• UK working on 'no fly zone' plan for Libya
    16 replies, posted
[quote=The BBC] Britain is working with its allies on a plan to establish a military no-fly zone over Libya, says David Cameron. The prime minister said the threat of "further appalling steps" being taken by Col Muammar Gaddafi to oppress his own people was behind the talks. [B]He said he did not rule out "the use of military assets" in Libya and said the "murderous regime" must end.[/B] Fewer than 150 British citizens are thought to remain in Libya and only a "very small proportion" want to leave. I can't see him giving up any time soon. The government would continue to do "all we can" to get them out, he said. In a statement to MPs after returning from a tour of the Middle East, Mr Cameron said there was a "precious moment of opportunity" and in many parts of the Arab world "hopes and aspirations which have been smothered for decades" were surfacing. He said they were "taking every possible step to isolate the Gaddafi regime". 'Military assets' The UK has frozen Col Gaddafi's British-held assets and those of his family, and withdrawn their diplomatic immunity [B]and an export ban has been imposed on Libyan banknotes, which are printed in Britain.[/B] Mr Cameron told MPs there would be "further isolation of the regime by expelling it from international organisations" and further use of asset freezes and travel bans to encourage those "on the fringes of the regime, that now is the time to desert it". He added: "And we do not in any way rule out the use of military assets, we must not tolerate this regime using military force against its own people. "In that context I have asked the Ministry of Defence and the Chief of the Defence Staff to work with our allies on plans for a military no-fly zone." He said later they would comply with international law but planning for a no-fly zone had to start now because no-one knew what Col Gaddafi would do to his own people and one might have to be put in place "very quickly". The Labour MP Ann Clwyd told him that a no-fly zone could "save thousands of lives if he's [Col Gaddafi] going to bomb his own people from the air". Mr Cameron said trying to secure a no-fly zone over a country as large as Libya was "not without its difficulties": "We would be trying to cover a vast area, it would take a serious amount of military assets to achieve it." And he pointed out there were other ways for Col Gaddafi to attack Libyans, other than by helicopter gunship or by plan. "But I do think it's one thing we need to look at, look at it urgently and plan for, in case we find, as we may well do, that Col Gaddafi is taking further appalling steps to oppress his people and that is why the conversations are taking place today." 'Day of reckoning' Some 50 Britons and 150 foreign nationals have arrived in Malta on HMS Cumberland. Meanwhile, Foreign Secretary William Hague has called for an immediate end to violence against anti-government demonstrators in Libya and warned Col Gaddafi's supporters that there will be a "day of reckoning" for anyone involved in human rights abuses. Addressing a meeting of the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva, Mr Hague said there must be "no impunity" for those involved in violence against protesters. He said: "We have signalled that crimes will not be condoned, will not go unpunished and will not be forgotten. "This is a warning to anyone contemplating the abuse of human rights in Libya or any other country: Stay your hand. There will be a day of reckoning and the reach of international justice can be long. "We must now maintain the momentum we have attained to ensure that there can be no impunity for crimes committed in Libya and to help bring about an immediate end to the violence." [/quote] [url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12598674[/url] Seems things may be hotting up. Coupled with the fact that almost everyone is calling for him to leave, I wonder what will happen next. I wonder who the allies the plan is being work with on include.
This is excellent news, should protect the innocent civilians. Shame Britain recently scrapped half of our air force and working carriers, though. They come in handy for situations like this.
[QUOTE=tedfinly;28343157]This is excellent news, should protect the innocent civilians. Shame Britain recently scrapped half of our air force and working carriers, though.[/QUOTE] I think the eurofighters would be what they use for this if it happens, they might finally pay for themselves. As for the carrier problem, I am shit with geography but I am sure there are "friendly" airbases (or even just an airport, Malta is close enough) that are close enough for them to operate from.
[QUOTE=Jsm;28343201]I think the eurofighters would be what they use for this if it happens, they might finally pay for themselves. As for the carrier problem, I am shit with geography but I am sure there are "friendly" airbases (or even just an airport, Malta is close enough) that are close enough for them to operate from.[/QUOTE] malta is one big british outpost
Minor update I guess: The BBC appear to be reporting that they (as in the BBC) think that a UN resolution would be needed before anything could be implemented. They are also saying the EU are considering the same thing. Although like the need for a UN resolution has ever stopped anyone.
[QUOTE=Jsm;28343201]I think the eurofighters would be what they use for this if it happens, they might finally pay for themselves. As for the carrier problem, I am shit with geography but I am sure there are "friendly" airbases (or even just an airport, Malta is close enough) that are close enough for them to operate from.[/QUOTE] Yes Malta and a few other British-friendly Med bases are close enough. But carriers are meant to be used for this purpose, a quick response air wing in the middle of the situation. Plus I'm sure the Nimrods would be useful for reconnaissance in this situation, too.
[QUOTE=Greaterbeing;28343237]malta is one big british outpost[/QUOTE] not really but they love us and we love them <3 u malta
[QUOTE=tedfinly;28343314]Yes Malta and a few other British-friendly Med bases are close enough. But carriers are meant to be used for this purpose, a quick response air wing in the middle of the situation. Plus I'm sure the Nimrods would be useful for reconnaissance in this situation, too.[/QUOTE] I think you are right on both cases, carriers have the advantage of being able to sit right in the middle of stuff. Although a friendly airbase might be quicker (jets can fly to them in a matter of hours, a carrier could take days) It is a good thing the nimrods dismantled then (for the government), I read somewhere that the government wanted to do it as quick as possible so they were not sitting in a hanger when they were actually needed.
We've got a base on Cyprus as well which I imagine would be used extensively. To be honest, I'm surprised it's Britain that has taken the initiative here. Not that I am saying this is a bad thing, but I would have thought that the USA would have stepped in by now (and I don't mean that sarcastically). [QUOTE=Jsm;28343094]I wonder who the allies the plan is being work with on include.[/QUOTE] Almost certainly France. Not sure about the USA because in US-UK operations it's almost always the US that takes the lead.
[QUOTE=David29;28343604]We've got a base on Cyprus as well which I imagine would be used extensively. To be honest, I'm surprised it's Britain that has taken the initiative here. Not that I am saying this is a bad thing, but I would have thought that the USA would have stepped in by now (and I don't mean that sarcastically). Almost certainly France. Not sure about the USA because in US-UK operations it's almost always the US that takes the lead.[/QUOTE] I am quite surprised as well, I had been expecting the US or the UN to start to lead anything like this. What sort of interest does the British government actually have in Libya? I know a lot of our oil comes from there but that can't be the reason surely. If I was a cynical person I would suggest that maybe it is the British government trying to get revenge for the release of the lockerbie bomber, although the Americans would be more likely to do that IMO. Maybe we are taking over as world police now America is slacking. And I had almost forgotten about the French "alliance". Update: BBC are reporting (On TV only at the moment) that the planning is still in the very early stages and the MoD are trying to find out what nations would be likely to support it and what assets they can provide.
[QUOTE=Jsm;28343848]BBC are reporting (On TV only at the moment) that the planning is still in the very early stages and the MoD are trying to find out what nations would be likely to support it and what assets they can provide.[/QUOTE] In my opinion, without sounding arrogant, foreign support isn't really essential. Nothing Libya owns could match the Eurofighter and I don't think that anyone could really criticise the UK for establishing a no-fly zone given the events that have happened so far.
I hope us Germans will help you. You're our Anglo-Saxon Brothers :buddy::hf::buddy:
[QUOTE=Scar;28343973]I hope us Germans will help you. You're our Anglo-Saxon Brothers :buddy::hf::buddy:[/QUOTE] Would you be able to? Forgive me if I'm being stupid, but isn't the Bundeswehr restricted in when it is allowed to fight?
[QUOTE=David29;28344043]Would you be able to? Forgive me if I'm being stupid, but isn't the Bundeswehr restricted in when it is allowed to fight?[/QUOTE]Constitutionally forbidden from anything other than a defensive war, though the commonly prevalent interpretation permits peacekeeping operations, which i'm guessing this would be filed under.
[QUOTE=David29;28343920]In my opinion, without sounding arrogant, foreign support isn't really essential. Nothing Libya owns could match the Eurofighter and I don't think that anyone could really criticise the UK for establishing a no-fly zone given the events that have happened so far.[/QUOTE] I think "support" might be as simple as allowing passage through countries and letting them operate from airbases. Perhaps other countries will jump at the chance to properly test their expensive jets (The US with the F22 and most of Europe with the Eurofighter)
[QUOTE=Jsm;28344328]I think "support" might be as simple as allowing passage through countries and letting them operate from airbases. Perhaps other countries will jump at the chance to properly test their expensive jets (The US with the F22 and most of Europe with the Eurofighter)[/QUOTE] They don't need other countries for airbases: we already own two in the Med.
[QUOTE=David29;28343604]We've got a base on Cyprus as well which I imagine would be used extensively. To be honest, I'm surprised it's Britain that has taken the initiative here. Not that I am saying this is a bad thing, but I would have thought that the USA would have stepped in by now (and I don't mean that sarcastically). Almost certainly France. Not sure about the USA because in US-UK operations it's almost always the US that takes the lead.[/QUOTE] [url]http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110228/pl_afp/libyaunrestus[/url] [quote=Article]The Pentagon, meanwhile, said it was moving naval and air forces into position near Libya, as Western countries weigh possible military intervention. The White House also said that Washington was also in discussions about the feasibility of operating a "no fly" zone over Libya to protect civilians from airborne attacks by forces loyal to Kadhafi. "We have said that a 'no fly zone' is an option we are actively considering, discussing with allies and partners," Carney said. [/quote]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.