The Cellar

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)
-   Image of the Day (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=10)
-   -   Nov 19, 2009: LRAD (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=21436)

Cloud 11-19-2009 05:52 PM

fantastic if you want to kill a Sentinel. Why aren't the Guides up in arms about this?

see me if you have any idea what I'm talking about here!

spudcon 11-19-2009 05:58 PM

What are you talking about? I can't see you.

Cloud 11-19-2009 05:59 PM

it's just as well, really!

hipshot 11-19-2009 07:39 PM

Didn't "Elrad" used to open for Zeppelin? :banghead:

TheDaVinciChode 11-19-2009 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dar512 (Post 609821)
I'm sure you're right, Bruce. But I bet it would be fun to go Q-shipping through that area.

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce (Post 609824)
Q-ships. Oh yes. :D

Just make sure they're British Q-Boats.

American Q-Boats are highly ineffective and unsuccessful, it seems... each boat failing in her designated mission... and the only war-time fire, being friendly in nature.

But... Americans have always enjoyed friendly-fire, I suppose. ;)

*Waits for the Americans to get up-in-arms, to defend their inadequately-trained military.*

Before you do, however, take into consideration how many "friendly fire incidents" there have been, from WWI - Present, or even sooner, if you can be bothered with the research... Don't just observe American military records, but others, too... Compare all data, from as many countries as you care to research, and tell me which country has had the most "friendly fire incidents," over all. Include, if you wish, civilian casualties/mortalities/"collateral damage," for a better picture, too.

:headshake I'd certainly not want to be on the right side of America, during a war. You're safer against them!*

(* Especially if you take into account civilian casualties/mortalities, too.)

TheMercenary 11-19-2009 08:26 PM

:lol2: What a maroon..

ZenGum 11-19-2009 10:14 PM

I'm with DaVinci - most of the way. The US military has a pretty bad reputation for friendly fire incidents. BUT ... given a choice of Australia Vs [Insert powerful foreign nation of your choice] either with or without US involvement, we put up with the firendly fire because, overall, it is worth it.

Looks bad in the papers, though.

Adak 11-20-2009 03:20 AM

The BBC news reported that the sonic device didn't stop the pirates in their (second!) attack on the Maersk Alabama. Ineffective, but they aren't sure why.

The shipping line had taken the precaution of hiring some security troops to repel pirate attacks. They worked. :)

spudcon 11-20-2009 06:39 AM

And they were very friendly while firing on the pirates.

newtimer 11-20-2009 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce (Post 609819)
The "area" is thousands of square miles...

The legitimate ships are following their course, not wandering blindly. A sub would hang out near that shipping lane and just wait for the pirates to come to them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce (Post 609819)
...trying to hit those speedboats with a torpedo would be like trying to shoot fruit flies...

...shooting loud fruit flies with a rifle that aims for the sound.

1) Speed is relative. And relative to a torpedo, a speedboat is granny limping upstairs with her cane, hoping to catch the end of Lawrence Welk Show before going to bed at 8:00.
2) Speedboats aren't made to be stealthy while they're buzzing along the surface. But subs are made to detect folks who are trying to be stealthy. Not much challenge.

There are two kinds of boats in the oceans: submarines and targets.

glatt 11-20-2009 09:49 AM

there is no shipping lane there.

Ships used to stay close to shore to keep the trip short as they went around Africa. Then the pirates came, so they moved out further into the ocean. The pirates followed, now the ships are scattered hundreds of miles off shore with the pirates sniffing around for them. Bruce is right that it's a HUGE area.

monster 11-20-2009 11:14 PM

Americans > friendly fire rep

=

British > bad teeth rep

Elspode 11-21-2009 12:17 AM

Why the shipping companies don't just put some heavy hardware on their vessels and blow these bastards out of the water is puzzling to me. I guess it has something to do with bringing armed vessels into ports being a no no under international law.

This piracy is going to continue as long as ransoms are being paid out and the risks are relatively low, which continues to be the case. If 80% of the piracy events ended in the deaths of the pirates, instead of in success, it would probably become much more rare.

ZenGum 11-21-2009 12:34 AM

What is really needed is an effective government in Somalia. Anyone up for a re-invasion? 3rd front?

Adak 11-21-2009 02:07 AM

I doubt if you could make Somalia "right" with an invasion.

Millions of people, armed to the teeth, stubbornly supporting different brands of Islam - they can't even agree on what kind of Islamic law they want.

Getting them to agree to the kind of reforms that would be necessary to get Somalia back up on it's feet with a working government, is just not going to happen in that kind of absolutist atmosphere.

Best thing is just to leave them alone to sort it out. It's an exercise in futility to try and cram good government down people's throats, if they don't want to support it.

Eventually, they'll see "this ain't working, we need to make some compromises and quit fighting amongst ourselves, for the good of the country". Or they won't. :(

Toughening up the international laws on piracy and putting some security personnel on board, with the weapons they'll need, might have to do, in the meantime.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:32 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.