The UN Convention on
the Law of the Sea 1982, which entered into force in 1995, set a new
standard of 12 nautical miles.
Most countries, including the members of the European Union, are
signatories to the Convention. It applies to Gibraltar.
Under the Convention Gibraltar generates its own "Territorial Sea" of 12 nautical
miles, or out to median lines where other states coastlines are under 24 nautical
miles distant from Gibraltar.
Game set and match
now bomb the bstds
Just before we issue the final instructions, can you confirm which country's bastards are to be bombed? And where - roughly - are these bastards?
And, although it's nit-picking somewhat, are you at all bothered as to whether any of our bastards get caught up in the bombing?
How would they get caught up in the bombing......no land troops would be involved?
Well, if we are bombing people who have taken possession of one of "our" ships, it's likely that the sailors from that ship might be in the vicinity. No?
No.......of course they won’t bomb the oil tanker.....it would go up like a volcano!
Is anyone on here really and truefully so upset about a foreign owned tanker crewed entirely by foreigners, being intercepted by the Iranians that we want to play a tiny part in an American operation to bomb some tiny bit of Iran with the almost inevitable result that totally innocent women and children are killed by “ collateral damage.
If we are really that concerned about protecting British flagged vessels, why don’t we build a properly armed and funded able Royal Navy. At the moment the Royal Navy has shrunk to about to a quarter of the size that it was at the time of the Falklands war. There are already plans afoot to remove all the surface to surface missiles from the pitifully few Royal Naval ships that remain.
To be fair, we will soon have two fecking great big aircraft carriers, about twice the size of the Ark Royal.
I know one is back in dock and leaking like a sieve and the other one isn't finished yet and none of the actual aircraft that can fly from them are available - but still, they are as big as feck.
Never really understood the rules around what ships were registered where and how important it is.
i am surprised that the UK depleted forces decided to take the Iranian tanker that was clearly breaching restrictions on shipping oil to Syria. Why us?
As to the Iranians actively targeting foreign vessels travelling through the Straights of Hormuz, that’s a big issue if they carry in, not just for the UK.
I have a friend married to an Iranian from a wealthy background. According to her (and him) before the revolution Iran was highly progressive and was at that time friends with the US and UK.
since then, it has been under varying degrees of authoritarian Islamic control and yet has been really no worse that other neighbouring states in many ways.
A war against Iran would not be in the interests of anyone but the oil industry and the weapons manufacturers in my view.
Is anyone on here really and truefully so upset about a foreign owned tanker crewed entirely by foreigners, being intercepted by the Iranians that we want to play a tiny part in an American operation to bomb some tiny bit of Iran with the almost inevitable result that totally innocent women and children are killed by “ collateral damage.
If we are really that concerned about protecting British flagged vessels, why don’t we build a properly armed and funded able Royal Navy. At the moment the Royal Navy has shrunk to about to a quarter of the size that it was at the time of the Falklands war. There are already plans afoot to remove all the surface to surface missiles from the pitifully few Royal Naval ships that remain.
Go back and read my original post re bombing only non civilian targets. Military installations and military airfields only.....and they would be named prior to attack in order to evacuate all personnel both military and civilian anyway. It would cause tremendous damage to their military capabilities as well as costing them an increasing small fortune the longer the tactic continues, which incidentally, they can ill afford. Blow up a few road bridges and rail lines.....once again with prior warning of the chosen targets. Maybe even a dam or two and some power stations. Destabilise their government by making life very uncomfortable for the populace. Give them something to think about and illustrate the comparative ease with which these raids can be achieved by modern weaponry involving no allied land troops or Air Force personnel in aircraft whatsoever. This would cause huge disruption to their infrastructure if they refused to release the tanker.......my guess is it wouldn’t take long for them to buckle. Slowly slowly catchee monkey!
To be fair, we will soon have two fecking great big aircraft carriers, about twice the size of the Ark Royal.
I know one is back in dock and leaking like a sieve and the other one isn't finished yet and none of the actual aircraft that can fly from them are available - but still, they are as big as feck.
That'll learn the Iranians.
You omitted to say that there isn’t enough trained sailors to properly crew the one that is currently bumbling about. It is probably just as well because it leaks so badly that two sailors nearly drowned on board the ship a couple of weeks ago.
The UN Convention on
the Law of the Sea 1982, which entered into force in 1995, set a new
standard of 12 nautical miles.
Most countries, including the members of the European Union, are
signatories to the Convention. It applies to Gibraltar.
Under the Convention Gibraltar generates its own "Territorial Sea" of 12 nautical
miles, or out to median lines where other states coastlines are under 24 nautical
miles distant from Gibraltar.
Is anyone on here really and truefully so upset about a foreign owned tanker crewed entirely by foreigners, being intercepted by the Iranians that we want to play a tiny part in an American operation to bomb some tiny bit of Iran with the almost inevitable result that totally innocent women and children are killed by “ collateral damage.
If we are really that concerned about protecting British flagged vessels, why don’t we build a properly armed and funded able Royal Navy. At the moment the Royal Navy has shrunk to about to a quarter of the size that it was at the time of the Falklands war. There are already plans afoot to remove all the surface to surface missiles from the pitifully few Royal Naval ships that remain.
Go back and read my original post re bombing only non civilian targets. Military installations and military airfields only.....and they would be named prior to attack in order to evacuate all personnel both military and civilian anyway. It would cause tremendous damage to their military capabilities as well as costing them an increasing small fortune the longer the tactic continues, which incidentally, they can ill afford. Blow up a few road bridges and rail lines.....once again with prior warning of the chosen targets. Maybe even a dam or two and some power stations. Destabilise their government by making life very uncomfortable for the populace. Give them something to think about and illustrate the comparative ease with which these raids can be achieved by modern weaponry involving no allied land troops or Air Force personnel in aircraft whatsoever. This would cause huge disruption to their infrastructure if they refused to release the tanker.......my guess is it wouldn’t take long for them to buckle. Slowly slowly catchee monkey!
1). So your master plan involves telling the Iranians what and where you going to bomb in advance! What a fucking masterstroke that is. No need for the Iranians to fund a Bletchley Park operation full of turbaned Alan Turings. We will just them what we are going to do.
Actually Britain no longer has the capability to carry out this kind of operation unless it is a minuscule part of an American attack. Britain does have some cruise missiles but they are pitifully few in number. Given a month or so to prepare we might manage to fire off half a dozen or so. However having told the Iranians what we going to attack in advance they could probably manage to down some of those we did fire.
Is anyone on here really and truefully so upset about a foreign owned tanker crewed entirely by foreigners, being intercepted by the Iranians that we want to play a tiny part in an American operation to bomb some tiny bit of Iran with the almost inevitable result that totally innocent women and children are killed by “ collateral damage.
If we are really that concerned about protecting British flagged vessels, why don’t we build a properly armed and funded able Royal Navy. At the moment the Royal Navy has shrunk to about to a quarter of the size that it was at the time of the Falklands war. There are already plans afoot to remove all the surface to surface missiles from the pitifully few Royal Naval ships that remain.
Go back and read my original post re bombing only non civilian targets. Military installations and military airfields only.....and they would be named prior to attack in order to evacuate all personnel both military and civilian anyway. It would cause tremendous damage to their military capabilities as well as costing them an increasing small fortune the longer the tactic continues, which incidentally, they can ill afford. Blow up a few road bridges and rail lines.....once again with prior warning of the chosen targets. Maybe even a dam or two and some power stations. Destabilise their government by making life very uncomfortable for the populace. Give them something to think about and illustrate the comparative ease with which these raids can be achieved by modern weaponry involving no allied land troops or Air Force personnel in aircraft whatsoever. This would cause huge disruption to their infrastructure if they refused to release the tanker.......my guess is it wouldn’t take long for them to buckle. Slowly slowly catchee monkey!
Would this plan allow for sufficient time for the Iranians to place, photograph and share around the world sailors from the British-registered ship at each of the targets?
Yes. But, as Jeremy Hunt is busy with the count, he's asked Chris Grayling to take care of the details. We've dropped thirteen thousand tons of artillery on Iceland.
Yes. But, as Jeremy Hunt is busy with the count, he's asked Chris Grayling to take care of the details. We've dropped thirteen thousand tons of artillery on Iceland.
Addicted, hands up on EU territories but not murderous regimes. Although given the normal 12 mile rule on international waters, it is difficult to see how Spain has rights over the whole strait. I guess their voice at the NATO table is louder than Morroco and the other Arab Mediterranean states in NATO.
Sadly, this was all very predictable. It is important to acknowledge that Iran is a problematic nation and a pain in the backside. It has reasonable people within it, but also acts on the say so of religious loons. But when their tanker was detained, it surely was to be expected that they would retaliate. It isn't as if we haven't seen clues recently including warnings from them about what would happen. So why was there not adequate escort for vessels within the danger zone? Probably because we don't have a navy to provide it!
Trump walking away from the nuclear deal has set these events off. It doesn't seem to have any real logic to it. But given the situation as it is, and the threats from Iran, surely we have to have the capability to defend our ships and if not, maybe we should have left their tanker alone! This hasn't happened out of nowhere!
It is a terrible thing seeing an innocent woman used in this way. All of this makes her freedom all the less likely. I think Boris Johnson owes her big time and ought to devote a fair bit of time in trying to free her when he becomes PM.
It is a terrible thing seeing an innocent woman used in this way. All of this makes her freedom all the less likely. I think Boris Johnson owes her big time and ought to devote a fair bit of time in trying to free her when pm
are we sure she is no spy , I wouldn’t be surprised if it turned out she was
Is anyone on here really and truefully so upset about a foreign owned tanker crewed entirely by foreigners, being intercepted by the Iranians that we want to play a tiny part in an American operation to bomb some tiny bit of Iran with the almost inevitable result that totally innocent women and children are killed by “ collateral damage.
If we are really that concerned about protecting British flagged vessels, why don’t we build a properly armed and funded able Royal Navy. At the moment the Royal Navy has shrunk to about to a quarter of the size that it was at the time of the Falklands war. There are already plans afoot to remove all the surface to surface missiles from the pitifully few Royal Naval ships that remain.
Go back and read my original post re bombing only non civilian targets. Military installations and military airfields only.....and they would be named prior to attack in order to evacuate all personnel both military and civilian anyway. It would cause tremendous damage to their military capabilities as well as costing them an increasing small fortune the longer the tactic continues, which incidentally, they can ill afford. Blow up a few road bridges and rail lines.....once again with prior warning of the chosen targets. Maybe even a dam or two and some power stations. Destabilise their government by making life very uncomfortable for the populace. Give them something to think about and illustrate the comparative ease with which these raids can be achieved by modern weaponry involving no allied land troops or Air Force personnel in aircraft whatsoever. This would cause huge disruption to their infrastructure if they refused to release the tanker.......my guess is it wouldn’t take long for them to buckle. Slowly slowly catchee monkey!
1). So your master plan involves telling the Iranians what and where you going to bomb in advance! What a fucking masterstroke that is. No need for the Iranians to fund a Bletchley Park operation full of turbaned Alan Turings. We will just them what we are going to do.
Actually Britain no longer has the capability to carry out this kind of operation unless it is a minuscule part of an American attack. Britain does have some cruise missiles but they are pitifully few in number. Given a month or so to prepare we might manage to fire off half a dozen or so. However having told the Iranians what we going to attack in advance they could probably manage to down some of those we did fire.
It is a terrible thing seeing an innocent woman used in this way. All of this makes her freedom all the less likely. I think Boris Johnson owes her big time and ought to devote a fair bit of time in trying to free her when pm
are we sure she is no spy , I wouldn’t be surprised if it turned out she was
Yes i'm quite sure a lot of international spies travel with their 1 year old daughter
It is a terrible thing seeing an innocent woman used in this way. All of this makes her freedom all the less likely. I think Boris Johnson owes her big time and ought to devote a fair bit of time in trying to free her when pm
are we sure she is no spy , I wouldn’t be surprised if it turned out she was
Yes i'm quite sure a lot of international spies travel with their 1 year old daughter
Not all spies are like James Bond you know, it's possible to spy and pass information without being a blackbelt machine gun firing ninja.
Sadly, this was all very predictable. It is important to acknowledge that Iran is a problematic nation and a pain in the backside. It has reasonable people within it, but also acts on the say so of religious loons. But when their tanker was detained, it surely was to be expected that they would retaliate. It isn't as if we haven't seen clues recently including warnings from them about what would happen. So why was there not adequate escort for vessels within the danger zone? Probably because we don't have a navy to provide it!
Trump walking away from the nuclear deal has set these events off. It doesn't seem to have any real logic to it. But given the situation as it is, and the threats from Iran, surely we have to have the capability to defend our ships and if not, maybe we should have left their tanker alone! This hasn't happened out of nowhere!
It was a predictable outcome because Iran said it would retaliate after the Grace 1 was arrested. There have already been tanker attacks in the Strait of Hormuz a few weeks ago. Iran 'seized' a UAE ship last week but said it was due to the ship breaking down and needing assistance.
This has been caused by Chief Baby Trump trying to get one over on Obama by tearing up the Iran nuclear deal without having a clue what to do next, and being advised by war hungry idiots.
The US and the UK haven't had a coherent strategy in the Middle East for decades and have helped create the instability in the region and the rise of extremism. In the interim something needs to be done to protect shipping as it passes through the Strait.
It was inevitable some retaliation was going to take place after the Iranian tanker was seized but it seems that we were underprepared.
Mindless military action with no exit strategy won't further matters.
Don't fuck about Theresa May, let the nuclear weapon obliteration of Iran be your lasting 'legacy'. Show the British public that they're are getting a real bang for their tax buck through the huge investment in the Trident submarine fleet. Let's give them ol' subs a real test, let them creep into the Straits of Hormuz, take aim and launch. Never mind deterrent, attack attack attack
I love the military masterminds on this thread playing fast and loose with other people’s lives.
Agree. As a military historian it always amuses me when incidents - like the one being discussed on here - arise and those who have never held, let alone fired, a weapon buckle on their pretend sabers and spout fire and brimstone about launching attacks on various counties. As Winston Churchill - who has often been accused of being a warmonger - once said "Jaw jaw is better than war war!" Only when ALL diplomatic negotiations have failed should we consider military action.
Comments
If we are really that concerned about protecting British flagged vessels, why don’t we build a properly armed and funded able Royal Navy. At the moment the Royal Navy has shrunk to about to a quarter of the size that it was at the time of the Falklands war. There are already plans afoot to remove all the surface to surface missiles from the pitifully few Royal Naval ships that remain.
I know one is back in dock and leaking like a sieve and the other one isn't finished yet and none of the actual aircraft that can fly from them are available - but still, they are as big as feck.
That'll learn the Iranians.
i am surprised that the UK depleted forces decided to take the Iranian tanker that was clearly breaching restrictions on shipping oil to Syria. Why us?
As to the Iranians actively targeting foreign vessels travelling through the Straights of Hormuz, that’s a big issue if they carry in, not just for the UK.
I have a friend married to an Iranian from a wealthy background. According to her (and him) before the revolution Iran was highly progressive and was at that time friends with the US and UK.
since then, it has been under varying degrees of authoritarian Islamic control and yet has been really no worse that other neighbouring states in many ways.
A war against Iran would not be in the interests of anyone but the oil industry and the weapons manufacturers in my view.
Military installations and military airfields only.....and they would be named prior to attack in order to evacuate all personnel both military and civilian anyway.
It would cause tremendous damage to their military capabilities as well as costing them an increasing small fortune the longer the tactic continues, which incidentally, they can ill afford.
Blow up a few road bridges and rail lines.....once again with prior warning of the chosen targets. Maybe even a dam or two and some power stations.
Destabilise their government by making life very uncomfortable for the populace.
Give them something to think about and illustrate the comparative ease with which these raids can be achieved by modern weaponry involving no allied land troops or Air Force personnel in aircraft whatsoever.
This would cause huge disruption to their infrastructure if they refused to release the tanker.......my guess is it wouldn’t take long for them to buckle.
Slowly slowly catchee monkey!
Actually Britain no longer has the capability to carry out this kind of operation unless it is a minuscule part of an American attack. Britain does have some cruise missiles but they are pitifully few in number. Given a month or so to prepare we might manage to fire off half a dozen or so. However having told the Iranians what we going to attack in advance they could probably manage to down some of those we did fire.
You throw it.
He started off by trying to catch it.
Trump walking away from the nuclear deal has set these events off. It doesn't seem to have any real logic to it. But given the situation as it is, and the threats from Iran, surely we have to have the capability to defend our ships and if not, maybe we should have left their tanker alone! This hasn't happened out of nowhere!
This has been caused by Chief Baby Trump trying to get one over on Obama by tearing up the Iran nuclear deal without having a clue what to do next, and being advised by war hungry idiots.
It was inevitable some retaliation was going to take place after the Iranian tanker was seized but it seems that we were underprepared.
Mindless military action with no exit strategy won't further matters.
So tell me Benty, when has there ever been a coherent middle eastern strategy and how have the UK caused the rise in extremism in Tehran?
Let's give them ol' subs a real test, let them creep into the Straits of Hormuz, take aim and launch. Never mind deterrent, attack attack attack
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-nuclear-deterrence-factsheet/uk-nuclear-deterrence-what-you-need-to-know
Agree. As a military historian it always amuses me when incidents - like the one being discussed on here - arise and those who have never held, let alone fired, a weapon buckle on their pretend sabers and spout fire and brimstone about launching attacks on various counties. As Winston Churchill - who has often been accused of being a warmonger - once said "Jaw jaw is better than war war!" Only when ALL diplomatic negotiations have failed should we consider military action.