I doubt that they'd have any objections as such (well I suspect Spain will be cagey) but there will have to be negotiations over the UK's opt-outs (the Euro, Schengen, etc) and the UK's rebate. I can't see the EU countries pushing the Euro issue that much but the rebate is currently an issue and I suspect the Schengen opt-out will require some quid pro quos.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
It depends on the leader. In N.I. the british army had a policy of leaving one IRA leader alone because his signals security was so bad. if they're have arrested or killed him they'd have lost a huge intelligence lead as whoever replaced him would probably be more competent. At one point this got to the stage that one of them was shagging his wife to keep her quiet as she was threatening to leave him and this was affecting his "work". This isn't new, the OSS produced a manual on sabotage in WWII which included advice for agents in french industries to try and get incompetent managers promoted in order to reduce efficiency.
You will damage your eyesight...don't do, it opticians make enough as it is.
No I mean the RAF pilots flying the Sea Harriers with 800 and 801 Squadron. specifically Flt Lts Barton, Leeming and Morgan who were mentioned in the post I replied to.
The 21s were never meant to be much more than a short term buy for the RN and had little space for additional equipment, that said they lasted from 1974 up to 1994 and were regarded quite favourably by the crew, though the very basic missile fit was always an issue after the 1980s
The batch 1 type 42 were very much built down to a cost and Sheffields commissioning Captain (one Sandy Woodward) had a list of complaints which were almost the main points of difference between the batch 1s and later ships.
Thankfully the lunatic idea of having them coal fired didn't get much further than a D.K.Brown sketch of a 4 funneled type 42
I meant the RAF pilots not the GR3s
The missile hit right in the ships main control room putting it out of action and the fire caused by the remaining fuel from the missile burned nicely on the aluminium ship.
And you were doing so well up to this point... Sheffield wasn't an Aluminium ship, not even aluminium superstructure http://www.hazegray.org/faq/smn6.htm#F7
As the link above states none of the RN ships sunk in the Falklands were sunk because of burning aluminium.
In Sheffields case they lost the firefighting ring main more or less immediately and they abandoned when the heat conducted by the steel hull was causing secondary fires in other parts of the ship
At one point in 100 days Woodward describes how he has to find out if the entrance to Falkland sound has been mined or not. Not having minesweepers his only choice is to choose one of the cheap and cheerful type 21's and see if it gets blown up or not. The ships Captain, Christopher Craig, knowing exactly what was (specifically not) being asked of him pointedly asked Woodward if he wanted him "to zigzag about a bit" to make sure the channel was clear. It was and Alacrity survived. I think Woodward described this action as being very brave and worthy of the highest awards for gallantry, but strangely only if it all had gone wrong.
5 air launched, another 6 or so ship mounted. 2 lorry mounted (no really.. they took two off a ship and put them on the back of an artic).
HMS Sheffield was sunk by an Exocet from a Dassault Mirage two days later, most likely as revenge
Not really, firstly it was launched from a Super Etendard not a Mirage, secondly the Sheffield attack was the second or third attempt by the Argentinian Navy to attack the carriers using exocet, the Argentinian navy went to a lot of effort to get the Etandarts exocet capable and were intending on using them against the Royal Navy carriers long before the belgrano was sunk. If the exocet attacks were reveng then as advocated by most combat instructors they were trying to get their revenge in first.
. Critics are of the opinion that if UK hadn't been the first to sink an enemy vessel then none would have been lost on either side.
Critics are like arseholes....sorry no Opinons are like arseholes every critic is one. Sorry nope I'll get it right eventually
Yeah, but the Belgrano was running because word leaked out that she was a primary target and when she was engaged she was at full speed towards home
No, she was meandering along at cruising speed to a holding area whilst the Argentinian navy decided what to do next since their ari strike on the Carrier battle group couldn't get airborne because of low winds.
Conqueror had destroy orders even though Belgrano had left the field.
Field...? what field, she was at sea and she was a combatant...to paraphrase Shankly "if she wasn't interfering with play what the fuck was she doing on the pitch"
Some say she was in Argentine waters when she was sunk, but this has not been verified either way.
She was sunk at 5524S 6132W that's more than 12 miles away from anything.
yes, but they had been "Navalised" prior to the war
21 kills for no losses in the air to air role despite being outnumbered by aircraft with superior performance and viewed by the Argentinian Air forces and a difficult and challenging opponent ("La Muerte Negra") not bad going for an aircraft designed to shoot down recon aircraft.
No, The Fleet Air Arm tactics (calling navy pilots RAF will result in mild joking/ verbal abuse at best) varied throughout the war, before the landings they were part of a standard layered defence and were usually deployed up threat of the radar pickets which in turn were up threat of the carrier battle group. After the landings the Navy effectively defined a large rectangular box around the landing site and declared this a free fire zone for ships missile/gun systems and a no-go zone for aircraft. again Harriers were employed up threat but the lack of AEW meant that they often had to fly round the "box" to catch incoming raids. Also there was a significant difference in experience and performance in the use of the blue fox radar in the SHAR between 800 (Hermes) and 801 (Invincible) squadrons that meant that the 801 pilots could be more effective in the air defense role (see Sea Harrier Over The Falklands: A Maverick at War by Cmrd Sharkey Ward)
The fact that ships carried LDS is not news, it's mentioned in Woodwards book and various other Falklands war literature and when I went aboard HMS Plymouth in Glasgow in the 1990's they had some details about it on dispay boards. AFAICR it was mounted in the bridge wing and was on the "wrong side" of the ship when she was attacked. Most publications I've seen LDS mentioned state that it was never actually used.
given that he could be directly extradited from the UK to the US fairly easily, why bother messing with Sweden.