Poll: DELETED_74993

[dirtydog]

all of gaddafis assets seized in the uk will no doubt cover the cost of the war, as i dont see how goverment handing hundreds of millions over to the rebels if they take power and if gaddafi stays in we will keep all his stuff anyway

What law allows the UK government to seize assets of someone it doesn't like?

 

[Firestar_3x]

Just had a quick search since i'm not sure myself, take a look at this:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2011/605/made

 

[DiCe!]

So you don't like it when foreign countries interfere into other countries' business?

I have more of an issue when countries say one thing, then do another, or cry about things then when something does get done...they change their minds. i know thats politics, and it just annoys me.

 

[DiCe!]

Around this point:

my point is still valid. if we had fired 120 of our own missiles and we where going to replace them instantly then yes i could udnerstand being annoyed by the cost, but that simply isnt the case, so my point remains valid. if YOU dont like it....then dont read it

 

[a1ex2001]

Additionally - let's not forget that there's every chance the US UK and French will have some sort of compensation towards their costs via the UN.

We will not see a bean from the UN the UN gives out mandates not handouts in these circumstances hence all those contries that don't participate can sit back and bask in the glory of how the UN is saving the world without damaging there economies.

We fired 2x missiles from a sub on the first night, so no transport costs, 8 shadow storm missiles from GR4's at a running cost of £220,000 per plane per day + Shadow Storm costs, then a few cruise missiles from a sub lastnight.

I don't care what other nations spend nor how much they fire, doesn't cost the UK tax payer a penny.

So $45 million dollars spent on Tomahawks so far by the UK government probably isn't that far off!

The French senate reports that each Shadow Storm cost 800,000 Euros so give it another night and there will be another 100 million Euros wasted.

The cost of this stupidty to the tax payer is already ridiculous and will only continue to esculate, I only hope the UK body count doesn't head in the same direction.

I left the US numbers in the first place just to indicate the prohibitive costs of war to major western ecconomies that are already under massive pressure.

 

[Firestar_3x]

I just hope we don't put men on the ground, i really really don't want that.

UK Typhoons now over Libya.

 

[arknor]

What law allows the UK government to seize assets of someone it doesn't like?

no idea but its a lot of money at a time of need

The Treasury is understood to have set up a unit to trace Col Gaddafi's assets in Britain, which are thought to include billions of dollars in bank accounts, commercial property and a £10 million mansion in London.

In total, the Libyan regime is said to have around £20 billion in liquid assets, mostly in London. These are expected to be frozen as part of an international effort to force the dictator from power.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...addafis-billions-to-be-seized-by-Britain.html
america sized billions or they are talking about the assets we seized

We are exploring authorities to free up some of the seized regime assets, the $32 billion-plus that has been seized, to provide financial support for the opposition," White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/15/us-libya-usa-assets-idUSTRE72E79X20110315

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

You don't know that to be fact.

Look at the news reports the tanks were bombed by the French.

We have one at Duxford museum, as well as many soviet AAA and MANPADS, what's your point?

I already made the point you just fail to see it. Until the South Africans captured an SA8 it was a major threat.After that it was of very limited use. It is an old system and it is weaknesses which are known. Do you really think that modern ECCM cannot defeat a system which was introduced in the 1970s. Even the Cuban versions would probably have been full production versions unlike the ones provided to Arab countries.

On top of this UK and US acquired many examples of soviet weaponary including the T80U MBT and SN22 missiles so they could develope effective countermeasures against them.

The whole point of bombing them was so that they could not use these assets against rebel forces and to demoralise the best units Gaddafi had.

You're not qualified to make that assessment

I assume that means you are.

Perhaps, but that would be due to numbers; MANPADS and AAA are much more abundant. You don't state which types of aircraft those were, my bets would be helo's, not jets. All I am pointing out is the Gecko is more effective and a greater threat to our jets than an Igla shoulder mounted missile. On paper this is fact and on planning bombing sorties these facts are taken into consideration. This is why a multi $ bomb was dropped on it, because it was a major threat.

Look at the aircraft losses during the Gulf War and over Serbia. They are mostly down to MANPADs and AAA.

The T72 was outmatched by the M1 and Challenger but we still bombed them during botj Gulf Wars. Even when Iraqi T72 tanks got direct hits the damage was very limited. Most of our disabled tanks were due to IEDs and ATGM and AT RPGs.

 

[DiCe!]

I just hope we don't put men on the ground, i really really don't want that.

UK Typhoons now over Libya.

I agree one that, as soon as ground troops are involved we will have really really messed up, at the moment i think most people in lybia support the no fly zone as it allows their own people to make a stand, if we get involved then it will be a "we are after the oil" field day (even though it is a bit of that already)

 

[a1ex2001]

I just hope we don't put men on the ground, i really really don't want that.

UK Typhoons now over Libya.

I don't see how we don't end up putting troops on the ground if we actually want to stop civilians being killed, if we don't put a peace keeping force on the ground they will carry on killing each other for a generation.

Conversley if we do send the troops in it will be another expensive waste of time just like our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, when will we learn?

 

[ColdAsIce]

All this talk of Anti aircraft weapons gets me in the mood for playing Desert Strike again

 

[RoboCod]

Neither are you.

Without wanting to sound like boasting but I certainly am near enough to qualified than yourself, and yet I'm not here trying to make that assessment like you are doing!

Look at the aircraft losses during the Gulf War and over Serbia. They are mostly down to MANPADs and AAA.

The T72 was outmatched by the M1 and Challenger but we still bombed them during botj Gulf Wars. Even when Iraqi T72 tanks got direct hits the damage was very limited. Most of our disabled tanks were due to IEDs and ATGM and AT RPGs.

But that still does not prove that a MANPADS is more of a threat than an SA-8. I'm telling you, it isn't.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Without wanting to sound like boasting but I certainly am near enough to qualified than yourself, and yet I'm not here trying to make that assessment like you are doing!




But that still does not prove that a MANPADS is more of a threat than an SA-8. I'm telling you, it isn't.

Remember, the French started their bombing run before the Tomahawks were even launched. Also I do know one or two people in the field and they had some interesting things to say about the Russian missile systems.

Also,since you know so much, how old are the missiles in the SA8 systems the Libyans are using? What is their operational life??

How resistant is the system to modern ECCM??
How many aircraft have we lost to SA8 systems since 1990??

Edit!!

Even at its peak in the 1980s the Libya air force and air defence forces were no match for the US,Chadian and French forces even though they used the same equipment.

If the SA8 systems have been modernised then I can understand where you are coming from though.

 

[Cosimo]

​

 

[Iraklis F.C.]

i thought europe was in the middle of its worst financial crisis since the 20's, how come the spanish/italians/greeks afford such an operation?

 

[Deleted member 66701]

The French senate reports that each Shadow Storm cost 800,000 Euros so give it another night and there will be another 100 million Euros wasted.

Not wasted at all. Who do you think makes the Storm Shadow missiles? That's right, a British, France and Itallian consortium. The money spent to replace the missiles will kickstart some economic functions.

War is not without economic benefits. These are not limited to having misfortune strike trade rivals. At certain historical times and places, war can stimulate a national economy in the short term. During slack economic times, such as the Great Depression of the 1930s, military spending and war mobilization can increase capacity utilization, reduce unemployment, and generally induce patriotic citizens to work harder for less compensation (very Conservative!).

War also sometimes clears away outdated infrastructure (missile stocks etc) and allows economy-wide rebuilding, generating long-term benefits (albeit at short-term costs). For example, after being set back by the two World Wars, French production grew faster after 1950 than before 1914.

One guess at who makes the Tomahawks fired by the US?

 

[Cosimo]

One guess at who makes the Tomahawks fired by the US?

Raytheon/McDonnell Douglas

http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/tomahawk/

 

[a1ex2001]

Not wasted at all. Who do you think makes the Storm Shadow missiles? That's right, a British, France and Itallian consortium. The money spent to replace the missiles will kickstart some economic functions.



One guess at who makes the Tomahawks fired by the US?

The money spent will go from public coffers into small number of private companies most of whom are not even British based so don't try and pretend this will be some massive boost to our economy and I hardly think the situation is comparable with the second world war which as a net importer was a disaster for our economy anyway.

Other countries spending millions of Euros on British weapons maybe good for our economy us buying our own to throw them away is just a bad form of quantative easing.

 

[chippy08]

This goverment will have a new exscuse to put up taxes here to pay for new tomahawks we should never be there its none of our buisness.

 

[Deleted member 66701]

The money spent will go from public coffers into small number of private companies

Yeah, no idea why the Tories would want that to happen.

don't try and pretend this will be some massive boost to our economy

I wasn't suggesting anything of the sort (I don't believe I used the word massive anywhere). There will be people who benefit from this though but it wontbe you or I.

Other countries spending millions of Euros on British weapons maybe good for our economy us buying our own to throw them away is just a bad form of quantative easing.

It's better than quantative easing as it also directly provides employment.

and I hardly think the situation is comparable with the second world war

At the moment.................

Raytheon/McDonnell Douglas

http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/tomahawk/

+10 internet points for answering a rhetorical question

But yes - a US missile. So the US pay for a missile to a US firm. That US firm pay taxes, as do it's employees. That US firm then invests in the US economy. Do you think the $600,000 unit cost actually costs the US government $600,000 in the long run? More like $200,000 in reality.