South China Sea and fill it with military hardware. It is quite hard to sink and island.

[However the Tories are having a go at sinking theirs].

Imreoir2

badtoro wrote: »

They may well do, however their own Navy didn't exactly shine when a Chinese diesel submarine popped up within torpedo range of the Kitty Hawk.

Carriers have become the battleships of old, they're obsolete just that there hasn't been a war with equal sides to prove it yet.

Besides submarines, the real test is anti ship missiles. Throw enough of those at carriers and you'll make nice reefs with them. Rather like the wondering if carrier launched aircraft really could sink battleships at the beginning of that technology.

Like cavelry in the lead up to WWI, most major armies put a lot of faith into the power of cavelry to retain the initative on the advance and to exploit breakthroughs in the enemy line. When the bullets started flying, the cavelry was banished from the battlefield.

These carriers are usefull to project power around the world as long as you are fighting tinpot dictators or insurgency groups who cant strike back. Get into a row with a country who can strike back though, and your navy either stays in port or goes bye bye.

Sassygirl1999

39

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Like cavelry in the lead up to WWI, most major armies put a lot of faith into the power of cavelry to retain the initative on the advance and to exploit breakthroughs in the enemy line. When the bullets started flying, the cavelry was banished from the battlefield.

These carriers are usefull to project power around the world as long as you are fighting tinpot dictators or insurgency groups who cant strike back. Get into a row with a country who can strike back though, and your navy either stays in port or goes bye bye.

case study-
There are a total of 36 WW2 U.S. Aircraft Carriers (1941-1945)
There are a total of 16 WW2 Japanese Aircraft Carriers (1939-1945)

japan lost the initiative in the pacific theater near the midway islands mainly because they lost the bulk of their carriers, this was way before they lost it on land
japan used theirs unfavorably and lost them, the Americans lost some of theirs, none or very few in pearl harbor as they were out on duty, but built others more quickly to replace any lost ones

so its not that they are obsolete, just that you need way more of them than your foe and you need to be able to produce them more quickly

badtoro

Sassygirl1999 wrote: »

i understand you think things have moved on but obsolete is the wrong word
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/obsolete
obsolete:1.
no longer produced or used

clearly they are being produced by all the big armies, china is making more and more, japan may do so too

Dictionary forum thataway ---->

Like another poster said, carriers are there to be used against tin pot dictators, and militarily weak/smaller nations. Tin pot dictators that don't have modern anti ship missiles nor diesel submarines - yet.

The Russias and Chinas of the world already have the capability to sink carriers, and well established practices of weapons exports - just like the US, UK, France etc of the world.

Carriers are only there to intimidate those weaker nations. They are a white elephant status symbol. The US leased for two years a Swedish diesel submarine - the Gotland - and it's crew. In war games it made multiple attack runs and sank the Ronald Reagan, undetected. Such a submarine costs in the region of $100m, around the same as 1 f35 fighter. US anti submarine forces were hugely demoralised by the experience.

By the by, Japan already has an aircraft carrier. They just don't call it an aircraft carrier, preferring helicopter destroyer or some such nonsense.

They're ships, they float, put enough holes in it, or better still set it on fire, they sink.

Sassygirl1999

Sam Russell wrote: »

I think China have moved on from aircraft carriers and now build artificial islands in the South China Sea and fill it with military hardware. It is quite hard to sink and island.

[However the Tories are having a go at sinking theirs].

that's just colonizing , a centuries old concept

badtoro

Sassygirl1999 wrote: »

so its not that they are obsolete, just that you need way more of them than your foe and you need to be able to produce them more quickly

Fight a 21st century war on mid 20th century thinking, see how you get on.

Pound for pound I'm firmly with the cheap'n'cheerful subs and missile brigade. They can deny carriers areas to operate in effectively.

Sassygirl1999

badtoro wrote: »

Fight a 21st century war on mid 20th century thinking, see how you get on.

Pound for pound I'm firmly with the cheap'n'cheerful subs and missile brigade. They can deny carriers areas to operate in effectively.

a submersible aircraft carrier concept like the Japanese submarine I-400-class would be a concept that could defeat regular cheap subs

Imreoir2

Sassygirl1999 wrote: »

39
case study-
There are a total of 36 WW2 U.S. Aircraft Carriers (1941-1945)
There are a total of 16 WW2 Japanese Aircraft Carriers (1939-1945)

japan lost the initiative in the pacific theater near the midway islands mainly because they lost the bulk of their carriers, this was way before they lost it on land
japan used theirs unfavorably and lost them, the Americans lost some of theirs, none or very few in pearl harbor as they were out on duty, but built others more quickly to replace any lost ones

so its not that they are obsolete, just that you need way more of them than your foe and you need to be able to produce them more quickly

This is akin to WWI generals trying to apply the lessons of the Napolionic Wars to their battlefields, (which they did) we are nearly as far removed from Midway as General Haig was from Waterloo.

badtoro

Sassygirl1999 wrote: »

a submersible aircraft carrier concept like the Japanese submarine I-400-class would be a concept that could defeat regular cheap subs

You understand that a carrier battle group couldn't, right? That they're accompanied by dedicated anti submarine ships, helicopters as well as a submarine.

You're doubling down on the initial mistake of fighting a modern war with ww2 thinking.

Jim2007

Imreoir2 wrote: »

This is akin to WWI generals trying to apply the lessons of the Napolionic Wars to their battlefields, (which they did) we are nearly as far removed from Midway as General Haig was from Waterloo.

Yep the generals are always well prepared to win the last war....

Roanmore

Have I wandered in to the wrong thread? WWII, Napoleonic Wars, aircraft carriers?

Just on the media thing, Sky do the paper review every night at 10pm, they have a balance which is fine but some of the Brexit commentators are like the guy in the recently posted clip, no facts and straight away resort to names like remoaners, taking back control, etc and the Sky anchor never challenges them.
Carol Malone is awful, when caught out just shouts down the other reviewer, again never gets pulled on it. She does the same on The Pledge, for a woman who use to write for The Mirror she's gone very right wing.

ancapailldorcha

Back on topic, please.

LeinsterDub

https://twitter.com/stephen_rth/status/1033033628303941638

JRM lets the mask slip. Back to the troubles level of border security! I mean unbelievable

judeboy101

LeinsterDub wrote: »

https://twitter.com/stephen_rth/status/1033033628303941638

JRM lets the mask slip. Back to the troubles level of border security! I mean unbelievable

He was wearing a mask? I thought it was pretty obvious years ago what jrm's attitude was to us 'natives'.

LeinsterDub

judeboy101 wrote: »

He was wearing a mask? I thought it was pretty obvious years ago what jrm's attitude was to us 'natives'.

His attitude has been obvious but he's been maintaining the pretence the border would be unchanged

VonZan

LeinsterDub wrote: »

https://twitter.com/stephen_rth/status/1033033628303941638

JRM lets the mask slip. Back to the troubles level of border security! I mean unbelievable

That's not entirely surprising. JRM wants Britain to break away from the ECJ and customs union so therefore this is an invevitability of such a policy. Once the UK breaks away from the EU, the ECJ and EU have to enforce their standards and laws on goods and services and therefore there will have to be customs checks. It's not rocket science. Trying to fudge a deal on certain goods is unworkable.

The problem is that the Conservatives know that the EU will be the ones that want to enforce a border and will use that to their advantage. It will be easy for the Conservatives to say that they aren't the ones causing this mess in the UK, even though they are. It seems very easy to blame the EU for poor governance in the UK.

swampgas

Seeing the post about the new aircraft carrier(s) reminds me of the old latin phrase "nervos belli, pecuniam infinitam" (endless money forms the sinews of war).

The UK's ability to develop and build state of the art military hardware depends on its ability to fund it, and I assume that means sufficient tax income. If JRM is correct that it may take 50 years before the UK breaks even post-Brexit, surely it makes little sense (from a purely military perspective) to pursue a Brexit policy that will damage the UK's economy?

lawred2

LeinsterDub wrote: »

https://twitter.com/stephen_rth/status/1033033628303941638

JRM lets the mask slip. Back to the troubles level of border security! I mean unbelievable

I don't think he has ever worn a mask.

Nody

Remember how UK would do great on WTO terms when crashing out? Well...

It is “not realistic” to believe the UK can begin trading under World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules the day after Brexit in March, the head of the intergovernmental group has said.

“I was a trade negotiator; I negotiated trade deals my whole life and I’m very realistic about how fast you can go with those deals.” WTO director-general Roberto Azevêdo told the BBC’s Today programme.

...

But Mr Azevêdo said it was “very unlikely that you’re going to have a 100 per cent agreed outcome for all WTO members between now and March”.

If an agreement is not reached with the EU and WTO rules are not immediately available, the UK would be in uncharted territory, as it would be unclear what rules and tariffs apply to imports and exports.

Sassygirl1999

lawred2 wrote: »

I don't think he has ever worn a mask.

hes playing devil's advocate, although by referring to 'the troubles' his mask is slipping and i really do think he is more of a devil caricature

Capt'n Midnight

216 Days to go. The word for today is VAT.

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/08/24/uk_gov_publishes_nodeal_papers/

VAT on "digital services" sold by UK companies to consumers in the EU will also be problematic since the UK will no longer be part of EU-wide VAT IT systems, such as the VAT Mini One Stop Shop (MOSS), which allows VAT to be reported and paid in the home member state. A failure to reach an agreement will mean traders will lose this convenience.

The government has offered traders some alternatives. One is to register for the VAT MOSS non-Union scheme in an EU member state, although this can't be done until the day after the UK actually leaves. Or a business could register itself in each EU member state where it intends to do business.

Since businesses have a mere 10 days to register following a sale, servers are likely to see a bit of stress during April 2019

Capt'n Midnight

Brexit: China looking at 'top-notch' trade deal with UK after EU withdrawal

LOL , look at every other trade deal China has done with smaller countries. Show me one where China treated the other as an equal. Show me one technology transfer where China didn't break the rules and take the technology. There's a reason even the Russians who need hard currency and used to sell to anyone no don't sell high tech to China. There's a reason why lots of countries from Oz to India aren't using Chinese kit for their infrastructure.

fly_agaric

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

There's a reason why lots of countries from Oz to India aren't using Chinese kit for their infrastructure.

Well, the UK in its infinite wisdom is already having the Chinese build a nuclear plant and let them install alot of their key communications infrastructure (Huawei - http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-16/huawei-britain-history-helps-explain-australia-anxiety/9875582)! The Conservatives seem to love China (or its money?). Maybe it is a government model they aspire to post EU.:pac:

flatty

Peregrinus wrote: »

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

She was under no kind of politicical pressure from outside the Tory Party. From Day 1 in #10, May has been under pressure from her own Eurosceptics to demand the maximum from the EU in negotiations.

Except she was already party leader, and was riding high in the polls. What could the eurosceptics do to her? They could possibly mount a leadership challenge, but it seems very unlikely that they would win it. May was well-positioned to survive any leadership heave. (I bet she looks back fondly on those days.)

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Everyone could see, and the EU publicly pointed out, that they would either have to go for a really hard brexit or ditch the red lines.

But they could only see that after she adopted the red lines. She didn't have to adopt them, is my point; she chose to. She could have tried to craft a Brexit designed (a) to reassure the 48% at home that their concerns were being listened to and would have some influence in shaping Brexit, and (b) to appeal to the EU, and (c) to be rational and workable. She chose to do none of these things, and she has been paying for her choice ever since.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

If she always intended to go for a Hard brexit, they would have been taking real action to prepare for it. They haven't prepared anything, so in my book that means they were never intending that.

We need to agree our terms. As far as I'm concerned:
- Soft Brexit would be Norway, Switzerland, something like that; remain in single market and/or customs union; accept ECJ jurisdiction where relevant.

- Hard Brexit is what May actually wants - leave the CU; leave the SM; reject ECJ jurisdiction, but with a deal addressing transition period, financial settlement, etc and with a trade deal of some kind providing "frictionless trade" or, at any rate, favourable trade terms.

- Crash-out Brexit is what nobody wants.

It's crash-out Brexit that they haven't bee preparing for. You reckon this is because they have always planned to accept soft Brexit. I reckon it's because they have been in persistent denial about the fact that they won't get hard Brexit; they started out believing or assuming that they would get it, and they have been very reluctant to let go of the idea that they won't.

I don't know when May finally accepted that it wasn't going to happen. It may in fact have been some time ago, and since then she has been playing a long, slow game of moving to soft Brexit by salami tactics, for the reason you suggest. Or it may have been a slowly-dawning realisation. It's even possible that she still hasn't fully accepted it.

But if her plan all along had been to have a soft Brexit, then nailing her colours to a hard Brexit mast would have been an extraordinary tactic, and not one that political circumstances at the time required her to adopt. It's only singe the General Election, remember, that she's been a wee, sleekit, cowrin, tim'rous beastie.

That's a great post

murphaph

lawred2 wrote: »

I don't think he has ever worn a mask.

But claiming we can simply return to checks like during the troubles is new I believe!

prawnsambo

Nody wrote: »

Remember how UK would do great on WTO terms when crashing out? Well...

I think the alternative to agreeing a schedule with the WTO countries (and that has to be unainmous) is to fall back to base tariffs. So they can continue to trade, but on the worst possible terms.

Leroy42

And it again shows that rather than papers showing the true impact of a no deal, the papers really only dealt in detail with a deal scenario.

Delays at customs, credit card charges, pics on cigarette boxes. These are all simply a result of the red lines.

In many parts they simply claim that the EU will help sort it out.

They love bringing up Switzerland, but they take loads of EU rules, the very thing the UK are adamant that was the entire point of Brexit.

murphaph

You have to laugh at the continued references to CH. The EU ist criticised for being a bureaucratic nightmare of Orwellian proportions and the UK thinks the solution is to leave and create another thick layer of bureaucracy in the EU just for them. No. Thank. You.

An Claidheamh

*Posted this elsewhere, but for me it exemplifies the British media and their unapologetic hypocrisy. *



As the Pope, visited Britain a few years back to visit the minority religion there - which was met by intolerance and a nasty campaign by the Guardian - why are the Brits obsessed when he visits here?

Their media appears to be in overdrive patronising cliché mode about "Catholic Ireland", implying that Britain a state religious kingdom, whose government is made up of Protestant anti-Catholic DUPers and who have a fervent past and current history of religious bigotry, presently against Muslims - is somehow a paragon of secularism?

I don't recall the BBC, etc giving any coverage to the reason for protests against their queen's visit some years ago.

They ignored that - about British terrorism, collusion, anti-Irish laws, anti-Catholic discrimination, the concept of royalty.

I also recall, the Irish media and populace respecting the fact that the Queen of England is the Head of a Protestant Church with different practices.

(Incidentally, her visit cost approx 36 million, compared to 5 million for the Pope, and she had the roads cordoned off and all the homeless shipped with the Irish media failing to question anything, less they be accused of being in the IRA).

Have they not forgiven us for choosing our own religion or none?

Their Brexit media haven't shut up about us being a "small insignificant country",
so why do they care about a visit to a foreign country of a foreign religion?

In fact, most of the commenters on their website don't seem to know where Ireland is, or are just simply jingoistic sectarian bigots.

I suspect that their behaviour over the visit is indicative of the typical xenophobic Johnny foreigner, intolerance, ignorance and feigned superiority that brought on Brexit.

They will never learn.

Before any right on bots claims, I'm not working for the Vatican to infiltrate the virgin territory of Boards.ie - just a former history, politics and media student and observer.

J Mysterio

Labour's Owen Smith attacking Mogg on Twitter

https://mobile.twitter.com/OwenSmith_MP/status/1033443634153185280

Coveney reacted yesterday (retweeted by Smith):

https://mobile.twitter.com/simoncoveney/status/1033385542321360898