Dismantling the Royal Navy

D

dominic

Beast of Burden
after much fiddling about, editing links and such, here's the posting =

I expect most people on Dissensus are anti-imperialists, and so may well greet news of deep cutbacks in u.k. naval fleet and capabilities as good news. As for myself, I'm at a point where I'm neither for or against anything that goes on in politics, especially on the world stage. (For my political program, which has no chance of ever coming to pass, at least not anytime soon, see this and this.) I simply observe and make the odd note . . . .

From that most plebeian of sources, as read by millions of ordinary New Yorkers on the subway, we have this and this

the author is one arthur herman, who is perhaps something of a right-wing scots-admiring ideologue. he even has a nifty little plan for war against iran

however things may stand, i think the op-ed pieces are worth reading . . . .
 
Last edited:
D

dominic

Beast of Burden
okay. looks like a need to do a bit more rousing here to generate a discussion . . . .

is it a GOOD or BAD thing that Royal Navy will be smaller and less powerful than, say, the French navy???
 
Guybrush

Guybrush

Dittohead
Neither of them. The E.U.’s total military strength is what matters. Whether France or the U.K. supply the most naval vessels is of less importance.
 
D

dominic

Beast of Burden
Guybrush said:
Neither of them. The E.U.’s total military strength is what matters. Whether France or the U.K. supply the most naval vessels is of less importance.
Click to expand...

therefore, the steep reductions in u.k. naval capability should be interpreted as a very definite move toward military integration with europe -- and a very definite step away from trans-atlantic alliance or anglo-saxon rule of the seas (u.s.a./australia/u.k. axis)
 
Guybrush

Guybrush

Dittohead
dominic said:
therefore, the steep reductions in u.k. naval capability should be interpreted as a very definite move toward military integration with europe -- and a very definite step away from trans-atlantic alliance or anglo-saxon rule of the seas (u.s.a./australia/u.k. axis)
Click to expand...

Or a decision made out of economic necessity; I don’t know enough about British domestic politics to comment on the possible motives behind it. Has not Tony Blair voiced an interest in increasing European military coöperation, though? Angela Merkel did a couple of weeks ago, when she openly spoke in favour of a common European army.

Big Rise in Russian Military Spending Raises Fears of New Challenge to West

Boo!
 
Guybrush

Guybrush

Dittohead
DigitalDjigit said:
Surface ships are pretty useless in war anyway, sitting ducks.
Click to expand...

According to that NY Post editorial—or did I read it somewhere else?—they protect international sea trade. Buy, yeah, they are pretty useless against assymetrical warfare. I was thinking Vimothy et al. would be all over this thread. :) To heat things up a bit, I suggest the next British PM cuts the military bonds with the U.S. and instead focus on building a forceful European army. An exclusively European army would mean: 1. that the army would act solely in the interests of Europe, or, at the very least, in the interests the European leaders deem important, 2. that more European countries would consider joining it than were it to be administered by NATO.
 
vimothy

vimothy

yurp
Guybrush said:
According to that NY Post editorial—or did I read it somewhere else?—they protect international sea trade. Buy, yeah, they are pretty useless against assymetrical warfare.
Click to expand...

Important to remember that asymmetrical tactics are only used in response to Western "full spectrum dominance", so that if we give up our superior 3GW, conventional battlefield superiority, hostile factions will naturally move to more traditional tactics and methods. Which is basically their long term goal anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top