We seem to be involved in firing missiles at Libya

[ChickensHaveNoEyebrows]

Bloody hell.

Beenbeta I believe they are using Nimrods (another plane currently being scrapped), will Sam Cam please buy David an organised mum diary to help him keep on top of things

Tornado is not in line to be scrapped for some years, yet. The main issue for Tornado is that one of bases that Tornados are stationed at (Marham in Norfolk or Lossiemouth in Scotland) is due to close under the strategic defence review. Of course some planes may be lost but so far Harrier is the only plane to have been scrapped altogether.

Perhaps keeping an aircraft carrier or two might have been a good idea?

well he's got his pal Mugabe backing him up still .

Still I suppose at least with the elections coming up again in Zimbabwe and violence already starting to escalate again it's a few less army dotted around to beat up civillians in Zim - they'll be getting blown up in Libya instead

We're not at war, we are enforcing a UN resolution against Gaddafi. The strikes are targetting his air defences as this will enable a no fly zone to implemented.

A fair few of those pilots,groundcrew, etc involved in this will be out of jobs my this time next year.

Didn't France bomb some tanks this afternoon?

In case anyone's interested, and not spotted it, a thread has just appeared in "chat" too.

Siobahnagain: I saw a similar report too - 1973 permits all necessary actions to protect the civilian population, so this act is covered if the crew thought the vehicle/s posed a threat to that population.

i thought a "no fly zone" meant that we we're allowing him to fly planes and helicopters so he couldn't attack his own population.

if he flew, we'd attack, i thought.

apparently not.

it must mean that we can bomb the fuck out of the place if we feel like.

not to worry though, we've got "smart" bombs and shit.

there's no chance whatsoever of attacking markets/weddings/embassies/our own people etc etc cos they're dead good and stuff.

anyone else old enough enough to remember the last time we bombed libya? didn't we kill his daughter and grandson or something? not 100% sure off the top of my head.

i'll give bonus points to anyone who can name what really bad thing happened about 2 years later.

........so it's more than a No Fly Zone

I think once again we have interfered too early on this one and will end up regretting it.

Look at the unrest in some African countries, I don't see the UN marching in there is a hurry.

yes and no \link{http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12790942\this explain a little}

(actuall there's quite a few useful pages on the BBC pages

Maisy - the UN is already involved in some way in many of the ongoing conflicts - bizarrely (when you read it) in peace keeping operations, Dafur, Sudan, Ivory Coast, Liberia, DRC. (Sudan and Ivory Coasts recently having had big fighting again)

Back to Libya \link{http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=37823&Cr=Libya&Cr1=\here is the UN news article about Libya}

To implement a no fly zone in a place with a 'leader' like this it is not just about policing from the air it is they also have to disable his army and ability to get into the air.Gaddaffi would probably defy the no fly zone as he did the 'ceasefire'

Cameron probably thinks a war against a dictator will increase his popularity here.
Just a shame that the aircraft they needed have all been destroyed. They have to rely on the ones that were due to be destroyed.
The Tornado is not safe yet; they probably would have all been destroyed too if they weren't in use in Afghanistan.
This government is just too inept for words.

JandLandG: see the thread linked above about "No Fly Zone Approved" - full text of 1973 there - always clear that this allowed all means to protect civilians.

Also there's been plenty of commentary that air defence systems need to be destroyed before aircraft can patrol safely and effectively. Though I assume he has stinger.

I take it you mean the US bombing of Libya in 1986, which had been Ch 51 action following the bombing of a Berlin nightclub (in which the dead included 2 US service personnel)? Lockerbie about 2 years later.

Agree with noddyholder. The reason why it has taken several weeks to agree to a no fly zone in the UN is that, by definition, it means knocking out Gadaffi's air-force and anti-aircraft installations. What did people think? We were going to say 'Gafaffi old chap, stop flying about and bombing your own people, there's a dear...' and he'd quietly agree to do it.

And for those tutting about 'it's only because of oil'. Well of course oil's a motivator! Anyone remember the refinery blockades from 2000? Took about a week before we were in real trouble as a country, shop shelves were empty and things started to grind to a halt. Oil is a strategically important resource which is why we like to stay friendly with the House of Saud and why we've tried (in turn) being tough on Gadaffi, chummy with the little shite and now tough again.

We certainly can't be sanctimoniou about oil interests. Not a whole lot of viable alternatives ready working efficiently to use right now - can't see a wholesale switch to nuclear for example!

Further to Baroque's list, here's a link to wiki on current conflicts round the globe. I'm a bit about the assertion on Libyan casualty figures as they appear to have extrapolated from current increments figures over a very short period.

But it is a salutary reminder of how much warfare (and attendant misery) there is.

"Also there's been plenty of commentary that air defence systems need to be destroyed before aircraft can patrol safely and effectively.'

That's not what we did in Iraq, in Iraq we shot down what flew (well with a couple of exceptions such as when Iraq was trying to shoot down Iranian planes, that sort of flying got a tacit thumbs up from us) and blew up any ground installations that locked onto our aircraft. We didn't just start off the whole thing by flattening their air defences.a

But then Iraq did have a few differences. The no fly zones dragged on for years, Saddam didn't fall and in the latter years of zones we did proactively seek out and destroy their ground installations without waiting for them to be used.

So this no fly zone starting off with a pretty heavy attack isn't what I was expecting but perhaps the lessons from Iraq have lead to a change in tactics. It's also pretty probable that the western nations are trying to kick Gadaffi as hard as the UN remit allows them to.

"anyone else old enough enough to remember the last time we bombed libya? didn't we kill his daughter and grandson or something?"

"We" didn't bomb Libya the Americans did, and they killed his wife and adopted child in an attack that was deliberately targeted personally at Gadaffi.

"Perhaps keeping an aircraft carrier or two might have been a good idea?"

We wouldn't have any fighter planes to fly off of them, we scrapped the fighter version of the Harrier back in 2006 and only hung on to the bombers.

And the bombers alone can't operate without fighter cover, so even if we had them today we'd still be tied to land based fighter cover, and if the fighters are going to have to be on land then the bombers might as well be to.

Having carriers, fighters and bombers might well have been useful. But with any one of those three missing the value of the other two pretty much collapses.

I hope that by intervening like this, the UN forces are not simply going to prolong the agony.

If we didn't enforce the no-fly zone, Gadaffi would win (govt forces better organised, resourced, more unscrupulous, etc). But they would win quickly. There would be limited bloodshed during the war, though there would be brutal reprisals afterwards. But, they would have had a huge scare and a few years down the line, they would have made a few small changes that might, just might, heve tipped the balance from making the ordinary people's lives change from unbearable to just bearable. If I was an ordinary Libyan, that is the scenario I think I would prefer.

As it is, this could go on for years now. The international community is not going to be satisfied with anything less than the death of Gadaffi and total regime change - whether or not that is their stated aim - because if he survives, not enough will change for the international forces to be able to say 'Job done' and pull out.

However, I am reassured slightly by the fact that the Arab League appear to be behind this intervention (though I don't know if they are actually taking part. If not, why not?). And Obama, wisely, has not given the lead. Cameron might find this comes back and bites him on the bum in the future, but at least this time the intervention is legal and widely supported.

As we have intervened, I think we should do it decisively and swiftly, and spare those poor, brave people a long, drawn-out civil war.

BadgersPaw - on a point of detail, the no-fly zone over Iraq didn't begin with specific action to knock out the air defence system, because it was not necessary. It had been destroyed in the Gulf War. Nothing left to flatten.

I was sloppy in referring to aircraft carriers: I should have specified I meant aircraft carriers with full complement of airframes.

Arab league who initially requested this and who since yesterday have had the allies waiting with baited breath for their input have now decided to criticise the bombing and say they never wanted it! fgs