Britain to go to war with Spain over Gibraltar ?

Stars and Stripes

Well you have to wonder is this guy sane or what, mind you it says a lot about the mindset of the British establishment and those who support Brexit :rolleyes: Going to war over a rock with a population of around 32,000 peeing off the rest of the EU which it's in enough trouble with due to Brexit for trade would be a bright idea wouldn't it. And this former rear admiral in the British navy of course hopes the USA will back them up And with an estimated 381,025 British citizens living in Spain it would be uncomfortable them there now wouldn't it. Does this British imperialist need to be told it's 2017 not 1617 or what ?


"Britain could cripple Spain if war broke out over Gibraltar claims ex-Royal Navy commander"
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3235404/britain-gibraltar-spain-war-brexit/

sparky42

It's the Sun of course they found some twat who just wants to beat his chest, doesn't mean feck all. The UK is not going to do anything military over Gibraltar. Hell this Admiral just wants more money for the RN (not a surprise given it's state).

That being said, he's not wrong about the weight of militaries, I mean at least the RN subs can surface after diving, something the overweight Spanish SSK's can't...

mikeym

There wont be a war.

Thousands of British tourists go to Spain every year.

Lots of Ex Pat Brits living in Spain aswell.

A war would be damaging to the Spanish tourism industry.

uck51js9zml2yt

If it gets the UK a deal, Gibraltar is Spanish.
As for a war... Uk v Europe?? Not going to happen.

Gatling

Boats from spain in Gibraltar waters ,that's a more than regular occurrence neither will be going to war against each other

ZeroThreat

About time they gave those Frizzy haired, sallow skinned Johnny (Juan-y) foreigners a bally good thrashing!!!!




Kidding.

sparky42

Gatling wrote: »

Boats from spain in Gibraltar waters ,that's a more than regular occurrence neither will be going to war against each other

To be fair it wasn't todays incursion that started this farcical story but Howard's act of foot in mouth over the weekend. Why the opinion of a former Tory figure is enough to start this is beyond me though.

ZeroThreat

sparky42 wrote: »

To be fair it wasn't todays incursion that started this farcical story but Howard's act of foot in mouth over the weekend. Why the opinion of a former Tory figure is enough to start this is beyond me though.

Even the Americans noted that the British were a people never happy unless elbows deep in a scrap with another country.

Stars and Stripes

ZeroThreat wrote: »

Even the Americans noted that the British were a people never happy unless elbows deep in a scrap with another country.

Yeah and getting their ar$es handed to them with the Americans having to come to their rescue


Losing Small Wars by Frank Ledwidge - is an excellent book – almost. It provides a devastating, highly readable critique of why Britain's armed forces have fared so badly in two of the country's most recent and controversial conflicts: Iraq and Afghanistan. Of the many military books that have saturated the market in recent years, few have been so precise as this one. It spells out in specific, and at times painful, detail why the British Army was humiliated in Iraq.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/bookreviews/8652343/Losing-Small-Wars-by-Frank-Ledwidge-review.html

sparky42

Stars and Stripes wrote: »

Yeah and getting their ar$es handed to them with the Americans having to come to their rescue


Losing Small Wars by Frank Ledwidge - is an excellent book – almost. It provides a devastating, highly readable critique of why Britain’s armed forces have fared so badly in two of the country’s most recent and controversial conflicts: Iraq and Afghanistan. Of the many military books that have saturated the market in recent years, few have been so precise as this one. It spells out in specific, and at times painful, detail why the British Army was humiliated in Iraq.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/bookreviews/8652343/Losing-Small-Wars-by-Frank-Ledwidge-review.html

You do realise for all your smugness regarding the UK's issues, other than arguable France they are the best Europe has in combat forces right? What does it say about the state of all the rest of them so?

Stars and Stripes

sparky42 wrote: »

To be fair it wasn't todays incursion that started this farcical story but Howard's act of foot in mouth over the weekend. Why the opinion of a former Tory figure is enough to start this is beyond me though.

Howard was a very senior member of the British navy, an ex rear admiral and hence his mindset has got publicity.

sparky42 wrote: »

You do realise for all your smugness regarding the UK's issues, other than arguable France they are the best Europe has in combat forces right? What does it say about the state of all the rest of them so?

Is that right, who reckons that ? The Brits themselves I presume or was there a European championship of military capability recently. That's the Brits again like that d!ckhead of that ex high ranking officer Howard, always grossly over estimating themselves, gives the rest of us a chuckle from time to time though.

sparky42

Stars and Stripes wrote: »

Howard was a very senior member of the British navy, an ex rear admiral and hence his mindset has got publicity.

Is that right, who reckons that ? The Brits themselves I presume or was there a European championship of military capability recently. That's the Brits again like that d!ckhead of that ex high ranking officer Howard, always grossly over estimating themselves, gives the rest of us a chuckle from time to time though.

No reality, it's been highly and well published about the systemic issues the German's have for example in both their land and air forces and equipment. The French are the only others with SSN's (which give a significant tactical advantage) but they are a generation older than the Astutes. The UK Forces have had more long term ground operations than many of the EU NATO nations (some of whom had significant restrictions in deployments limiting active combat situations).

Again get over the kneejerk British slagging and look at what the others have been doing in the same time.

Keplar240B

Anyone want to war game it?

The Spanish storm Gib tomorrow
What could Britain do?

Victor

Keplar240B wrote: »

Anyone want to war game it?

The Spanish storm Gib tomorrow
What could Britain do?

Threaten to nuke Spain. Not a lot else.

Sure, over a period of months or years, they could sink the entire Spanish Navy - they couldn't do it quickly, because the Spanish Air Force would give it near total air superiority in the area of operations. Note that the Royal Navy has no current aircraft carriers or carrier aircraft.

However, assembling an invasion force against the Spanish Air Force and Army would have serious problems. The Spanish would know to within a few km of where they would intend to land.

A setback for the Spanish would be the lack of long-range airborne radar.

Stars and Stripes

ZeroThreat wrote: »

About time they gave those Frizzy haired, sallow skinned Johnny (Juan-y) foreigners a bally good thrashing!!!!




Kidding.

DON'T PANIC .... DON'T PANIC .... BLIGHTY WILL SHOW JOHNNY FOREIGNER THEY MEAN BUSINESS !!!

AlanG

While the British are undoubtedly a superior military force to Spain they would certainly not be capable of launching an expeditionary force capable of retaking an overseas territory which had a defensive position that can be reinforced by land. That is why they surrendered Hong Kong without a fight when the lease on the new territories expired. Even a naval blockade would be of limited use unless Spain were expelled from the EU.
Either way this wont happen in our lifetimes.

Stars and Stripes

sparky42 wrote: »

No reality, it's been highly and well published about the systemic issues the German's have for example in both their land and air forces and equipment. The French are the only others with SSN's (which give a significant tactical advantage) but they are a generation older than the Astutes. The UK Forces have had more long term ground operations than many of the EU NATO nations (some of whom had significant restrictions in deployments limiting active combat situations).

Again get over the kneejerk British slagging and look at what the others have been doing in the same time.

SSN's nuking Spain or even inferring it, well that would be clever since there's an estimated 381,025 British citizens living in Spain and hundreds of thousands of other EU citizens, might wipe out the population of Gibraltar itself while they were at it. A bit like nuking New York state because of a claim on Manhattan island. And how might Frau Merkel and co. view any threats to fellow EU member Spain ? Like the Americans did over Suez in 1956 they might tell the Bundesbank/EU Central bank to dump Sterling bonds and reserves causing a world wide run on the pound with disastrous consequences for Britain. But as stated, it just goes to show the mindset of many in the British establishment like Rear Admiral Howard with illusions of British empire 2.0.

As for the UK Forces have had more long term ground operations, it's a pity they couldn't learn from them as pointed out Uncle Sam had to divert troops and resources to save them in Basra and Helmand. For feck's sake, didn't the Afghan villagers have to give them cattle trucks to evacuate from Helmand, so much for SSN's etc

gallag

Victor wrote: »

Threaten to nuke Spain. Not a lot else.

Sure, over a period of months or years, they could sink the entire Spanish Navy - they couldn't do it quickly, because the Spanish Air Force would give it near total air superiority in the area of operations. Note that the Royal Navy has no current aircraft carriers or carrier aircraft.

However, assembling an invasion force against the Spanish Air Force and Army would have serious problems. The Spanish would know to within a few km of where they would intend to land.

A setback for the Spanish would be the lack of long-range airborne radar.

Ok, playing armchair General war games... Spain invades the rock, no other factors like Argentina taking advantage of the situation or help from third party's? NO hiccups like weapons partners stopping supplys? For example is it France make the aster missiles for the 45's?

FANTASY.

Wouldn't need to rush! I'd put a massive effort into finishing the carrier's, the the QE is 90% so 24hr shifts with bonuses, still need the aircraft so that would ultimately be the bottleneck but with a push try to get 12-18 ready within 12-16 months. Push BAE to finish remaining astute subs and push forward with type 26 frigate program, order 2 more type 45's with better engine's, won't be ready in time but nice as a back up to potential loss and would be ready for the POW carrier coming on line. Look to send a carrier group within 14-18 months from invasion consisting of 1x QE carrier, 4 type 45's, 4 astute subs few 23's and support ships. Not much chance of any of this happening though lol.

Realistically...

Would need an immediate response due to public pressure, would have to keep some hulls out in the Falkland islands as the argies would capitalise if at all possible, Spain has three good diesel subs but this would be the area the UK has a massive advantage, 11 subs and the astute class is one of the finest, in a deep water skirmish the astute would dominate anything the Spanish have but in more shallow coastal waters I don't know but I would try and use the sub advantage to blockade the Mediterranean and protect the 3 45's I would park at maximum range from Gibraltar to control the air, no need for a carrier as it would be possible to strike Spain from mainland UK with refuelling in air, could strike from Cyprus also. I would imagine after a short period of time the Spanish people would put enough pressure on their government to sue for peace. Can't see anything but a British win.

TireeTerror

Stars and Stripes wrote: »

Yeah and getting their ar$es handed to them with the Americans having to come to their rescue


Losing Small Wars by Frank Ledwidge - is an excellent book – almost. It provides a devastating, highly readable critique of why Britain's armed forces have fared so badly in two of the country's most recent and controversial conflicts: Iraq and Afghanistan. Of the many military books that have saturated the market in recent years, few have been so precise as this one. It spells out in specific, and at times painful, detail why the British Army was humiliated in Iraq.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/bookreviews/8652343/Losing-Small-Wars-by-Frank-Ledwidge-review.html

and yet it would be the British forces first to save Ireland from any conflict given that the Irish forces are a toy military force. Jesus the allegedly disbanded IRA probably has more power.

Stars and Stripes

gallag wrote: »

Ok, playing armchair General war games... Spain invades the rock, no other factors like Argentina taking advantage of the situation or help from third party's? NO hiccups like weapons partners stopping supplys? For example is it France make the aster missiles for the 45's?

FANTASY.

Wouldn't need to rush! I'd put a massive effort into finishing the carrier's, the the QE is 90% so 24hr shifts with bonuses, still need the aircraft so that would ultimately be the bottleneck but with a push try to get 12-18 ready within 12-16 months. Push BAE to finish remaining astute subs and push forward with type 26 frigate program, order 2 more type 45's with better engine's, won't be ready in time but nice as a back up to potential loss and would be ready for the POW carrier coming on line. Look to send a carrier group within 14-18 months from invasion consisting of 1x QE carrier, 4 type 45's, 4 astute subs few 23's and support ships. Not much chance of any of this happening though lol.

Realistically...

Would need an immediate response due to public pressure, would have to keep some hulls out in the Falkland islands as the argies would capitalise if at all possible, Spain has three good diesel subs but this would be the area the UK has a massive advantage, 11 subs and the astute class is one of the finest, in a deep water skirmish the astute would dominate anything the Spanish have but in more shallow coastal waters I don't know but I would try and use the sub advantage to blockade the Mediterranean and protect the 3 45's I would park at maximum range from Gibraltar to control the air, no need for a carrier as it would be possible to strike Spain from mainland UK with refuelling in air, could strike from Cyprus also. I would imagine after a short period of time the Spanish people would put enough pressure on their government to sue for peace. Can't see anything but a British win.

Would the British public, for whom Brexit was 52.5% was leave and Remain 47.5%, not be a bit to put it mildly pessimistic to start a war with Spain and pee off the rest of the EU as their in enough trouble ? As for blockading the Med, again might just slightly pee off France, Italy and other EU countries and north Africa ? And a potential Lusitania type incident wouldn't help the Brits cause would it.

And what if Frau Merkel tells the Bundesbank/EU Central bank to dump Sterling bonds and reserves causing a world wide run on the pound with disastrous consequences for Britain like the Suez crisis in 1956. "Realistically" it's 2017 not 1617.

Stars and Stripes

TireeTerror wrote: »

and yet it would be the British forces first to save Ireland from any conflict given that the Irish forces are a toy military force. Jesus the allegedly disbanded IRA probably has more power.

Oh dear the Paul Williams/Jim Cusack/Tom Clonan Walter Mitty security club is here Let's stick to the Gibraltar discussion thanks.

ohnonotgmail

given Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty surely whoever invades first will be the loser?

gallag

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

given Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty surely whoever invades first will be the loser?

Does it apply to colonies and foreign held territory? Spain's own colonies might take advantage of a war situation.

gallag

Stars and Stripes wrote: »

Would the British public, for whom Brexit was 52.5% was leave and Remain 47.5%, not be a bit to put it mildly pessimistic to start a war with Spain and pee off the rest of the EU as their in enough trouble ? As for blockading the Med, again might just slightly pee off France, Italy and other EU countries and north Africa ? And a potential Lusitania type incident wouldn't help the Brits cause would it.

And what if Frau Merkel tells the Bundesbank/EU Central bank to dump Sterling bonds and reserves causing a world wide run on the pound with disastrous consequences for Britain like the Suez crisis in 1956. "Realistically" it's 2017 not 1617.

Yeah, I believe an attack on British territory would have the majority of the nation unified in demand for retribution see this day 35 years ago as an example. A military blockade for Spanish military ships to stop them getting near the 45's in my example and could/would germany bankrupt itself to protect a spain that attacked a sovereign territory?

ohnonotgmail

gallag wrote: »

Does it apply to colonies and foreign held territory? Spain's own colonies might take advantage of a war situation.

It applies to any attack on a nato member in Europe or North America. Of course as Nato members both are obliged under Article 1 to find a peaceful solution to any disputes.

sparky42

AlanG wrote: »

While the British are undoubtedly a superior military force to Spain they would certainly not be capable of launching an expeditionary force capable of retaking an overseas territory which had a defensive position that can be reinforced by land. That is why they surrendered Hong Kong without a fight when the lease on the new territories expired. Even a naval blockade would be of limited use unless Spain were expelled from the EU.
Either way this wont happen in our lifetimes.

There's a quantum difference between the two situations to be fair, Spain is not China and Gibraltar isn't on the opposite side of the globe. Of course we won't see war between them however.

sparky42

Stars and Stripes wrote: »

SSN's nuking Spain or even inferring it, well that would be clever since there's an estimated 381,025 British citizens living in Spain and hundreds of thousands of other EU citizens, might wipe out the population of Gibraltar itself while they were at it. A bit like nuking New York state because of a claim on Manhattan island. And how might Frau Merkel and co. view any threats to fellow EU member Spain ? Like the Americans did over Suez in 1956 they might tell the Bundesbank/EU Central bank to dump Sterling bonds and reserves causing a world wide run on the pound with disastrous consequences for Britain. But as stated, it just goes to show the mindset of many in the British establishment like Rear Admiral Howard with illusions of British empire 2.0.

As for the UK Forces have had more long term ground operations, it's a pity they couldn't learn from them as pointed out Uncle Sam had to divert troops and resources to save them in Basra and Helmand. For feck's sake, didn't the Afghan villagers have to give them cattle trucks to evacuate from Helmand, so much for SSN's etc

Who the Feck suggested nuking anyone? Hell the SSN's don't even carry nukes you muppet. I gave you examples of the significant difference in capabilities, and again for your sneers about the UK forces, Spains are WORSE!

Stars and Stripes

gallag wrote: »

Yeah, I believe an attack on British territory would have the majority of the nation unified in demand for retribution see this day 35 years ago as an example. A military blockade for Spanish military ships to stop them getting near the 45's in my example and could/would germany bankrupt itself to protect a spain that attacked a sovereign territory?

Ah yes, the British public would be all for it all right, probably to go to war with America too now that the shackles of the EU are gone, time for Britain to show those damned Yankees whose the real boss ! It would be Germany/EU causing an international dumping of the pound disastrously for Britain like the Suez crisis, try reading up on it

sparky42 wrote: »

Who the Feck suggested nuking anyone? Hell the SSN's don't even carry nukes you muppet. I gave you examples of the significant difference in capabilities, and again for your sneers about the UK forces, Spains are WORSE!

An SSN is a nuclear-powered general-purpose attack submarine. SSN is the US Navy hull classification symbol for such vessels with the SS denoting a submarine and the N denotes nuclear power. Well I'm sure the Spanish aren't sh!tting their pants afraid of an all out war with the Brits, but in fairness the Spanish don't need to turn to the Americans every few years like the British do when they get themselves in over their heads.

sparky42

Stars and Stripes wrote: »

An SSN is a nuclear-powered general-purpose attack submarine. SSN is the US Navy hull classification symbol for such vessels with the SS denoting a submarine and the N denotes nuclear power. Well I'm sure the Spanish aren't sh!tting their pants afraid of an all out war with the Brits, but in fairness the Spanish don't need to turn to the Americans every few years like the British do when they get themselves in over their heads.

Yes SSN is the classification for Attack subs which DON'T carry nuclear weapons in UK service, SSBN's are the nuclear boats, so your post about "nuking Spain" was utterly pointless and wrong.

Again you are missing/avoiding the point, the British Forces have far more active combat experience than Spanish forces and are in a better state than the Spanish are.

Drop the nationalistic nonsense and actually deal with reality perhaps.

Victor

sparky42 wrote: »

Who the Feck suggested nuking anyone?

I did.

sparky42 wrote: »

Yes SSN is the classification for Attack subs which DON'T carry nuclear weapons in UK service, SSBN's are the nuclear boats, so your post about "nuking Spain" was utterly pointless and wrong.

"nuclear boat" is an ambiguous term and shouldn't be used.

Lemming

sparky42 wrote: »

Again you are missing/avoiding the point, the British Forces have far more active combat experience than Spanish forces and are in a better state than the Spanish are.

Drop the nationalistic nonsense and actually deal with reality perhaps.

Oh deary me ... and all of you are missing and/or avoiding the point so as to willy wave with little flags tied to ends. The point being missed is namely thus; Britain is not going to march and/or sail its military onto a two-way range with Spain over Gibraltar. In similar fashion, the Spanish would be exceedingly stupid to try it on regardless of outcome.

Seriously. HOW did this thread get past one page, never mind three pages? :-/

Elemonator

The British wouldn't even have to leave their country. Launch missiles from the UK mainland targeting the Spanish Government and infrastructure and its all over.

gallag

Lemming wrote: »

Oh deary me ... and all of you are missing and/or avoiding the point so as to willy wave with little flags tied to ends. The point being missed is namely thus; Britain is not going to march and/or sail its military onto a two-way range with Spain over Gibraltar. In similar fashion, the Spanish would be exceedingly stupid to try it on regardless of outcome.

Seriously. HOW did this thread get past one page, never mind three pages? :-/

Why so serious? Some people like playing armchair General, you don't have to but the comparison of different countries military's is a reasonably natural conversation to have on a military forum.

gallag

Elemonator wrote: »

The British wouldn't even have to leave their country. Launch missiles from the UK mainland targeting the Spanish Government and infrastructure and its all over.

What missiles? Tomahawk? It could just about have the range but are they not a bit slow? Could the Spanish f100 aaw knock them out?

sparky42

gallag wrote: »

What missiles? Tomahawk? It could just about have the range but are they not a bit slow? Could the Spanish f100 aaw knock them out?

If they were in the correct position they would have a chance, the other point would be the UK has a nominal load of about 100 at any given time, not nearly enough to "cripple" a Developed Nation.

Jawgap

Elemonator wrote: »

The British wouldn't even have to leave their country. Launch missiles from the UK mainland targeting the Spanish Government and infrastructure and its all over.

Couldn't the same be said of the Spanish?

Fly up to just off the coast of Brittany and let go with their few dozen Taurus cruise missiles and then turnaround and be back for tapas and wine in the afternoon?

gallag

Jawgap wrote: »

Couldn't the same be said of the Spanish?

Fly up to just off the coast of Brittany and let go with their few dozen Taurus cruise missiles and then turnaround and be back for tapas and wine in the afternoon?

I was just googling the specs of the Taurus there and it got me thinking, how likely is it that the specs we read online are actually near true? Surely knowing range/speed etc is half the battle in countering the weapons? Take the tomohawk, 550mph? Is it heck I reckon, hell a spitfire could shoot that down! That's probably the minimum speed for something of that shape to maintain stable flight! Or is it just to big a secret to keep and I am wrong? They do manage to keep the exact range and speed of most ships unknown, usually estimates on spec pages.

tac foley

gallag wrote: »

I was just googling the specs of the Taurus there and it got me thinking, how likely is it that the specs we read online are actually near true? Surely knowing range/speed etc is half the battle in countering the weapons? Take the tomohawk, 550mph? Is it heck I reckon, hell a spitfire could shoot that down! That's probably the minimum speed for something of that shape to maintain stable flight! Or is it just to big a secret to keep and I am wrong? They do manage to keep the exact range and speed of most ships unknown, usually estimates on spec pages.

You could always ask the Syrians how many THEY managed to shoot down in the last 24 hours.....

tac

sparky42

gallag wrote: »

I was just googling the specs of the Taurus there and it got me thinking, how likely is it that the specs we read online are actually near true? Surely knowing range/speed etc is half the battle in countering the weapons? Take the tomohawk, 550mph? Is it heck I reckon, hell a spitfire could shoot that down! That's probably the minimum speed for something of that shape to maintain stable flight! Or is it just to big a secret to keep and I am wrong? They do manage to keep the exact range and speed of most ships unknown, usually estimates on spec pages.

I think Cruise Missiles do come under Cold War Arms treaties so their specs have to be fairly known (and bare in mind the Tomahawk is fairly old by now even with upgrades), as to the top speed, yeah I'd say that's accurate, it's certainly not a supersonic one.

That doesn't mean there aren't games played with specs, for example the USN has had the exact same rated dive depth for all it's nuclear subs since their first one, even though the material sciences have progressed.

riggsfitz

And while all this is going on on the west side of Europe, with NATO's attention being distracted, the Russian take the east side. ☺

Jawgap

I think the Brits' chances just improved a notch :D:D

https://twitter.com/JMESPARCIA/status/850088123858079744

gallag

tac foley wrote: »

You could always ask the Syrians how many THEY managed to shoot down in the last 24 hours.....

tac

What anti-air capability do the Syrians possess? I know the Russians have their systems there but I would assume political reasons as to why that was not used? I think on paper anyway the s-300 Would easily dispatch tomohawks?

Jawgap

gallag wrote: »

What anti-air capability do the Syrians possess? I know the Russians have their systems there but I would assume political reasons as to why that was not used? I think on paper anyway the s-300 Would easily dispatch tomohawks?

Well, if you can believe the reports some of the TLAMs flew right through the missile engagement zone of the S-400 battery the Ruskies parked at Latakia to protect that airfield while they used it, without being engaged. Either they couldn't see them or they were just 'happy' to let them fly on without engaging them.

It also seems (again, if you can believe the reports) that the Russians were given advanced warning of the strike which is why fewer aircraft were on the base that usual when the missiles arrived.

Also, the Russians are saying 'only' 23 strikes were recorded while the Yanks are saying they launched 59 missiles - which means, obviously enough, some didn't make it. there's a possibility some were brought down by S-300 batteries near Tartous - but it seems no one is claiming to have hit anything, yet.

Stars and Stripes

sparky42 wrote: »

Yes SSN is the classification for Attack subs which DON'T carry nuclear weapons in UK service, SSBN's are the nuclear boats, so your post about "nuking Spain" was utterly pointless and wrong.

Again you are missing/avoiding the point, the British Forces have far more active combat experience than Spanish forces and are in a better state than the Spanish are.

Drop the nationalistic nonsense and actually deal with reality perhaps.

Your the one who brought in SSN to try and be clever but are now claiming to be on about SSBN's eh boyo ! But I stand by my comment as to what does this say about the British establishment and their grandiose sense of power when they're just a secondary power in Europe and a third rate in the world. A grandiose sense of power that a few Brit/unionist bullsh!tters on here who don't actually deal with reality on topics, they seem to think all they have to do on a discussion is say "well the British this" as if that should be the unquestionable end of discussion as no one can better the Brits 'expertise' !!

Nor have you ever commented on the very obvious scenario that Britain is already in more than enough trouble with Brexit (but that of course would be conceding Britain isn't the global superpower like you try to pretend), any threats military or economic inferred over Spain would go down like a lead balloon in Brussels. You don't want Frau Merkel starting a Suez crisis run to crash the pound for starters, doubt if the British navy, airforce and army would be too pleased if they heard "well sorry chaps, the economy crashed and we have no wages for you at the moment, but carry on fighting Johnny Foreigner for wee Gibraltar's sake"

ohnonotgmail

Stars and Stripes wrote: »

Your the one who brought in SSN to try and be clever but are now claiming to be on about SSBN's eh boyo ! Also in your earleir reply's you mentioned Howard just as a tory politician while leaving out his very senior rank as a ex rear admiral as part of your deflection, but I stand by my comment as to what does this say about the British establishment and their grandiose sense of power when they're just a secondary power in Europe and a third rate in the world. A grandiose sense of power that a few Brit/unionist bullsh!tters on here who don't actually deal with reality on topics, they seem to think all they have to do on a discussion is say "well the British this" as if that should be the unquestionable end of discussion as no one can better the Brits 'expertise' !!

Nor have you ever commented on the very obvious scenario that Britain is already in more than enough trouble with Brexit (but that of course would be conceding Britain isn't the global superpower like you try to pretend), any threats military or economic inferred over Spain would go down like a lead balloon in Brussels. You don't want Frau Merkel starting a Suez crisis run to crash the pound for starters, doubt if the British navy, airforce and army would be too pleased if they heard "well sorry chaps, the economy crashed and we have no wages for you at the moment, but carry on fighting Johnny Foreigner for wee Gibraltar's sake"

You need to go back and read the article properly. Michael Howard was a barrister before he became a politician. He has never served. Chris Parry is the retired RN Rear Admiral mentioned in the article.

Stars and Stripes

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

You need to go back and read the article properly. Michael Howard was a barrister before he became a politician. He has never served. Chris Parry is the retired RN Rear Admiral mentioned in the article.

Your right it was this d!ckhead Rear-Admiral Chris Parry and apparently a former director of operational capability at the UK Ministry of Defence. Strengthens my argument about the grandiose mindset of the Brit establishment though OP link not working at the moment but this one is anyway -

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/787061/britain-could-cripple-spain-rear-admiral-chris-parry-gibraltar-royal-navy-commander

Jawgap

Stars and Stripes wrote: »

........

Nor have you ever commented on the very obvious scenario that Britain is already in more than enough trouble with Brexit (but that of course would be conceding Britain isn't the global superpower like you try to pretend), any threats military or economic inferred over Spain would go down like a lead balloon in Brussels. You don't want Frau Merkel starting a Suez crisis run to crash the pound for starters, doubt if the British navy, airforce and army would be too pleased if they heard "well sorry chaps, the economy crashed and we have no wages for you at the moment, but carry on fighting Johnny Foreigner for wee Gibraltar's sake"

How would that work then, Ted?

....only about a third of UK government debt is held externally, and not much of it by Germany.....and Merkel doesn't control monetary policy.....so it's difficult to see how she could "crash" the pound - she may be able to drive its value down by selling off the debt the Germans hold, but the BoE would be delighted to scoop that up at a discount, which would reduce their external debt and over a longer run beef up the economy by reducing the GDP/debt ratio.

Soros broke the pound by shorting it because its value was being artificially maintained in the ERM - as far as I know, sterling isn't being held at some artificial value so its difficult to see how anyone could 'crash' it?

gallag

Stars and Stripes wrote: »

Your the one who brought in SSN to try and be clever but are now claiming to be on about SSBN's eh boyo ! But I stand by my comment as to what does this say about the British establishment and their grandiose sense of power when they're just a secondary power in Europe and a third rate in the world. A grandiose sense of power that a few Brit/unionist bullsh!tters on here who don't actually deal with reality on topics, they seem to think all they have to do on a discussion is say "well the British this" as if that should be the unquestionable end of discussion as no one can better the Brits 'expertise' !!

Nor have you ever commented on the very obvious scenario that Britain is already in more than enough trouble with Brexit (but that of course would be conceding Britain isn't the global superpower like you try to pretend), any threats military or economic inferred over Spain would go down like a lead balloon in Brussels. You don't want Frau Merkel starting a Suez crisis run to crash the pound for starters, doubt if the British navy, airforce and army would be too pleased if they heard "well sorry chaps, the economy crashed and we have no wages for you at the moment, but carry on fighting Johnny Foreigner for wee Gibraltar's sake"

why are you so consumed by the British? And ill bite, secondary power in europe?

sparky42

gallag wrote: »

why are you so consumed by the British? And ill bite, secondary power in europe?

He's a bit special and divorced from reality, I'm not certain how any nuclear power is a "secondary one" even NK with their limited arsenal have shot up the global attention now that they have nukes. The UK is one of 2 in Europe with them, so yeah not secondary in Europe. Not too mention it's still a G8 nation, one of the largest and most experienced militaries in Europe as things stand.

Outside of Trolls and idiots I'm not sure how any of that can be argued.

Stars and Stripes

Jawgap wrote: »

How would that work then, Ted?

....only about a third of UK government debt is held externally, and not much of it by Germany.....and Merkel doesn't control monetary policy.....so it's difficult to see how she could "crash" the pound - she may be able to drive its value down by selling off the debt the Germans hold, but the BoE would be delighted to scoop that up at a discount, which would reduce their external debt and over a longer run beef up the economy by reducing the GDP/debt ratio.

Soros broke the pound by shorting it because its value was being artificially maintained in the ERM - as far as I know, sterling isn't being held at some artificial value so its difficult to see how anyone could 'crash' it?

Getting a bit off topic but anyway, Frau Merkel and ze Germans aren't running EU monetary policy - tell that one to Greece.

sparky42 wrote: »

He's a bit special and divorced from reality, I'm not certain how any nuclear power is a "secondary one" even NK with their limited arsenal have shot up the global attention now that they have nukes. The UK is one of 2 in Europe with them, so yeah not secondary in Europe. Not too mention it's still a G8 nation, one of the largest and most experienced militaries in Europe as things stand.

Outside of Trolls and idiots I'm not sure how any of that can be argued.

If anyone is divorced from reality it's that clown of a rear admiral and the fan club who believe that bullsh!t. But it's always good to have a pop at the auld enemy. So the UK could unilaterally do as it likes without a nod from Uncle Sam - get real, they even have to hope that America supports them in the statement on Gibraltar. But at least you have something in common with NK, a delusional ruling class.

ohnonotgmail

Stars and Stripes wrote: »

Getting a bit off topic but anyway, Frau Merkel and ze Germans aren't running EU monetary policy - tell that one to Greece.

I'm not sure you quite understand what monetary policy is. Germany and Greece use the same monetary system.