Greenpeace asks government to send a gunboat!

mike65

from rte.ie

The Department of the Environment has moved to reassure the public that two ships transporting weapons-grade plutonium past the south coast today will not enter Irish waters.

A spokesman said that while the coastguard and the Aer Corps were monitoring the situation, the Government had received assurances that the vessels will remain in international waters.

The vessels are carrying more than 300 pounds of plutonium from US nuclear warheads.


Green Party demands defence of Irish waters

The Green Party is demanding that Irish naval vessels be sent off the south coast to ensure that two ships carrying weapons-grade plutonium to France do not enter Ireland's territorial waters.

Party leader Trevor Sargent said assurances given to the Irish Government from the US and France were not enough and that the transport of such a deadly cargo was completely unjustifiable.

The weapons-grade plutonium on board will be recycled into nuclear fuel in France and then transported back to the United States.

The environmental group Greenpeace says it is awaiting the ships with a flotilla. The group may set up road blockades to prevent the plutonium being transported to processing plants in southeast France.

I dispair, I dont need assurances thankyou, as for Greenpeace what would they expect the navy to do if the ships entered Irish waters? Fire a few flares? Sink the vessels? Jump up and down and look annoyed? Oh sorry thats Greenpeaces job. :rolleyes:

Mike.

Champ

Well it wouldn't hurt to have a few ships on the border to help make sure that the door isn't wide open; ina sense. After all these ships are suppose to remain in international waters; though you do make a practical point in that if action is obliged; what can the navy do? Escort them out? I doubt the crews of these cargo vessels would want anything remotely dangerous to occur; especially while they're onboard.. :rolleyes:

Stimpyone

Champ wrote:

Well it wouldn't hurt to have a few ships on the border to help make sure that the door isn't wide open; ina sense. After all these ships are suppose to remain in international waters; though you do make a practical point in that if action is obliged; what can the navy do? Escort them out? I doubt the crews of these cargo vessels would want anything remotely dangerous to occur; especially while they're onboard.. :rolleyes:

Are these the same Greens that wanted to scrap the Naval Service a replace it with a Coast Guard :rolleyes:

pete

mike65 wrote:

from rte.ie


I dispair, I dont need assurances thankyou, as for Greenpeace what would they expect the navy to do if the ships entered Irish waters? Fire a few flares? Sink the vessels? Jump up and down and look annoyed? Oh sorry thats Greenpeaces job. :rolleyes:

Mike.

Greenpeace and the Green Party are not one and the same.

Green Party = Irish political party; wanted the naval vessels to maintain the integrity of Irish territorial waters

Greenpeace = International environmentalists; bringing own flotilla.

Hope this helps,
pete

bonkey

Forgive me for being thick, but WTF would the gunboats do if a nuclear-material-carrying ship entered Irish waters? Try to sink it?

jc

PH01

bonkey wrote:

Forgive me for being thick, but WTF would the gunboats do if a nuclear-material-carrying ship entered Irish waters? Try to sink it?

jc

Errrr, ya! Why not. We have to protect our territorial waters don't we? And while they're at it thay can sink a few Spanish fishing boats as well.

Don't what Greenpeace are thinking really. I suppose we could stop them coming into our waters, but what's the point in that? Like are we going to stop every body who is passing through our waters with a toxic shipment?
And I wonder if Greenpeace has asked the British Government the same? Oh, just think of the fuss that would cause.

Zulu

bonkey wrote:

Forgive me for being thick, but WTF would the gunboats do if a nuclear-material-carrying ship entered Irish waters? Try to sink it?

jc

Fire a warning shot firstly.
Secondly board the vessal, and arrest the captain.

PH01

Zulu wrote:

Fire a warning shot firstly.
Secondly board the vessal, and arrest the captain.

...then make him walk the plank! A'Har me harties!

sliabh

While you are all having fun discussing daft options out here in the real world what is going to happen is (as has happend for previous visits by these ships):

The air corp Casa's will monitor the vessels to ensure that they remain outside the 200 mile limit. If they were to do so (and I can't think why they would) then the monitoring vessels/aircraft would radio an advisory warning. This would probably be followed up later with some level of diplomatic note or protest.

Talk of firing on these ships, ramming them or even threatening them is about as realistic as the guy from one of the fishing organisations that suggested the navy randomly depth charge the Irish sea to keep it safe for fishermen from UK and US submarines.

Zulu

Nobody said anything about ramming.
Boarding is a definate option. (Although unlikely)

Gilgamesh

I agree with sliabh, I mean what CAN they really do in this situation, nuke a nuke transporter, I don't think so.
they can't fire upon the vessel as this could cause more harm to the environment than just letting it carry on.
I think the Irish government woul dhave a cry about this, but I don't really think that more than that can happen.
the Irish just can't afford to take drastic measures in these matters.

Zulu

Have I stepped into a different dimension? Nuke the.... Shoot the.... Ram the....

The navy can: Board the vessel. Arrest the captain. Commandeer the vessel.

Trojan

So you think a ship from the US, carrying weapons grade plutonium, is completely defenseless?

I'd be quite surprised if our Navy could board it and arrest the captain, and I'd be quite worried that any other armed group could do the same.

sliabh

Zulu wrote:

The navy can: Board the vessel. Arrest the captain. Commandeer the vessel.

First off, the ship is not going to enter Irish waters. It has no need and it just creates diplomatic hassle. The government has requested that is stay away and that ends that. All the talk about this is just posturing by the like of Greenpeace to draw attention to the fact that this stuff is being transported (which I am not too happy about myself).

Second, the Pacific Teal and the Pacific Pintail are not bog standard freighters. They were commissioned and designed purely with the transport of high risk nuclear material in mind. They are armed with deck guns as well as a compliment of armed security people on board. The risk of terrorists getting this material is pretty minimal. If I was out to get some nuclear material I'd go somewhere easier like the ex-Soviet republics where corrupt resource starved governments will turn a blind eye, before I try to knock off an armed freighter of a first world country on the high seas (in one of the world's busiest shipping regions, with no nearby safe havens)

Third, talk of boarding, arresting the captain, commandeering the vessels, etc is nonsense. Even if they entered Irish waters and the state carried out such a move (both possibilities are way out there on the tin foil hat scale) can you imagine the scale of the diplomatic incident this would case? This would be on a par with the governement deciding to storm the UK or US embasies!

Zulu

Trojan wrote:

So you think a ship from the US, carrying weapons grade plutonium, is completely defenseless?

I'd be quite surprised if our Navy could board it and arrest the captain, and I'd be quite worried that any other armed group could do the same.

Well, defenseless or not, if it was in Irish waters it would hardly deny the Irish navy access. We're not at war with the seppos, sorry, Americans.

bonkey

Zulu wrote:

Have I stepped into a different dimension? Nuke the.... Shoot the.... Ram the....

The navy can: Board the vessel. Arrest the captain. Commandeer the vessel.

No. The navy is authorised, and can try to do these things. Thats a completely different reality.

If a nuclear transport decided that - for whatever reason - it was ignoring Irish law and entering our waters illegally, exactly what makes you think it wouldn't continue to ignore Irish law, and refuse to allow itself to be stopped, boarded, its captain arrested and the vessel commandeered?

I mean...seriously..."lets invade tehir national waters, but when they object, we'll put our hands up and say 'oops' and let them arrest us, comandeer our boat, etc."???

So...again I ask...what is the point of the gunboat? A non-armed vessel would offer the same capability if the nuclear transport was going to play ball. If it wasn't gonna play ball, then an unarmed boat still has most of the same capabilities, right up to the "you'll have to sink us to continue through our waters" deterrant.

The only capability a gunboat has that a regular boat would not is firepower (you'd never guess from the name)....and it was a gun boat which was requested by Greenpeace. So clearly, Greenpeace are intimating that - should the highly unlikely happen and the nuclear transport takes a shortcut through Irish waters - we should be in a position to use force to deter these people.

The only way force could be a deterrant is if the Irish gunboats could threaten the safety of the transport. Now, maybe someone here knows boats a hell of a lot better than I do, but last I checked there was no sure-fire way of disabling a boat through teh use of firepower that didn't also risk sinking it.

So Greenpeace's request for a gunboat - to me at least - suggests that they would rather risk seeing nuclear material spread over the sea-floor of the Irish Sea than they would allow the boat carrying it to pass through said waters illegally and unopposed.....which is just stupid.

jc

bonkey

Zulu wrote:

Well, defenseless or not, if it was in Irish waters it would hardly deny the Irish navy access. We're not at war with the seppos, sorry, Americans.

You should check back on teh last times US warships entered Irish waters.

In every occasion, they refused to answer the question on whether or not they were carrying nuclear weapons for national security / secrecy reasons. Had they answered in teh affirmative, they would not have been allowed access to Irish waters. The US having refused to answer, the Irish allowed them access anyway - but were never allowed access to verify whether or not the ships carried nukes.

So I very much doubt that a US ship, carrying weapons-grade material would allow the navy access. To do so would immediately confirm that the ship was illegally in Irish waters.

jc

sliabh

bonkey wrote:

You should check back on teh last times US warships entered Irish waters.

In every occasion, they refused to answer the question on whether or not they were carrying nuclear weapons for national security / secrecy reasons. Had they answered in teh affirmative, they would not have been allowed access to Irish waters. The US having refused to answer, the Irish allowed them access anyway - but were never allowed access to verify whether or not the ships carried nukes.

So I very much doubt that a US ship, carrying weapons-grade material would allow the navy access. To do so would immediately confirm that the ship was illegally in Irish waters.

But as we are not a self declared nuclear free zone a vessel with nuclear material can be in Irish waters legally.

Other countries do approach this differently. I believe in New Zealand the government asks for confirmation that the vessel is nuclear free and if it is not given (as will happen with US ship as the policy is to neither confirm or deny) then it is refused access.

PH01

I still say the captain should walk the plank. Ah'harr!

Zulu

It's a show of force. Greenpeace evidently don't want the ship sunk.

bonkey

Zulu wrote:

It's a show of force. Greenpeace evidently don't want the ship sunk.

Unless you are clearly willing to use it, a display of weaponry is not a show of force.

jc

Zulu

It could be there to be used on another target.

Zulu

sliabh wrote:

Third, talk of boarding, arresting the captain, commandeering the vessels, etc is nonsense. Even if they entered Irish waters and the state carried out such a move (both possibilities are way out there on the tin foil hat scale) can you imagine the scale of the diplomatic incident this would case? This would be on a par with the governement deciding to storm the UK or US embasies!

Absoultly true, but then htis whole conversation is highly unlikly.

sceptre

Zulu wrote:

It could be there to be used on another target.

Like a tuna boat? If they're not willing to actually use it on the nucular wessel then they might as well leave it at home. Otherwise it's a clear case of "hey, we've got guns and we're afraid to use them on you! Fear us!"

Zulu

Lets be clear on this. The Irish are NEVER going to fire on an American ship/plane/car/whatever.

bonkey

So what?

Look - someone (Greenpeace) wanted those boats out there. The real question is not whether or not this is likely to happen, or what the boats could do if the ened did arise. The question is what on earth Greenpeace were thinking with a suggestion like this.

No matter which way you look at it, its stupid.

Yes, you're right...Ireland would (most probably) never fire on the vessels. Greenpeace and the US presumably both know this, so why did Greenpeace ask for gunships to protect against the eventuality of illegal entry into our waters?

Similarly, Greenpeace know that even were the situation not so unlikely, that the Irish still couldn't realistically fire on the boats, unless we were willing to risk nuclear contamination of our national waters as a cost of "protecting" them...

No matter which way I look at it - likely, unlikely, or flat-out "not gonna happen", I still end up with the same conclusion...that being that this request was a reputation-damaging gaffe by G'peace.

Zulu

...or a publicity stunt cause the raise the profile of the incident in the midea.

Wrestlemania

Zulu wrote:

Have I stepped into a different dimension? Nuke the.... Shoot the.... Ram the....

The navy can: Board the vessel. Arrest the captain. Commandeer the vessel.

Zulu the Naval service are not there to uphold any moronic idea's by the terrorist of Greenpeace, the french did'nt do enough in New Zeland all those years ago.

I was in the Navy and one thing is a fact no salior will board such a ship and arresting a captain is plausiable as Mr.Blobby going on board and doing the same.

If this ship enters terrirotial waters so be it, it is in transit and not dumping the cargo.

All get a grip, this happens regularly and we ship ourselves millions of tonnes of old ordance (Explosives etc) I have been on details were I have guraded this...We are not much better.

Again Green peace trying to get publicity for themselves and should be arrested as a Nautical obstruction and danger to other vessels these people are pure gombeens and cause more damage than good.

Zulu

Emm thanks for that.

bonkey

Wrestlemania wrote:

I was in the Navy

Jeez man...the IDF, the Irish Navy....

you sho' get around in them military circles.

jc

magick

I can just imagine 2 GreenPeace Protesters off the westcoast looking angry with 2 signs as they watch the ships pass by.."down with this sort of thing" "Careful now"

pete

bonkey wrote:

So what?

Look - someone (Greenpeace) wanted those boats out there. The real question is not whether or not this is likely to happen, or what the boats could do if the ened did arise. The question is what on earth Greenpeace were thinking with a suggestion like this.

No matter which way you look at it, its stupid.

Yes, you're right...Ireland would (most probably) never fire on the vessels. Greenpeace and the US presumably both know this, so why did Greenpeace ask for gunships to protect against the eventuality of illegal entry into our waters?

Similarly, Greenpeace know that even were the situation not so unlikely, that the Irish still couldn't realistically fire on the boats, unless we were willing to risk nuclear contamination of our national waters as a cost of "protecting" them...

No matter which way I look at it - likely, unlikely, or flat-out "not gonna happen", I still end up with the same conclusion...that being that this request was a reputation-damaging gaffe by G'peace.

Dude - go back and read the first post

According to the quoted news story GREENPEACE did not call for the irish navy to intervene the GREEN PARTY did.

Furthermore, nobody asked anyone to fire on anyone else.

bonkey

D'oh. My bad.

In that case...take the above argument and apply it to the Green Party instead...its still just as valid. Its still a nonsensical request...

pete

see, i just don't get why a request from an irish political party that the irish government send out the irish navy to prevent (and not necessarily by force of arms) unwanted vessels entering irish territorial waters is the cause of such ridicule.

what else are the irish navy for, if not to help protect the integrity of our territorial waters?


nobody is suggesting that the Eithne be sent out to sink anyone.

Nuttzz

See..... if we had those fighter jets that people were "discussing" here a while ago we could fly out and stop them

Cant they use a plane to spot these ships and ask them to turn away, but with a sh1t load of nuc material on board I think they can do what they like and no one will get in their way

pete

Although sometimes it may not look like it, there's more to international relations than "yeah? well what are you gonna do about it? you and whose army?"

It's not always about having to go out and physically prevent something from happening.

sliabh

The real issue here is the Green Party request. Not what the Navy can and will do.

The government has requested the ships do not enter Irish waters (as has happend with these sort of shipments in the past) and they have always respected such requests in the past. Not that a ship going from the US to France needs to go through Irish waters anyway.

What this is is a publicity ploy by the Green party. They are making a big deal of this to generate publicity for themselves and their position. And all this discussion is playing along with that.

Well at least I hope they are. Because if they are being serious then they are totally unhinged.

narommy

sliabh wrote:

Because if they are being serious then they are totally unhinged.

Agreed!

I hope they play no part in next government and with ideas like this i can't see many people voting for them...........so i'm happy

There is really no need for them. The larger parties have a reasonable and balanced attitude to the environment.

Moriarty

sliabh wrote:

But as we are not a self declared nuclear free zone a vessel with nuclear material can be in Irish waters legally.

Other countries do approach this differently. I believe in New Zealand the government asks for confirmation that the vessel is nuclear free and if it is not given (as will happen with US ship as the policy is to neither confirm or deny) then it is refused access.

There's no restriction on nuclear materials being in irish waters, but it's against the law for any ship carrying nuclear materials to dock at any port here (s'all in the harbours act).

nadir

I dont get what Greenpeace are complaining about!
I mean this is nuclear material from dissarmed warheads, right! I mean, this is good that they are disposing of the material in Reactors, like instead of just dumping it under ground, they are going to actually going to get rid of it properly, and usefully.
Afaik the States doesn't have the facilities to do this exact job, and France was the best option.
Now im not sure of all the facts here, but am I totally missing the point or something, cause I just dont understand what greenpeace are going on about.

Victor

sliabh wrote:

The air corp Casa's will monitor the vessels to ensure that they remain outside the 200 mile limit.

The territiorial limit is 12nm and it is only within this limit that any action could be taken (probably on grounds of possessing radioactive material). The 200nm is the EEZ, which is high seas and accessible to all.