News Stories

[MrTerrorist]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

Oh this debate has been going on for quite a while, since the SNP won an outright majority in the Scottish elections back in May. Prior to that, the pro indepedence SNP never had the majority in the Scottish Parliament to be able to pass a referendum proposal. Now they can, and it's definitely on the cards.

Not really a lot of History behind it though. There isn't really the kind of animosity between England and Scotland that you might see between England and, say, Ireland. They've had a fairly stable Union since 1707.

That said, if the Scottish Independence referendum passed it would make for a tricky situation. For one thing you couldn't really call it "the United Kingdom" anymore, or even "Great Britain". You'd also have other unusual questions, like Northern Ireland, who ties to England are even more tenuous then Scotlands, and who also culturally share a lot more in common with Scotland then England.

Before the SNP won that majority, the issue wasn't really discussed, furthermore, no one thought it would ever need to be, as Scotland uses Single transferable Vote PR, which extremely rarely gives an outright majority to any party (in fact, when the scottish parliament was created, that form of voting was instituted for that very reason, to preven the SNP from ever winning a majority).

As for the SNP, they've run a very straight ship, and they've got a fairly attractive platform. They're also committed to giving Scotland access to all the options in a referendum, no tricks. I'm not so sure how their Pro-Union opposition is going to handle things though. Either way, there's going to be an interesting few months in Scotland.

But the question is, will Scottish voters vote for Independence? Most voted the SNP not because of Independence but because the voters wanted changes and improvements in government policies. (The SNP campaign about improving the government while putting the Independence talk another time.)

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by MrTerrorist

But the question is, will Scottish voters vote for Independence? Most voted the SNP not because of Independence but because the voters wanted changes and improvements in government policies. (The SNP campaign about improving the government while putting the Independence talk another time.)

No way of knowing until they vote.

I'd say, if there is a vote, it will probably be a choice of basically 3 options:

1. Status Quo

2. Further Devolution within the UK

3. Complete independence (with variants for remaining in the commonwealth, monarchy or becoming a republic).

I could see Scottish voters choosing 2, there aren't really many downsides to it.

Still, a lot will depend on how media campaign pans out. Everything is to play for.

It is somewhat notable that Scotland has a fairly different political profile to England, it has almost no Conservative MPs. It's kind of ironic that if Scotland did leave the Union, Conservative hold in England would be much more solid, and yet the conservatives are fairly bound to oppose such a move due to the nature of their platform.

As for Labour, if Scotland left the UK they'd have much lower chances of gaining control in the future, Scotland is a major base of support.

[ganbaru]

Spain doubles target in debt auction, yields down
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...80B0GQ20120112

[TinyRedLeaf]

Taiwan's other crucial election

Taipei (Jan 11, Wed): Taiwan's presidential poll this weekend is the focus of much international attention, but the concurrent election to the island's combative Parliament will have almost as much impact on policy change and the pace of integration with China.

This year, with opinion polls predicting a close contest between the ruling Koumintang (KMT) and the opposition Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), the likelihood of a hung Parliament — and a subsequent policy slowdown — is high.

The closely fought elections on the island that is claimed by China and is an ally of the United States could rattle Sino-US ties in a transitional year for Beijing, where a leadership succession is due to take place late this year, and perhaps Washington, where President Barack Obama is seeking re-election.

If the KMT does not retain a majority, it could mean a scaling back of the party's pro-China policy, which has drawn foreign investors because of benefits to export-dependent Taiwan, just as the global economy looks set to slow and crimp growth.

President Ma Ying-jeou of the KMT has a slight edge over his main opponent, Ms Tsai Ing-wen of the DPP, in the presidential polls, but even if he wins, control of Parliament will be crucial.

"If we do have the different branches of government controlled by different parties, that could potentially be a problem in terms of moving forward on some of the key legislation, and also in terms of getting major reforms implemented," said Mr Ray Wu, an academic at Taiwan's Fu-Jen University.

China and Taiwan have been ruled separately since the KMT fled to the island in 1949 after losing control of the mainland in a civil war. Beijing has vowed to bring Taiwan back under its rule, by force if necessary.

REUTERS

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

Taiwan's other crucial election

Beijing has vowed to bring Taiwan back under its rule, by force if necessary.

Yeah, so called "peaceful rise". It is really glaring that they want to control Taiwan's IC-fab market (and indirectly, a monopoly) and their 4 FTZs (which is alot of revenue, plus a strategic trade position allowing a monopoly of a trade route down and up of SEA).

US controlled post Cold War trade through their currency, so China is probably attempting to secure major production centres and trade routes to wrest economic power from US. Given the corruption and how messy their government structure is, I would prefer US being the "tyrant". Uncle Sam is a bad guy we know better.

[MrTerrorist]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

Taiwan's other crucial election

Here's what NMA TV thinks about it.

[AnimeFan188]

"Universal Music ripped into Megaupload in a new court filing, declaring it a pirate
site in the label’s legal defense of a suit accusing it of abusing copyright law by
forcing YouTube to take down a video of famous musicians and celebrities praising
the notorious file-sharing service."

See:

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/201...ts-megaupload/

[ganbaru]

Taliban say Marine abuse tape won't hurt Afghanistan talks
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...80A2D720120112
Is it me or it has to be one other marine than filmed thoses idiots ?

[Sides]

Originally Posted by MrTerrorist

But the question is, will Scottish voters vote for Independence? Most voted the SNP not because of Independence but because the voters wanted changes and improvements in government policies. (The SNP campaign about improving the government while putting the Independence talk another time.)

Are you sure?
I know a lot of people who voted SNP during the last election because they wanted to push for a referendum, not independence btw, so they can have the whole Scotland independent issue get done with.
About independence, I cannot see it happening considering that a lot of voters are not scots. We do have a lot of people from england, northern ireland, wales, the EU and the rest of the world living here, so the outcome it is more a reflection of people living in scotland rather than scottish people. I am pretty sure a lot of people living outside of the urban area would vote for a complete independence, if they don't forget to vote.

[MrTerrorist]

Originally Posted by Sides

Are you sure?
I know a lot of people who voted SNP during the last election because they wanted to push for a referendum, not independence btw, so they can have the whole Scotland independent issue get done with.
About independence, I cannot see it happening considering that a lot of voters are not scots. We do have a lot of people from england, northern ireland, wales, the EU and the rest of the world living here, so the outcome it is more a reflection of people living in scotland rather than scottish people. I am pretty sure a lot of people living outside of the urban area would vote for a complete independence, if they don't forget to vote.

Uh yes, referendum. My mistake. The people that i was talking about were interviewed on the street on why they voted the SNP and most of them answer it wasn't for the referendum but improvements and better changes in the Scottish Government.

[Ithekro]

US sends top Iran leader warning on Hormuz threat
Officials say closing the strait is a 'red line' that would provoke response


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45981376...ew_york_times/

“You get cowboys who do their own thing,” Mr. Connell said. One officer with experience at the Navy’s Fifth Fleet headquarters in Bahrain said the Revolutionary Guards navy shows “a high probability for buffoonery.”

However:

In 2002, a classified, $250 million Defense Department war game concluded that small, agile speedboats swarming a naval convoy could inflict devastating damage on more powerful warships. In that game, the Blue Team navy, representing the United States, lost 16 major warships — an aircraft carrier, cruisers and amphibious vessels — when they were sunk to the bottom of the Persian Gulf in an attack that included swarming tactics by enemy speedboats.

“The sheer numbers involved overloaded their ability, both mentally and electronically, to handle the attack,” Lt. Gen. Paul K. Van Riper, a retired Marine Corps officer who served in the war game as commander of a Red Team force representing an unnamed Persian Gulf military, said in 2008, when the results of the war game were assessed again in light of Iranian naval actions at the time. “The whole thing was over in 5, maybe 10 minutes.”

My suggestion would be to reactivate some of the older gun equipped ships that can deal with multiple targets instead of missiles which may or may not be able to fire fast enough to deal with those kinds of numbers. Though in truth, we don't have any ships like that anymore. The World War II and before era stuff is pretty much all gone, and what is left has been highly modified to remove most of the smaller guns that would be useful if redeployed from their old role of Anti-Aircraft guns.

[SaintessHeart]

Please don't tell me they removed their deck machine guns.

[Ithekro]

As far as I know they have not, but those are rather few in number on each ship. Something like 1 or 2 5", 2 x 25mm and maybe 2-4 .50" machine guns. Plus the ones that still have the 20mm Phalanx defense systems.

But that is nowhere near the amount of lead and explosives one would have from even a World War II destroyer for close in work, much less something like a Pre-Dreadnought battleship that was worried about torpedo boats back in 1900. Those things had guns everywhere. It would be sunk by one torpedo or missile today though.

One of those old World War II era "Light" Cruisers would be nice. Even the Anti-Air models since they were covered with 5"/38 cal turrets.

[Kokukirin]

How would machine guns help? Machine guns were mainly anti-air guns in WWII, when scoring hit often meant downing the plane. The speedboats are small, fast boats, but machine guns are not that effective. Making 50 tiny holes on a speedboat does not necessarily sink it.

We don't know how US navy will respond to the threat. But since they identified the threat 10 years ago, they must have come up with some tactics or technologies to counter it.

[Ithekro]

I'm thinking more about what the US use to use to take down Japanese aircraft. Machine guns are about useless for that, too. 20mm was the practical minimum. 40mm was the general standard that worked and they covered ships with those things when they could. (post war they wanted to replace those with 3" cannon) The gun that worked the best for taking down Kamakaze was the 5"/38 cal cannons, as while the 20mm and 40mm would shoot a plane down, the 5" with proximity shells would explode a plane, stopping it from continuing along its path (which was generally at the ship).

Similar logic works with speedboats. I assume the 25mm cannons and the long 5" cannons are what they use for that now (since the machine guns are mostly to stop things like what happened to USS Cole from happening again, or spraying the decks of pirate ships). The 20mm Phalanx I don't think is designed for that sort of work sicne they have such a high rate of fire...and small magazines. They are to intecept missiles as a last defense.

The general idea would to not to fill them with holes, but to make them explode. I have heard reports of the use of lasers to set fuel tanks of fire and the like, but I don't know how effective that would be with multiple targets and a limited amount of time.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

US sends top Iran leader warning on Hormuz threat
Officials say closing the strait is a 'red line' that would provoke response


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45981376...ew_york_times/



However:



My suggestion would be to reactivate some of the older gun equipped ships that can deal with multiple targets instead of missiles which may or may not be able to fire fast enough to deal with those kinds of numbers. Though in truth, we don't have any ships like that anymore. The World War II and before era stuff is pretty much all gone, and what is left has been highly modified to remove most of the smaller guns that would be useful if redeployed from their old role of Anti-Aircraft guns.

Zerg'ing is always a good bet --- the Soviets did likewise in WW2 against the Germans (mass numbers of cheapness versus highly expensive units).

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

I'm thinking more about what the US use to use to take down Japanese aircraft. Machine guns are about useless for that, too. 20mm was the practical minimum. 40mm was the general standard that worked and they covered ships with those things when they could. (post war they wanted to replace those with 3" cannon) The gun that worked the best for taking down Kamakaze was the 5"/38 cal cannons, as while the 20mm and 40mm would shoot a plane down, the 5" with proximity shells would explode a plane, stopping it from continuing along its path (which was generally at the ship).

Similar logic works with speedboats. I assume the 25mm cannons and the long 5" cannons are what they use for that now (since the machine guns are mostly to stop things like what happened to USS Cole from happening again, or spraying the decks of pirate ships). The 20mm Phalanx I don't think is designed for that sort of work sicne they have such a high rate of fire...and small magazines. They are to intecept missiles as a last defense.

The general idea would to not to fill them with holes, but to make them explode. I have heard reports of the use of lasers to set fuel tanks of fire and the like, but I don't know how effective that would be with multiple targets and a limited amount of time.

How about a mass of Attack helicopters?

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

I'm thinking more about what the US use to use to take down Japanese aircraft. Machine guns are about useless for that, too. 20mm was the practical minimum. 40mm was the general standard that worked and they covered ships with those things when they could. (post war they wanted to replace those with 3" cannon) The gun that worked the best for taking down Kamakaze was the 5"/38 cal cannons, as while the 20mm and 40mm would shoot a plane down, the 5" with proximity shells would explode a plane, stopping it from continuing along its path (which was generally at the ship).

Similar logic works with speedboats. I assume the 25mm cannons and the long 5" cannons are what they use for that now (since the machine guns are mostly to stop things like what happened to USS Cole from happening again, or spraying the decks of pirate ships). The 20mm Phalanx I don't think is designed for that sort of work sicne they have such a high rate of fire...and small magazines. They are to intecept missiles as a last defense.

The general idea would to not to fill them with holes, but to make them explode. I have heard reports of the use of lasers to set fuel tanks of fire and the like, but I don't know how effective that would be with multiple targets and a limited amount of time.

I think the old .50 might be enough....belt-fed and heavy enough to cut a person into half with a single round.

Put a series of those by the port and starboard, 1000 rounds each gun, and they should be able to dye the whole strait red.

[Ithekro]

You have to have them base someplace and in the air when attacked. They can, I assume, be shot down with anti-air missiles from Iran.

Options for basing? A country allied to the United States that is in range of the Strait (the most likely place for an attack). Or on either Aircraft Carriers (taking up space for the usual Air Wing) or the Assault Ships (that sometimes have some, but also utility copters and MV-22s for moving marines and equipment.) Thought he Assault Ships tend to carry Harriers for that duty, only carrying 4 Attack helicopters normally (Ironically, the SeaCobras are also used by Iran...since they still have a few operational that were sold to them in the early 1970s. They use modified AH-1Js as oppose the United States AH-1W and new AH-1Zs)

[Mr Hat and Clogs]

Gotta miss the old battleship days, turn the coastlines for 20 mile stretches into the surface of the moon and more heavy machine gun emplacements then you could poke a stick at.