Royal Navy fires warning shot at Spanish patrol boat after it cut up the path of a US nuclear sub of - Polidicks

[QUOTE]The British Royal Navy has fired flares to warn off a Spanish patrol boat after it persistently approached an American nuclear submarine off Gibraltar. The Royal Navy patrol boat HMS Sabre fired warning shots across the bow of the Guardia Civil vessel because it had twice tried to cut across the path of the USS Florida during an incursion into UK-controlled waters off the coast of Gibraltar. This is the latest incursion by Spanish ships into UK waters which has left Gibraltar authorities and the Foreign Office frustrated by the perceived provocations. It is still rare for the Royal Navy to fire flares with just a few recorded occasions in the last two years. After another recent incident Madrid threatened to shut down the British outcrop if the UK left the European Union. Spain has also warned it is ready to impose a strict new border tax, close its airspace to planes landing at Gibraltar's airport, and investigate Gibraltarians with Spanish economic interests. ... The dramatic incident was said to have happened in April as the American sub docked in Gibraltar. Britain has always taken seriously any incursion of Gibraltar's waters by the Spanish, which has had a centuries' long spat with the British over ownership of the 4km peninsula. [/QUOTE] [URL="http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/royal-navy-fires-spanish-patrol-boat-after-it-neared-us-nuclear-sub-off-gibraltar-1558519"]Source[/URL]

Title feels awfully sensationalist. Flares != shots. Title had me thinking the royal navy vessel fired its cannons at the spanish vessel. Flares aren't that dangerous.

[QUOTE=Snoberry Tea;50265011]Title feels awfully sensationalist. Flares != shots. Title had me thinking the royal navy vessel fired its cannons at the spanish vessel. Flares aren't that dangerous.[/QUOTE] Well they did fire flares across the bow of the ship... how is that sensationalist? How isn't that a warning shot?

[QUOTE=Snoberry Tea;50265011]Title feels awfully sensationalist. Flares != shots. Title had me thinking the royal navy vessel fired its cannons at the spanish vessel. Flares aren't that dangerous.[/QUOTE] You don't ever fire a weapon as a warning. Firing flares for naval vessels is the "shove" of Show/Shout/Shove/Shoot.

[QUOTE=Senscith;50265058]You don't ever fire a weapon as a warning. Firing flares for naval vessels is the "shove" of Show/Shout/Shove/Shoot.[/QUOTE] I don't know where you're getting that from but we did it a little different in the Corps.

[QUOTE=Morgen;50265034]Well they did fire flares across the bow of the ship... how is that sensationalist? How isn't that a warning shot?[/QUOTE] Because "warning shot" implies actual weapons were used. A flare is a signaling device. Title ought to read "Royal Navy vessel fires signal flare over Spanish Guard patrol boat for being a cheeky don't" [editline]5th May 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Senscith;50265058]You don't ever fire a weapon as a warning. Firing flares for naval vessels is the "shove" of Show/Shout/Shove/Shoot.[/QUOTE] Warning shots are traditionally given using actual munitions. That's why it's called a "warning shot" not a signal flare or anything else

Morgen's title is less sensational than the original, christ: [quote]Royal Navy [B]fires on[/B] Spanish patrol boat after it neared US nuclear sub off Gibraltar[/quote]

[QUOTE=Snoberry Tea;50265104]Because "warning shot" implies actual weapons were used. A flare is a signaling device. Title ought to read "Royal Navy vessel fires signal flare over Spanish Guard patrol boat for being a cheeky don't" [editline]5th May 2016[/editline] Warning shots are traditionally given using actual munitions. That's why it's called a "warning shot" not a signal flare or anything else[/QUOTE] Well you do fire a flare from a gun. It was used as a warning so I don't think it's unfair to say it's a warning shot. [editline]6th May 2016[/editline] Also considering what the original title was, I tried my best to de-sensationalize it and make it more informative.

I'm assuming it was from a flare gun, but there are cannon fired flares called starshells which are pretty cool, and I imagine relatively ineffective at damaging other vessels which would make them perfect "knock it off" ammunition.

[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;50265093]I don't know where you're getting that from but we did it a little different in the Corps.[/QUOTE] My experience is mostly Army, would love to know what it is in the Corps.

Why would you antagonize a submarine inside foreign waters? Subs aren't even power projection. They quietly stop, resupply, and then go about their business. Meanwhile they carry enough ordinance on a modern sub to eradicate the entire Spanish Navy.

Spain is still so salty over Gibraltar. Face it spain, you are a retirement colony for rich brits.

[QUOTE=GunFox;50265673]Why would you antagonize a submarine inside foreign waters? Subs aren't even power projection. They quietly stop, resupply, and then go about their business. Meanwhile they carry enough ordinance on a modern sub to eradicate the entire Spanish Navy.[/QUOTE] North Korea has enough ordinance to eradicate the entire Spanish Navy.

[QUOTE=GunFox;50265673]Why would you antagonize a submarine inside foreign waters? Subs aren't even power projection. They quietly stop, resupply, and then go about their business. Meanwhile they carry enough ordinance on a modern sub to eradicate the entire Spanish Navy.[/QUOTE] Wait, how are subs not power projection?

[QUOTE=Apache249;50266495]Wait, how are subs not power projection?[/QUOTE] I think he meant that they aren't dick-waving. They're definitely power projection (probably the ultimate power projection) but they're [I]not[/I] used to make political statements like surface ships are.

[QUOTE=Apache249;50266495]Wait, how are subs not power projection?[/QUOTE] they're power projection in the sense that having a sub-capability projects power, but not in the same way that parking an aircraft carrier in the sea next to a country is power projection ("There's a boat that we have that can blow your country to bits and you don't know where it is" vs "there's a boat in your sea right here, and it's fucking big and scary"

[QUOTE=Morgen;50265284]Well you do fire a flare from a gun. It was used as a warning so I don't think it's unfair to say it's a warning shot. [editline]6th May 2016[/editline] Also considering what the original title was, I tried my best to de-sensationalize it and make it more informative.[/QUOTE] There is a VERY big difference between firing a cannon over something and a firing a flare over something.

Who cares about the title, god damn.

Is curious how Gibraltar not longer appears at the news. I guess because they found it was better for the current government talk 24/7 about Venezuela instead... However is strange one of our boats were annoying an american sub (especially considering that we are BFF with US). Usually is the reverse, brits coming towards spanish fishermen on these waters.

[QUOTE=Maestro Fenix;50268594]Is curious how Gibraltar not longer appears at the news. I guess because they found it was better for the current government talk 24/7 about Venezuela instead... However is strange one of our boats were annoying an american sub (especially considering that we are BFF with US). Usually is the reverse, brits coming towards spanish fishermen on these waters.[/QUOTE] If they are British waters then the Spanish fishing boats probably shouldn't be there then should they?

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;50267197]they're power projection in the sense that having a sub-capability projects power, but not in the same way that parking an aircraft carrier in the sea next to a country is power projection ("There's a boat that we have that can blow your country to bits and you don't know where it is" vs "there's a boat in your sea right here, and it's fucking big and scary"[/QUOTE] This pretty much. Subs aren't used in the same way as carriers groups. While the possession of them can serve as a bogey man of sorts, they aren't really what you use for gunboat diplomacy. When a sub stops at Port, it is to resupply or accomplish a simple objective, not make a political statement. Exception this this: subs attached to carrier groups.

[QUOTE=Hanso;50268139]Who cares about the title, god damn.[/QUOTE] Everyone else apparently.

[QUOTE=Morgen;50268648]If they are British waters then the Spanish fishing boats probably shouldn't be there then should they?[/QUOTE] Someone at the government thinks that a colony has not territorial waters, so from time on time stuff happens. Honestly, nobody cares about the Rock (except when is about money laundering).

British imperialist sluts.

[QUOTE=GunFox;50270000]This pretty much. Subs aren't used in the same way as carriers groups. While the possession of them can serve as a bogey man of sorts, they aren't really what you use for gunboat diplomacy. When a sub stops at Port, it is to resupply or accomplish a simple objective, not make a political statement. Exception this this: subs attached to carrier groups.[/QUOTE] I seem to remember an incident when a nuclear sub surfaced to make a point and everyone got kind of annoyed about it.

Subs are power projection, they just aren't as physically imposing. An aircraft carrier and nuclear sub have similar projection capabilities (a sub moreso, actually) in relation to foreign governments. They know what our boats are capable of and it's a big slap in the face when we penetrate their search plans and pop up right off their coast to say, "lmao missed us." Carriers, however, are better at long term projection and influencing civilian populations. The general masses who do not understand war machines think carriers are more scary than submarines. A carrier can also sit in one place for an extremely long time, submarines do not have that capability (not because of logistical limits, they could technically do it, but it'd be outright tactically retarded to leave a sub in one place for a long time and leave it open for acoustic data collection), working more as a big long fuck you.

[QUOTE=Maestro Fenix;50270458]Someone at the government thinks that a colony has not territorial waters, so from time on time stuff happens. Honestly, nobody cares about the Rock (except when is about money laundering).[/QUOTE] So because someone in the Spanish government doesn't agree, the British should allow Spanish vessels that stray into it without permission to stay there without question? I think not. The Royal Navy aren't the bad guys for protecting their territorial waters.

Fucking mon then you Spanish speaking cunts!

[QUOTE=Hanso;50268139]Who cares about the title, god damn.[/QUOTE] I think you might want to take a look at the title of this sub-forum...

[QUOTE=Morgen;50271511]So because someone in the Spanish government doesn't agree, the British should allow Spanish vessels that stray into it without permission to stay there without question? I think not. The Royal Navy aren't the bad guys for protecting their territorial waters.[/QUOTE] Similar fashion from our side by sending police boats escorting the fishermen. We still shocked that a single politician can ignore the recomendations from the high representatives of the Police, the Navy and even the rest of politicians from their own party and do whatever he wants, but you know, [i]Spain is different.[/i]