Falkland Islands mine clearance to begin.

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by k13eod, Oct 14, 2009.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2009/10/13/Falklands-de-mining-receives-go-ahead-with-UK-contract/UPI-33631255473434/

    http://en.mercopress.com/2009/10/13/falkland-islands-de-mining-contract-signed
     
  2. There were always guys doing this when I was at 33, so what were they doing down there then apart from shagging the WRAF and drinking the beer. :D
     
  3. There was no mine clearance carried out by 33 apart from post conflict (which was also carried out by non EOD sappers) and some EOC (BAC) tasks of UXO contaminated areas. All minefield clearance ceased in 1983 apart from the lifting of some minefield laid by British forces.

    Since 1983, the EOD detachment were (and still are) responsible for the destruction of located/reported UXO, the maintenance of minefield fencing/marking/records and the destruction of mines that were in danger of leaving a minefield through erosion.

    Yes I drank a lot of beer but don't recall shagging a WRAF bint :wink:
     
  4. Cheers k13, being 22 I only ended up being crash crew, BD Engineer or BACS on subby.
     
  5. What a waste of money.
     
  6. Rather thought that was the job for the sheep, that project would be rather a nightmare and to what end, it would probably result in more names being read from the Dispatch box. Leave the signs up and keep eating the mutton!
     
  7. This will make a great impact on the lives of the Bennies as rather than having areas where they can't go, they soon may have areas where they can go but simply won't go. 'Cause there's bugger all there anyway. :roll:

    Except the sheep.
     
  8. I assume that you base that argument on years of experience in EOD, humanitarian demining and the political process of the Mine Ban Treaty?
     
  9. seems its political in nature If we don't do it gives states an excuse who actually have a problem with mines not to :(
    bennies would much rather the consideralbe amount of cash and effort be expended somewhere. The option of putting a big fence round the minefield and leave well alone for the next 200 years is an option.

    finding non metallic mines in a peat bog that makes said mines rise and sink
    hell of a job.
    big feck off FAE bombs might work but would probably wreck goose green.

    pity we can't give the bill to the spics but they have no cash.
     
  10. No, I base it on common fcking sense. We're in the middle of a recession and the government thinks that demining marginal grazing and penguin colonies is a useful thing to be spending money on. It's quite patently not.

    How many "innocent children" have been maimed by mines in the Falklands in the last 25 years? Oh that would be none then. :roll: Hardly a priority.

    The mine ban treaty is another touchy feely fluffy initiative that we should never have signed up to. China, Russia and India didn't sign up to it and they are the ones supplying the low intensity conflicts where indiscriminate mining causes problems so what's been achieved by us doing so? We could have just stopped selling mines to third world countries and kept the option for ourselves.
     
  11. I heard they disbanded the TA to fund this mission.
     
  12. :lol: Not like you to be provocative JJ.
     
  13. They may need the extra space to put the new oil terminals.
     
  14. On that basis then we should stop clearing the UK of UXO as the war was 70 years ago and nobody has been hurt since. Shit you know F uck all about long standing UXO do you.
     
  15. Grownup_Rafbrat

    Grownup_Rafbrat LE Good Egg (charities)

    Well, look after your other leg while you're down there, K13!

    ;-)