* Posts by Keith Sware

6 posts • joined 24 Jan 2017

Even more warship cuts floated for the Royal Navy

Keith Sware

Re: But...

I don’t remember the Americans leaning on the exocet manufacturers - sorry, but that’s expletive; the French were denying any involvement - which was not true - the Americans were leaning on / against the British trying to get the UK to agree to not sink Argentinian ships, and to come to a negotiating table, to be chaired by the Americans. There was a period of several weeks where Britain was quite isolated, there was a lot of politics. Behind the scenes France were rubbing their commercial hands at the advertising value of being able to sell a weapon that had been battle tested.

I remember when HMS Sheffield got hit, it knocked the stuffing out of the whole country, but then, as ship after ship got hit, the country soldiered on and endured and endured and endured

Meanwhile the Americans had all their best sales people out trying to make a buck

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/202588 Prevent the cuts, please re-post this link, prevent MP group think that cutting assets is sensible or sustainable

Keith Sware

Re: Re: like the Falklands. https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/202588

Hi Bob, like some of your comments, it’s difficult to accept some of our history, the rights and wrongs of it, history is tricky. Following the money is one strategy to help figure out some of the motivations past / present.

On another tack - It’s not America’s fault that British politicians are often short sighted (2-4 years) and have little understanding of commercial opportunities in manufacturing or in business in general. If they had a better business sense, then the UK would still be supplying countries around the commonwealth with ships, submarines …

What is really infuriating is the lack of foresight, thinking and planning in the UK civil service who advise politicians. If the Falkland’s taught the British one thing, it’s that attrition played a major part in winning the Falklands war; 7 warships lost and that’s only the half of it (I’m not forgetting the military lives lost) If the john Note SDR in 1981 had not announced the royal navy reduction of 6 warships, then the invasion by the Military Junta (who were throwing civilians out of herky birds {you call them C130s} – 30 miles out to sea), then the Military Junta invasion would never have taken place, because the UK would not have appeared to have been weak, and would not have appeared to have lost interest in the Falklands.

The MPs need to learn and understand that warships have a long lead time to design; they have a short life time in the salty corrosive ocean. Russia is deploying one new warship every year, considering the life time in salt water, this leads to a navy of 30 ships, if the jobs are sustained, if the training and education is sustained, if the R & D is sustained and if the commitment and backing is sustained, then the royal navy will have something that’s credible and will to stand up to http://russianships.info/eng/today

Otherwise the UK has to go cap in hand to others who, I say, politely, cannot always be trusted to act in good time. And this history of, British MPs sending the military to Iraq, Bosnia ,Kosovo ,Sierra Leone Civil War, Afghanistan, Libyan Civil War, Syrian Civil War is a testimony to how short sighted and irresponsible are these 600+ British MPs. Who are more interested in media comments and what’s said on social media, then they should be, in supporting the military to do their job.

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/202588 Prevent the cuts, please re-post this link, prevent MP group think that cutting assets is sensible or sustainable

Keith Sware

You need to learn some history - https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/202588

There are only British grave stones in the Falklands before the Falklands war because no Argentinian has ever stepped onto the Falkland’s and lived there before the war.

Now there were 3 convicts who escaped from Patagonia (why do I say Patagonia? Well because the country called Argentina did not exist), they murdered one local British subject and stole food, the navy captured two of the murderers and hung them (one was never found – presumed died).

How do I know this, because it is part of the history of Charles Darwin and Captain Fitzroy who sailed HMS Beagle and charted the Falklands and Patagonia (did I say Patagonia, yes that’s right, that’s the place where according to Charles Darwin, the mass genocide took place by murdering civilians in Patagonia who slaughtered many of the native population). So when did Argentina come into existence – it was after the mass Germicide and Charles Darwin did see and did write about it.

The take home for you is, that apart from the fact that Port Stanley is approx. 400 miles away from Argentina, it’s not really credible for a country to lay claim to a piece of someone else’s territory that was owned before that country was ever born! The UK has owned the Falklands over a 100 years before Argentina came into existence and has fought and conquered Spanish and German and Argentinian attempts to steal it (conquered and won and paid the price in blood to keep the Falklands).

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/202588 Prevent the cuts, please re-post this link, prevent MP group think that cutting assets is sensible or sustainable

Keith Sware

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/202588

Public Lip service that’s all we got from the Americans in the Falklands, a few poor satellite photos of an airfield. If we had put money down and purchased Mk3 stinger missiles, then we would have had real help. I hate to say this, but America is all about the money FIRST. They are always happy to sell kit (to support American jobs), they are even happier when the UK gives up its research and development to favour buying American replacements e.g. Nimrod / Harrier etc. America wanted to be the broker between the UK and Argentina; they were not very keen about pushing the Argentinians off the Falklands though. 3 Falkland Islanders were also killed when our previous friends the Argentinians stabbed the UK in the back; can’t trust anyone on the international stage. Who were helping to service exocets and Etendard fighters – the French although they denied it at the time, but their technicians working in Argentina were found out after-the-fact.

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/202588 Prevent the cuts, please re-post this link, prevent MP group think that cutting assets is sensible or sustainable

Cisco's WebEx Chrome plugin will execute evil code, install malware via secret 'magic URL'

Keith Sware

Re: An Adobe Wannbe?

Cisco are now inadvertently promoting themselves as an attack vector; their clients who trust their brand, now have to rethink the trust that they have invested in Cisco network equipment. The culture within Cisco development and test teams needs to be addressed. The code base that created this plug in needs to be audited, the worry is, was this deliberate? Did Cisco hire a developer who had ulterior motives when he/she was writing the code?

Keith Sware

Re: An Adobe Wannbe?

This would be difficult to police and to manage. The idea of putting bad products / software / hardware onto some sort of naughty step, sounds good until you start to think through how it would work. If someone fixes their software bug, do they have a right to be removed from this red banner board, who is going to do that for them and which independent party is going to test their software to verify that the bug has disappeared. I think that some form of accreditation might be more workable, this would require a software house to pay for the testing to take place in order to get a Good/Healthy software kite mark. There are precedents for this such as fire safety regulations for electrical appliances when the law requires that manufactures who sell in the UK must comply with certain legal requirements.

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR WEEKLY TECH NEWSLETTER

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021