No-fly zone over Libya

[kato]

Really? I have never seen a political party "surrender".

Whether or not Germany gets involved politically or militarically is not a factor in German elections. Never was. In fact, the only times Germany has gotten involved in any wars in the past couple decades was without the CDU at the helm. The government did what any German conservative government would have done at most : Getting the Germans out, shuttling some refugees around and then withdrawing. Taking part in AWACS missions would have been possible, but already iffy - and with the way the coalition is blatantly going beyond what the resolution says - that Germany didn't support anyway - that was pretty much a no-go too.
The result is just as expected by about anyone in Germany. There is no 180 degree turn there - Merkel is still Kohls Mädel, and conservatives in Germany don't do war. It's the opposition that supports intervention, not the conservative government.

The nuclear power withdrawal is obvious, blatant electional positioning of course. Öttinger is irrelevant in that regard - he's just a patsy of the government. The even more abrupt turnaround of Mappus, his successor as prime minister of Baden-Württemberg, is what will decide this election on sunday. That plus domestic problems.

And the NATO thing has caused Germany's NATO credibility to take a dent, as far as I can see.

From a German perspective, NATO is in its death throes anyway. The only ones trying to keep it going are the Eastern-European small countries and the Non-Europeans. Because within EU ESDP, those countries won't have the kind of influence they have in NATO. It's a shift that's not only pushed by Germany, things like the Anglo-French Defense Agreement are just another nail in NATO's coffin as well.

Well isn't that shamefull? Though I am sure that Germany isn't the only European country that have dealt with Ghadafi, who amoung many dirty deeds counts a Pan-Am and likely a UTA airline bombing.

Nothing shameful about it. Gaddafi, back in the 70s, actually worked favorably for Germany as a middleman in destroying the 2nd Generation RAF. The turnaround and souring in the relations was around '83, although of course some stuff clandestinely continued. Just not officially.
And if we get down to it, the Pan-Am bombing was just a logical continuation of an event chain back then. And that wasn't a one-sided event chain. Went back and forth.

As for investments - it's long-term. German companies were there before Gaddafi, they have been there throughout Gaddafi's rule, and they will still be there after Gaddafi.

Regarding the nuclear plants, I have absolute faith in the german plants.

Let's just say there's this little fact that they had to switch out some ten-thousand 30-year-old bolts in Biblis A because they found the ones originally found were the wrong size, material and strength. And that's not exactly a solitary event.

I have never heard anybody think that's a problem or is a significant reason for cancer etc. Another comparison is that 1 CT Scan is equal to about 1mSv.

Erm, both of those things are considered problematic by a good portion of the German population. A portion sizable enough that it decides elections.

 

[destructivetouch]

MANPADS "Igla-S" In Libya Worries West


The appearance of the supporters of the regime Gaddafi modern man-portable air defense systems Igla-S " (SA-24 Grinch), mounted on pickup trucks are seriously worried Western military experts.

These MANPADS can shoot down planes coalition at altitudes up to 11,000 feet, is currently flying aircraft carried out at altitudes above 20,000 feet.But as soon begin humanitarian operations, evacuation and other missions requiring a reduction of aircraft and helicopters at low altitude, the use of MANPADS may result in an aircraft.

The appearance of this type of MANPADS was a revelation for the U.S. and military analysts, since there was no information on the sale of weapons to Libya, including in the Register of Arms. Western experts are interested in the question of whether the Libyans to use these complexes as a laptop or just pick-up body (see GTC Dzhigit ).Judging from the photos, MANPADS can be used only with the turret launchers, mounted on vehicles. If the complex will be used as a portable (shoulder-fired), it makes it even more dangerous.

The question arises, how these complexes were in Libya. "I just finished checking the Register of Conventional Arms to obtain information on the supply of SA-24 in Libya, but did not see any reference to the sale of Russian missiles to Libya in 2000," says director of monitoring arms sales to the Federation of American Scientists (Federation of American Scientists), Matt Schroeder (Matt Schroeder). In his view, these missiles could fall into terrorist hands. It remains unclear the question of who sold these missiles Libya - Russia or any intermediaries.

ПЗÐ*К "Игла-С" замечены в руках Ñторонников Каддафи | Ð*Ð°ÐºÐµÑ‚Ð½Ð°Ñ Ñ‚ÐµÑ…Ð½Ð¸ÐºÐ°
Support-launcher Dzhigit

Support-launcher (OPU) Dzhigit is designed for placement targeting, and single or multiple-launch rocket launch two types of Igla anti-aircraft gunners shot one can work at any time, use an external pre-targeting, identify goals according to the "friend or foe."

djigit

Support-launcher Dzhigit is unparalleled in their ability to conduct salvo launches anti-aircraft missile systems. When salvo launches provided an increased likelihood of hitting a target on average in 1,5 times. Calculation of 1 person.

Embodiment of elements of the equipment to accommodate the OPU Dzhigit can be made appropriate to the media. The kit includes: support-launcher, Means of control and maintenance and training aids. Support-launcher can be equipped with:

* equipment, providing a prior targeting to a higher management level
* optical sight with day and night channels
* radiozaproschikom Identification System Mk XA and Mk-XII
* equipment, allowing to set the OPU in the back of the car.

DefenceDog: MANPADS "Igla-S" In Libya Worries West

 

[Palnatoke]

@Kato

Yeah, I didn't mean that Germany did a "180" on the millitary stuff, it was, as you say and given the political run up to the war, expectable that germany wouldn't participate in that. Though I think that withdrawing the NATO assignment was more than most had expected.
I will maintain that the german behavior in the run up to war, underlines some of the problems with germany as seen from a european security perspective. A country the size and importance of german simply can't do a "Sweden" and pretend that it doesn't exists. Germany has to confront and engage such an grave issue on the doorstep of Europe. Germany, ofcourse, don't need to march to the beating of a french wardrum, but it has to engage (a lot more) in the political process.

You say that NATO is at it's end, I think that this crisis have once more shown that Europe simply doesn't have an alternative to NATO. Libya shows (again) that when France, UK, Germany doesn't agree, Europe doesn't have a foreign or security policy. Which shows that in all generality Europe doesn't have a cohesive foreign and security policy at all.
So the awkward situation in which the USA is a european country (but European countries arn't North American countries) will continue, because we (obviously) need the USA and that need materializes in the shape of NATO.

Because within EU ESDP, those countries won't have the kind of influence they have in NATO

Well, If you think, even for a moment, that Norway, the baltic states, Poland, Denmark, etc. fells comfortable with having EU, in the shape of Germany+France, handling the relationship with Russia, you are crossly mistaken.
Don't get me wrong, I would like a strong European security system (without the US, not that I don't like the US, I do, but the US isn't a European country - or shouldn't be), but France and Germany are simply not trustworthy as it is - sadly.

"Nothing shameful about it."
I disagree, and we see the effects of 20-30 years failed western policy towards dictators like Ben ali, Ghadafi, Murbarak various kings and "sultans" and what have you - no wonder that we are loathed through-out the region. Yes, I agree that Ghadafi has had his uses. anti-RAF being a minor thing, "Disappearing" unwanted African imigrants headed for Europe in the wast Libyan dessert being a major thing.

Let's just say there's this little fact that they had to switch out some ten-thousand 30-year-old bolts in Biblis A because they found the ones originally found were the wrong size, material and strength. And that's not exactly a solitary event.

Well that's just plain hysterical don't you think? After all a reactor isn't an airliner.
fukushima 1 an very old plant, shows that you can "Quake", "Drown", "Blow up" and "Burn" a plant and the problem besides destroying the plant, which represent a lot of capital, and ofcourse the clean up on the site will be expensive, is bad handling of Waste that have lead to a minor pollution, which is barely detectable outside the imminent vicinity of the plant - as I read the media reports.
25000 people have drowned, and the media talks about very low concentrations of an radioactive isotop of Iodine in drinking water.....(?)

 

[STURM]

The appearance of the supporters of the regime Gaddafi modern man-portable air defense systems Igla-S " (SA-24 Grinch), mounted on pickup trucks are seriously worried Western military experts.

Has there been any reports of SAM's of any kind being fired at Western aircraft?
It is possible that Libya may have obtained some Igla S's, as part of a batch supplied to another Arab country or may have obtained some from other sources such as arms dealers, etc. In the 1st photo in the link you provided, the twin missile launcher is not a Djigit but the one in the 2nd photo is.

 

[Palnatoke]

I think the most scary part about these MANPADs is the possibility that they can end up in the wrong hands and be used against civilian airliners.

 

[DarthAmerica]

I think the most scary part about these MANPADs is the possibility that they can end up in the wrong hands and be used against civilian airliners.

While this is true, airliners have proven to be quite resilient against such small warheads. My worry is that considering the true intentions of some members of the coalition, the no fly zone will increasingly turn more into a no drive zone and then CAS centric. MANPADS will then begin to inflict losses on coalition partners aircraft. When that happens the resolve of the coalition nations will be tested individually. Are Italians prepared to see Tornado aircrews on TV as prisoners? If not then what happens when Italy pulls basing rights? That is a hypothetical and I'm in no way saying Italy is weak! I am saying that the fractious nature of the alliance, INCLUDING NATO, is a vulnerability. No true existential threat exist to anybody and there are certainly competing interest within the coalition. MANPADS could bring these issues to the surface rather quickly. The longer the duration of the no fly zone the more likely the law of averages will bring an encounter with one of these weapons. Possibly even against an airliner in another country. This(terrorism) is something Gaddafi is particularly good at.

-DA

 

[swerve]

It never was a no-fly zone. Check the UN resolution.

The RAF & AdlA, & I think also the USAF/USN/USMC, are doing CAS from above the ceiling of MANPADS, destroying AFVs & artillery pieces with PGMs.

 

[DarthAmerica]

It never was a no-fly zone. Check the UN resolution.

The RAF & AdlA, & I think also the USAF/USN/USMC, are doing CAS from above the ceiling of MANPADS, destroying AFVs & artillery pieces with PGMs.

I realize the UNSC 1973 goes beyond no fly zones. However the campaign wasn't presented that way. Also, in my opinion, tank plinking is not likely to be effective in achieving the objectives said and unsaid. It's only going to work against forces in the open. Once Gaddafi abandons conventional armored formations however things change dramatically. The more I look at it the more this seems like a slight of the hand.

-DA

EDIT: Maybe the Europeans think they can do a repeat of 1999?

 

[T.C.P]

Don't know the credibility of this record.

Ground operation in Libya could start in April - Russian intelligence | World | RIA Novosti


a gorund Invasion of Libya would be very wrong, I just hope that the americans will stay out of it, they sure have their hands full.

 

[Atasas]

.....o...

 

[Palnatoke]

I realize the UNSC 1973 goes beyond no fly zones. However the campaign wasn't presented that way.

I agree, and I think that it is quite deliberate that the Ressolution is so vaque.

Also, in my opinion, tank plinking is not likely to be effective in achieving the objectives said and unsaid. It's only going to work against forces in the open.

Agree, it is as if ground intervention will be a logical necessity?

Maybe the Europeans think they can do a repeat of 1999?

My un-informed oppinion;
I don't think so, Kosova has to be seen in the light of Bosnia and by that, the dark history of WWII.

Libyia is something different. I am thinking: Is it the attempt to create a european (french lead) sphere of influence in North Africa...?

I am thinking; Are we seeing a work share in Europe as a practical solution to the problem of a common european foreign policy : UK deals with america, Germany with the east and France deals with africa?

 

[Feanor]

France is struggling to remain relevant in a Europe increasingly dominated by Germany. The French are also trying to shake off the perception of inaction in a region they consider to the theirs. Think Mediteranian Union. Sarkozy is also in political trouble at home and the Libyan distraction serves his interest. With regard to working with the Russians, it is to counter balance Germany. But it is not going to be enough to sever the ties. Russia needs to modernize, Germany needs oil and labor. These are nations with common interest.

No way I buy that France asked Russia to block the resolution. Not when I see Rafales and Mirages pursuing the most overtly aggressive enforcement of UNSC 1973 which has clearly gone far beyond anything even remotely related to a NFZ or protecting "civilians".

-DA

You misunderstand. Russia DIDN'T block the resolution. Hence the inference that there was a behind the scenes request.

 

[Palnatoke]

You misunderstand. Russia DIDN'T block the resolution. Hence the inference that there was a behind the scenes request.

OR Russia and China didn'block the resolution, because the coalition would have attacked regardless?

 

[swerve]

I realize the UNSC 1973 goes beyond no fly zones. However the campaign wasn't presented that way. Also, in my opinion, tank plinking is not likely to be effective in achieving the objectives said and unsaid. It's only going to work against forces in the open. Once Gaddafi abandons conventional armored formations however things change dramatically. The more I look at it the more this seems like a slight of the hand.

-DA

EDIT: Maybe the Europeans think they can do a repeat of 1999?

Gaddafi abandoned conventional armoured formations immediately after the French slaughtered his armoured column & its supply train strung out along the road south of Benghazi. The tank plinking since then has included vehicles in cities. Brimstone missiles seem to be very good at distinguishing between tanks & buildings, & cause little or no collateral damage.

In order to attack cities, Gaddafi has to move troops & armour around. His advantage over the rebels is in heavy weapons, & central command. Moving heavy weapons to attack rebel-held territory is now very dangerous indeed. Siting artillery or armour around rebel-held towns is also dangerous. When his troops lose their local advantage in firepower in a place, & it's infantry against infantry, what will happen? In street fighting, with small arms, locals with detailed knowledge will have an advantage.

At Benghazi, Gaddafi's troops broke & ran after the French bombed them. At Ajdabiya, they still seem to be able to repel any rebel attack, but can't advance, & their advantage is eroding. If rebel reports are true (very uncertain, I know), they've been pushed back from Zintan, & rebels are starting to regain lost ground in Misratah.

Gaddafi did have the advantage of being able to hold at one place, & concentrate forces at another, moving men & heavy weapons around freely to obtain local superiority wherever he wanted it. He's lost that.

 

[Feanor]

OR Russia and China didn'block the resolution, because the coalition would have attacked regardless?

A NATO mission would have taken more time, and without a UN mandate some of the current members may not have been on board. It would have been a significant obstacle. I think the decision not to block the resolution was a conscious gesture, rather then an attempt to not look futile.

 

[DarthAmerica]

Gaddafi abandoned conventional armoured formations immediately after the French slaughtered his armoured column & its supply train strung out along the road south of Benghazi. The tank plinking since then has included vehicles in cities. Brimstone missiles seem to be very good at distinguishing between tanks & buildings, & cause little or no collateral damage.

In order to attack cities, Gaddafi has to move troops & armour around. His advantage over the rebels is in heavy weapons, & central command. Moving heavy weapons to attack rebel-held territory is now very dangerous indeed. Siting artillery or armour around rebel-held towns is also dangerous. When his troops lose their local advantage in firepower in a place, & it's infantry against infantry, what will happen? In street fighting, with small arms, locals with detailed knowledge will have an advantage.

At Benghazi, Gaddafi's troops broke & ran after the French bombed them. At Ajdabiya, they still seem to be able to repel any rebel attack, but can't advance, & their advantage is eroding. If rebel reports are true (very uncertain, I know), they've been pushed back from Zintan, & rebels are starting to regain lost ground in Misratah.

Gaddafi did have the advantage of being able to hold at one place, & concentrate forces at another, moving men & heavy weapons around freely to obtain local superiority wherever he wanted it. He's lost that.

Swerve,

It's nonsense that Brimstones and other air to ground ordinance won't cause CONSIDERABLE collateral damage. The marketing hype aside the things I've seen our weapons do to people when used in populated areas is simply a grim reality of war that cannot be overcome. Sure, it reduces it to a degree. But when you blow up an armored vehicle in a town it's going to create shrapnel, fires and UXO. This will kill civilians.

Also it's not infantry vs infantry. The rebels are nowhere near organized, equipped or trained enough to be considered infantry. Moreover it's not possible to bring them to such a level in a quick enough time without excessive collateral such that Gaddafi's forces won't crush them first. These are mostly armed mobs of civilians recovering and improvising weapons with what amounts to ZERO C2 and no logistics worth mentioning. It's bad. Nothing like the Northern Alliance circa 2001.

It's also not true Gaddafi has lost the ability to move and hold terrain. He has to be careful of course but in that part of the world a Toyota or Datsun Technical is more than enough APC/IFV/Mortar/Rocket/SAM/AAA carrier. That's how he will move and there isn't much you can do about that without a ground component.

-DA

 

[DarthAmerica]

OR Russia and China didn'block the resolution, because the coalition would have attacked regardless?

No, it's because they wanted the coalition to attack. Think about it, Russia is interested in reasserting itself and some of the old Soviet Sphere of influence as the buffer they need for security and the more distractions the US and Western Europe get into the better. Think OIF and OEF. The only reason the Russians could confidently invade Georgia the way they did it because the US Army was in no position to challenge it. The drawn into another conflict simply increases the duration of time Russia has to consolidate it's gains before the US returns it's national security focus back on Moscow.

The Chinese are not going to make any provocative moves towards the US without a reason. They also will not endorse UN interference in an internal matter of another nation. Especially a nation dealing with internal security issues. The Chinese have not exactly been kind to anti-government protest so it would be rather hypocritical of them to rebuke Gaddafi. More than anything, even the US Navy, the PRC fears internal troubles which are it's greatest threat. It needs a free hand to deal with these kinds of internal matters as it sees fit and practices what it preaches.

That's the interest of the Russians and Chinese.

-DA

 

[DarthAmerica]

While I think you are right that the french millitary actions constitute a french attempt to make a "comeback" in N. Africa (after the disgrace in Tunisia), I think that we must say that so far france has showen that it does have diplomatic and millitary muscles and the willingness to use them.

I don't think France is struggle to remain relevant in Europe, I think that France is quite relevant in europe, and for the moment are showing us why (for good or worse)

France is "relevant", but it has been eclipsed by Germany and others to an extent that there is a need to remind people that France is still a force to be reckoned with. This includes domestic audiences.


-DA

 

[riksavage]

NATO has assigned a Canadian General to command the NATO no-fly, pretty savvy move, he will speak fluent French and English, yet is not a Brit, Yank or Frenchie.

This will leave the US, UK and France to continue with regime change (sorry civvie protection) and allow them to degrade ground units guided by their respective SF FAC's now deployed in-country.

Whilst regime change is not discussed in public, by getting it done sooner rather than later you avoid a drawn out and expensive no-fly operation. Post GWI UK & US assets were committed over Southern Iraq for 10 years, no one wants to see that situation repeated over Libya. Plus an extended no-fly won't stop the incumbent clown from funding terrorist attacks across the EU. The Real IRA are already thumbing through the latest H&K brochures and drafting their wish lists.

 

[Feanor]

No, it's because they wanted the coalition to attack. Think about it, Russia is interested in reasserting itself and some of the old Soviet Sphere of influence as the buffer they need for security and the more distractions the US and Western Europe get into the better. Think OIF and OEF. The only reason the Russians could confidently invade Georgia the way they did it because the US Army was in no position to challenge it. The drawn into another conflict simply increases the duration of time Russia has to consolidate it's gains before the US returns it's national security focus back on Moscow.

Not quite so. It's not that the US Army was not able to challenge Russia militarily, it's that the US was committed geo-politically and financially (no small thing when you consider the debt) elsewhere. Coupled with European indifference on the subject this gave Russia the necessary opening. I would also venture to guess that the US national security will not focus on Russia again probably ever (short of something radical and unpleasant occuring). Russia simply isn't the same world power it was, and doesn't have the same kinds of global interests. In fact there are few places where Russian and US interests actually clash, and many others where the coincide.

In terms of Libya I think you may have hit the bullseye.