| Sparker | 18 Feb 2008 12:50 p.m. PST |
Guys, I was ranting on another topic about NuLabs wonderful support for our armed forces when my blood pressure must have cleared something in the deepest recesses of my memory. Remember the Russians signing the Conventional Forces in Europe treaty back in the day? This led directly to the 'Peace Dividend' and Options for Change. Well now the Russians have torn it up. So does that mean we get our toys back? Will the Treasury cough all those billions back so we can have some ships – maybe at least one for each Admiral weve got, oh and some Infantry battalions would be nice, too… |
| KatieL | 18 Feb 2008 1:08 p.m. PST |
"Will the Treasury cough all those billions back so we can have some ships – maybe at least one for each Admiral weve got" How about we just have a sensible number of admirals? And a properly designed naval force. |
| AndrewGPaul | 18 Feb 2008 1:10 p.m. PST |
Nah, just give all the Admirals a rowboat, and let them pootle about the Serpentine to their hearts' content. |
| Sparker | 18 Feb 2008 1:12 p.m. PST |
Ah, KatieL, don't try and be logical. You obviously haven't been staff trained – don't you know that maritime power is no longer based on such old fashioned things as ships, subs and ac, its the number of Flag Officers we have. |
| GarrisonMiniatures | 18 Feb 2008 2:09 p.m. PST |
Anyway, they're cutting the Navy and Air Force again. |
| Cold Steel | 18 Feb 2008 4:40 p.m. PST |
Sorry, the politicians spent the "Peace Dividend" and a whole lot more on top of that. |
| Whatisitgood4atwork | 18 Feb 2008 4:43 p.m. PST |
What do mean 'get it back'? You got the divvy and you spent it. You want it twice? |
| Supercilius Maximus | 21 Feb 2008 10:32 a.m. PST |
<<And a properly designed naval force.>> To do what exactly……? That seems to be the real crux of the problem. |
| the Gorb | 21 Feb 2008 10:41 a.m. PST |
According to the "Strategy Page": "The [Russian] government is making a lot of noise about rebuilding the armed forces, and another Cold War with the U.S., but this is all talk, to make the government appear like it's doing something. The military would need massive amounts of money (over $100 USD billion a year, for a decade or more) to restore any meaningful amount of military power. Nothing near that amount is forthcoming." link Regards, the Gorb |
| Sparker | 26 Feb 2008 4:06 p.m. PST |
Supercilious Max, Whaddya mean 'to do what exactly' – the role of the navy is obvious – maritime power projection. So that UK PLC can go about its business importing and exporting without having to spend billions trying to stablilise inherently unstable countries like Iraq and Afghanistan. If we had a proper navy we wouldn't have needed to get involved in a messy and protracted land conflict, the navy would have secured our SLOC's, with airstrikes and marines to secure the chokepoints, so that the oil would keep flowing. Much cheaper in blood and treasure in the long run. |
| Bangorstu | 26 Feb 2008 5:05 p.m. PST |
Hmm… we could have a navy the size of the USN and we'd still need to sort out Afghanistan. Navy is no good if the trouble erupts in a land locked country. Unless (doffs cap to Bootneck), one includes the Marines… |
| Kilkrazy | 27 Feb 2008 4:38 a.m. PST |
We are entering a strategic era in which most oil and natural gas is sourced in unstable and/or unfriendly regions and passes through pipelines in other unstable and/or unfriendly regions to get to us. For example, on New Year's Day 2007, Russia cut supply of natural gas to the Ukraine for "unpaid bills." Since most of western Europe's natural gas flows through the Ukraine, the pressure drop indirectly affected us. How does a large British navy help in such a situation? Alternative solutions might be to stabilise the unstable regions, make the unfriendlies into friendlies (hopefully not by just killing them all) and to develop other energy sources closer to home (wind, tidal, etc.) |
