Should NATO Establish a No-Fly Zone Over Libya?

Obviously, the world's most technologically advanced militaries have the capability to do this. Should they?

EDIT: Palantas learned how to spell "establish."

Absolutely. Waste any loyalist fighter jets and armor, then pull out. And for God's sake, NO ground forces should be sent in.

I thought they did alreadyimaps3fanboy

Did they? A couple days ago, I read it was still being considered. It's entirely possible that in the interim, this was put into action. If so, I need to change my poll.

Absolutely. Waste any loyalist fighter jets and armor, then pull out. And for God's sake, NO ground forces should be sent in.

Verge_6

[QUOTE="imaps3fanboy"]I thought they did alreadyPalantas

Did they? A couple days ago, I read it was still being considered. It's entirely possible that in the interim, this was put into action. If so, I need to change my poll.

As far as I know Britain and David Cameron declared their favour of establishing a NFZ. The U.S hasn't quite came out and stated direct intent like that to my knowledge, so we'll see quite soon.

well i know is that if they do have a fly zone the Usaf will be there and there puny migs wouldnt stand a chance against our F-15's or F-16's.

Given the present circumstances, including the use of aircraft by the Gaddafi regime against civilians targets, I do not think that I would be opposed to establishing a no-fly zone above Libya. My only hesitation to support this course of action is due to the fact that any aid given with the intention to the alleviate the conflict will inevitably seen as the U.S. propping up another "puppet" government. Touching on this point, I cannot advocate sending troops into the region. I would rather not have another war. However a no-fly zone seems reasonable.

Set up a no fly zone so outside craft don't get shot down and end it there. It's a civil war. We shouldn't do anything other than protecting out people by keeping them out of the country.

i've heard italy and germany are the ones that tend to be cautious on the matter ,specially italy which has a fine relation with gaddafi.

Given the present circumstances, including the use of aircraft by the Gaddafi regime against civilians targets, I do not think that I would be opposed to establishing a no-fly zone above Libya. My only hesitation to support this course of action is due to the fact that any aid given with the intention to the alleviate the conflict will inevitably seen as the U.S. propping up another "puppet" government. Touching on this point, I cannot advocate sending troops into the region. I would rather not have another war. However a no-fly zone seems reasonable.

coolbeans90

A no-fly zone would require knocking out anti-aircraft defensives (both mobile and stationary). So a no fly zone would essentially be the same thing as declaring war.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Given the present circumstances, including the use of aircraft by the Gaddafi regime against civilians targets, I do not think that I would be opposed to establishing a no-fly zone above Libya. My only hesitation to support this course of action is due to the fact that any aid given with the intention to the alleviate the conflict will inevitably seen as the U.S. propping up another "puppet" government. Touching on this point, I cannot advocate sending troops into the region. I would rather not have another war. However a no-fly zone seems reasonable.

UnknownSniper65

A no-fly zone would require knocking out anti-aircraft defensives (both mobile and stationary). So a no fly zone would essentially be the same thing as declaring war.

Taking this into consideration, I am far less inclined to support establishing a no-fly zone.

EDIT: At least not with the U.S. as the lead. If Europe feels so inclined, then I really don't have any objections to their doing so.

It would be justifiable, although it's not likely to happen through the UN, since Russia does not seem to want it to happen and they're a permanent member of the security council. NATO or the Europeans/EU could still do it on their own, in which case I hope the Europeans bear the brunt of any operation and not the US, since it's their backyard. fidosim

I would say yes, but only if the U.S. doesn't get saddled with most of the responsibility. It's time other NATO nations pull some of the weight, we can no longer afford to fight everyone's battles.:)

Absolutely. Waste any loyalist fighter jets and armor, then pull out. And for God's sake, NO ground forces should be sent in.

Verge_6

I disagree... It is a political **** storm in the making...

A high ranking Air Force general already described how bad it can get... Saying that it isn't simply a matter of taking the sky over Libya... We would have to systematically destroy all of Libya's anti-air capabilities to establish that no-fly zone, meaning direct attack from sea against sites in Libya... Not to mention possible rebel casualties... I am assuming rebels would be interested in those AA sites for their own defense and use against Libya's Air Forces... Well from 60,000 feet on an infared camera... A pilot can't tell who is in control of it and it isn't like the rebels and the US Navy are sitting down making strategy together...

Just imagine the backlash when New York Time's headline of the day is "US intervention in Libya kills 30 rebels."

A no fly zone over Libya would be taking military action against that country. In addition to shooting down Libyan aircraft, measures would be taken into place to eliminate AA sites, some of which lie under rebel control.

I'm against the establishment of a no fly zone. Considering it's belligerent military action against a foreign nation, which is only legal under the conditions:

1As a response to an immediate or imminent attack by another country.

2On the instruction of the UN Security Council in order to restore international peace and security.

This puts 1 out of the question, and so long as a UNSC resolution is not issued forth, I'd be strongly against military action.

Not to mention leading to price inflation of petroleum. OPEC would over-charge Americans to encourage civility.

[QUOTE="Verge_6"]

Absolutely. Waste any loyalist fighter jets and armor, then pull out. And for God's sake, NO ground forces should be sent in.

Buttons1990

I disagree... It is a political **** storm in the making...

A high ranking Air Force general already described how bad it can get... Saying that it isn't simply a matter of taking the sky over Libya... We would have to systematically destroy all of Libya's anti-air capabilities to establish that no-fly zone, meaning direct attack from sea against sites in Libya... Not to mention possible rebel casualties... I am assuming rebels would be interested in those AA sites for their own defense and use against Libya's Air Forces... Well from 60,000 feet on an infared camera... A pilot can't tell who is in control of it and it isn't like the rebels and the US Navy are sitting down making strategy together...

Just imagine the backlash when New York Time's headline of the day is "US intervention in Libya kills 30 rebels."

I agree with you it could turn out very badly, however the rebels need help to overthrow the libyan government, and the no fly zone is the best option for NATO, or whoever plans on helping.

[QUOTE="Verge_6"]

Absolutely. Waste any loyalist fighter jets and armor, then pull out. And for God's sake, NO ground forces should be sent in.

Buttons1990

I disagree... It is a political **** storm in the making...

A high ranking Air Force general already described how bad it can get... Saying that it isn't simply a matter of taking the sky over Libya... We would have to systematically destroy all of Libya's anti-air capabilities to establish that no-fly zone, meaning direct attack from sea against sites in Libya... Not to mention possible rebel casualties... I am assuming rebels would be interested in those AA sites for their own defense and use against Libya's Air Forces... Well from 60,000 feet on an infared camera... A pilot can't tell who is in control of it and it isn't like the rebels and the US Navy are sitting down making strategy together...

Just imagine the backlash when New York Time's headline of the day is "US intervention in Libya kills 30 rebels."

i've heard italy and germany are the ones that tend to be cautious on the matter ,specially italy which has a fine relation with gaddafi.

VaguelyTagged