Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:


I'm not sure if I should lecture you on how an attack that kills 100 people or less is not really that big

Christ, could you be any less callous?

He could be arguing that we should let people drown in the Aegean.

Straw Man. When have I ever said that? People in distress on the seas should be rescued, no matter who they are.

Whether they're permitted to continue on to their desired destination (Europe) or immediately deported back to their country of origin is however a different matter.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:


I'm not sure if I should lecture you on how an attack that kills 100 people or less is not really that big

Christ, could you be any less callous?

He could be arguing that we should let people drown in the Aegean.

Straw Man. When have I ever said that? People in distress on the seas should be rescued, no matter who they are.

Whether they're permitted to continue on to their desired destination (Europe) or immediately deported back to their country of origin is however a different matter.

If your picking them up off thr coast or close to say Libya or such you could depending on scenario involved.

Just return them there and use rhibs and escort boats because of local area being dangerous.
Should you have miltia trouble a nearby destroyer with its 4-5 to 5 inch can protect the boats on the drop.

Or... Or
We set up a large processing centre that side of the sea, protected, fortified etc.
We hold them, process, and id they are decided to be alowed and have a country that wil take them

They get sent across on ship and bussed to to the country via coach.
If your from a legitimate asylum claim country, and eligable you getsafe, legal crossing.

Any landing illegaly, can be sent back as there is a safe route.
This also means we can protect the genuine women and kids and not just the strongest military age males capable of better making thebillegalnpassage.

We can have a points system putting most vuntable first and those who line behind wait in safe camps.

Security can be a rotating deployment mixed across Europe, and a few helicopter's there.

 jhe90 wrote:


If your picking them up off thr coast or close to say Libya or such you could depending on scenario involved.

Just return them there and use rhibs and escort boats because of local area being dangerous.
Should you have miltia trouble a nearby destroyer with its 4-5 to 5 inch can protect the boats on the drop.

Or... Or
We set up a large processing centre that side of the sea, protected, fortified etc.
We hold them, process, and id they are decided to be alowed and have a country that wil take them

They get sent across on ship and bussed to to the country via coach.
If your from a legitimate asylum claim country, and eligable you getsafe, legal crossing.

Any landing illegaly, can be sent back as there is a safe route.
This also means we can protect the genuine women and kids and not just the strongest military age males capable of better making thebillegalnpassage.

We can have a points system putting most vuntable first and those who line behind wait in safe camps.

Security can be a rotating deployment mixed across Europe, and a few helicopter's there.

Perfectly reasonable to me.

So you're ok with setting up an armed enclave in sovereign territory of another country where you round up undesirables. Let's leave that for the moment.
What, in this hypothetical scenario, would happen when the inevitable human wave rushes the enclave to get on the ships? will the soldiers have orders to shoot? What if some poor bugger in the "processed" crowd has a gun and when the soldiers fire warning shots he fires back in panic. There will be a bloodbath pure and simple.
Not to mention that the only way the current batch of politicians (mine, yours, everyones) is going to do anything is if the problem is right on their doorstep.

konst80hummel wrote:
So you're ok with setting up an armed enclave in sovereign territory of another country where you round up undesirables.

What are you harping about. At least this time its not a prison in the middle of a deathworld replete with drop bears, flying great white sharks, poisonous spiders, super ants, and the occasional homicidal kangaroo.

Actually I think the UK was already doing this to a certain degree. I can't remember where I read it but the policy was to use the refugee camps out there to process asylum seekers rather than having them run the deadly gauntlet to reach Europe.

konst80hummel wrote:
So you're ok with setting up an armed enclave in sovereign territory of another country where you round up undesirables. Let's leave that for the moment.
What, in this hypothetical scenario, would happen when the inevitable human wave rushes the enclave to get on the ships? will the soldiers have orders to shoot? What if some poor bugger in the "processed" crowd has a gun and when the soldiers fire warning shots he fires back in panic. There will be a bloodbath pure and simple.
Not to mention that the only way the current batch of politicians (mine, yours, everyones) is going to do anything is if the problem is right on their doorstep.

Because we build the Cadia of processing centres that would make Dorn weap tears of joy.
Secondly thr ships would only be docked when loading, no other times.

The system would be divided into zones. One for new arivals.
One for processing, medical checks and application.

A zone for failed and out and a zone for cleared to cross yo wait for there turn to go to Europe.

All ringed by a veritable maginot line so only way in is legaly via application.

Lastly the centre is for filtering those who deserve application. If you are a legitimate refugee you will be safe, and given asylum.
If not you will be cycled out.

So.. Got any other ideas. Right now the current system is broke as hell already and Greece and Italy seen landings by yhr thousands daily at height.

If you where fleeing war and genuine it would be a safe way to get across the sea.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:


I'm not sure if I should lecture you on how an attack that kills 100 people or less is not really that big

Christ, could you be any less callous?

He could be arguing that we should let people drown in the Aegean.

Straw Man. When have I ever said that? People in distress on the seas should be rescued, no matter who they are.

Whether they're permitted to continue on to their desired destination (Europe) or immediately deported back to their country of origin is however a different matter.

It's only a strawman if I'm claiming that's your position. I didn't. You asked, sarcastically, if BaronIveagh could be any less callous. I responded that he could be arguing that we should let people drown in the Aegean. That is, in my opinion, far more callous than the remark made by BaronIveagh. It's also an argument that some posters on this forum have actually made. At no point in my post did I claim that was your position, nor was that my intention.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:


It's only a strawman if I'm claiming that's your position. I didn't. You asked, sarcastically, if BaronIveagh could be any less callous. I responded that he could be arguing that we should let people drown in the Aegean. That is, in my opinion, far more callous than the remark made by BaronIveagh. It's also an argument that some posters on this forum have actually made. At no point in my post did I claim that was your position, nor was that my intention.

Stop and consider this, for a moment, long time posters: Walrus just pointed out that *I* am not the source of the most callous statements here. Some of you may wish to check for Horsemen riding through the sky in your immediate area. For the record, I remind all of you that I called this whole mess sometime back, and was accused of being callous and a warmonger for suggesting that nipping it in the bud militarily before it got out of hand might be the best course of action for all involved. Sadly, that did not happen. For a variety of reasons.

Further, I stand by my statement that 100 dead is not a lot, all told, and sort of the lower limit of what I see as a 'massacre'. He has no idea how bad things are for some of these people, nor just what the rest of the world has been having to deal with, based on his inability to grasp the difference between the horrors of Syria and what goes on in Saudi Arabia. Don't get me wrong, not a fan of them. But not the same thing.

Let me let you in on something: unless the police are patrolling in groups of AFVs, you ain't close to a favela. These are people fleeing someplace that makes your wildest nightmares of the slums of Rio look like a paradise.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:


It's only a strawman if I'm claiming that's your position. I didn't. You asked, sarcastically, if BaronIveagh could be any less callous. I responded that he could be arguing that we should let people drown in the Aegean. That is, in my opinion, far more callous than the remark made by BaronIveagh. It's also an argument that some posters on this forum have actually made. At no point in my post did I claim that was your position, nor was that my intention.

We don't let people drown actually. Not sure about greek seas but when it comes to boats that sails from north africa european ships saves those illegals in african seas, a few km from where they start sailing. The system that grants benefits for everyone even if you're not a refugee or at least allows you to stay (and become a criminal) in europe no matter where you come from encourages people to travel illegally and risk their life across the sea. If we send back all the illegals in short times only a few people would continue to try to reach europe risking their lives, and we would stop most of these deaths in our seas. That's why it's better investing in their countries rather that give them nothing once they arrive because they don't have possibilities to have a real life and meanwhile letting people drown. Among africans that arrive in italy only a few of them get the status of refugee, the other ones can't be returned in their countries as they don't want them back and our police can't use the force if they refuse to go back voluntarily. They all become criminals as they don't get refugees benefits and can't live otherwise, and some turn into terrorists as soon they realize their life has no future or after they get jailed.

You just made a post that replied to a point I never made.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
You just made a post that replied to a point I never made.

Well I've never wanted to reply you or to critique a point that you made, but many people actually believe that we are responsible for many deaths in the sea by not taking illegals directly from african coasts. It's the opposite, those people die because some criminals make them think that they can have a future in europe, which they won't have.

It's very comfortable to simply declare that they'll never have a future in Europe and then pretend that this settles the issue. Even if that we're completely true, we should be working to change that situation, not just throwing our hands in the air and going home with our ball.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
It's very comfortable to simply declare that they'll never have a future in Europe and then pretend that this settles the issue. Even if that we're completely true, we should be working to change that situation, not just throwing our hands in the air and going home with our ball.

I agree, I've always thought that we should invest in some of their countries which means a possibility of mutual business, less criminals here and the chance of saving lives there. The statement that they won't have a future here is a fact, as they are all men, almost illitterate and come to country that already have people that fail to find decent works. But we're not a charity, I know sweden is an extremely rich country but in italy there are millions of unemployed citizens, especially youngsters. So it's ok to start business with those countries but not give them huge amounts of money only to make africans stay there. And I'm talking about countries that are not at war. About wars I agree on helping the refugees but we should also make efforts to stop those wars, and not by words but blood and bullets where needed. Nazism was defeated with a war, occupying berlin and controlling germany for decades.

Syrian army says it shot down Israeli jet

Syria's army high command said in a statement on Friday Israeli jets breached Syrian air space early in the morning and attacked a military target near Palmyra in what it described as an act of aggression that aided Islamic State.

It said its air defenses shot down one of the Israeli jets over what it called "occupied ground" and damaged another.

(Reporting By Angus McDowall; Editing by Janet Lawrence)

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-israel-idUSKBN16O0WL

And Israel says "Lol no we intercepted the missile "

...With an anti-ballistic Arrow missile which is a massive overkill.

It's complicated situation. They are getting more involved. But all modern Russian tanks and aircraft equipped with Israeli electronics and we use Israeli drones. I have some people I know in Israel but none in Syria

Tyran wrote:
And Israel says "Lol no we intercepted the missile "

...With an anti-ballistic Arrow missile which is a massive overkill.

Maybe they wanted a chance at a real test of the system?

If Israel insists on bombing the Syrian army, Syria has every right to shoot back. And I say that as someone who typically supports Israel.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
If Israel insists on bombing the Syrian army, Syria has every right to shoot back. And I say that as someone who typically supports Israel.

Well yeah, the problem for Assad is that Israel still will win an engagement and neither side really wants to escalate.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:


I'm not sure if I should lecture you on how an attack that kills 100 people or less is not really that big

Christ, could you be any less callous?

He could be arguing that we should let people drown in the Aegean.

Straw Man. When have I ever said that?

You didn't. It's a callback to an infamous post.

That's certainly an expensive use of an anti-ballistic missile, one that works dealing with an isolated engagement and limited numbers, but I wouldn't expect the Israeli's to be able to utilize the Arrow system like that in any greater capacity to intercept SAM's on a routine basis in a larger conventional conflict.

Tyran wrote:
And Israel says "Lol no we intercepted the missile "

...With an anti-ballistic Arrow missile which is a massive overkill.

I've seen worse.

 Ouze wrote:

Tyran wrote:
And Israel says "Lol no we intercepted the missile "

...With an anti-ballistic Arrow missile which is a massive overkill.

I've seen worse.

You know, it's funny to see a patriot take out an Amazon.com quadcopter, but I've been mulling over the idea of a networked 'swarmer' application where each quad is basically a tiny bomb. 500x$200 and some c4. In theory, cost effective and actually effective. Load them with a simple AI and th3ey might even be able to find their own way to the target through simple problem solving.

Imagine,you might be able to wipe out an army for the price of a Zumwalt.

The target would need to be an Arab gak tier in competence to fall for that.

Tyran wrote:
The target would need to be an Arab gak tier in competence to fall for that.

A swarm of drones, with C4 or equivalent. they don't even all need to work. Within a city they aren't being 'intercepted'. if you could do something like that in the west, Russia or SE Asia the effects would be phenomenal compared to the effort.

Various militaries and groups like ISIS are already experimenting with stuff like that, just loading cheap drones with small bombs or grenades. Right now it's mostly just harrassment/morale attacks, but there's a lot of viable conventional use in the concept.

 Mr. Burning wrote:

Tyran wrote:
The target would need to be an Arab gak tier in competence to fall for that.

A swarm of drones, with C4 or equivalent. they don't even all need to work. Within a city they aren't being 'intercepted'. if you could do something like that in the west, Russia or SE Asia the effects would be phenomenal compared to the effort.

Drones aren't hard too shot down. But more importantly, we don't have the AI needed to make that work.

Tyran wrote:

 Mr. Burning wrote:

Tyran wrote:
The target would need to be an Arab gak tier in competence to fall for that.

A swarm of drones, with C4 or equivalent. they don't even all need to work. Within a city they aren't being 'intercepted'. if you could do something like that in the west, Russia or SE Asia the effects would be phenomenal compared to the effort.

Drones aren't hard too shot down. But more importantly, we don't have the AI needed to make that work.

Against north Korea would work.
A few hundred drones each with a light weight anti tank warhead dropped over head with identifying target AI linked to a camera.
They then fly down and awarm over the armoured formation taking out a large number of targets.

Does not need a complex Ai to target moving targets that meet a certain area and time criteria.
Of not they just self destruct.

 jhe90 wrote:

Tyran wrote:

 Mr. Burning wrote:

Tyran wrote:
The target would need to be an Arab gak tier in competence to fall for that.

A swarm of drones, with C4 or equivalent. they don't even all need to work. Within a city they aren't being 'intercepted'. if you could do something like that in the west, Russia or SE Asia the effects would be phenomenal compared to the effort.

Drones aren't hard too shot down. But more importantly, we don't have the AI needed to make that work.

Against north Korea would work.
A few hundred drones each with a light weight anti tank warhead dropped over head with identifying target AI linked to a camera.
They then fly down and awarm over the armoured formation taking out a large number of targets.

Does not need a complex Ai to target moving targets that meet a certain area and time criteria.
Of not they just self destruct.

What stopping the North Koreans from simply shooting the drones? Assuming they have basic situational awareness.