• [Opinion] On British ‘lethality’ and hard power
    12 replies, posted
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/feb/11/gavin-williamson-defence-policy-uk Gavin Williamson said in a speech today that he intends to send his new aircraft carrier, the HMS Queen Elizabeth, round the world to frighten China. He will equip it with a squadron of F-35 fighter jets, purchased from America. In addition he wants to build two British military bases, one in Asia and the other “in the Caribbean”. They are to “strengthen our global presence, enhance our lethality and increase our mass”.Brexit, says the defence secretary, “has brought us to a great moment in our history”, when we must be ready to deploy “hard power” against those who “flout international law”.
Can't have hard power when all the soft-power is going down the fucking drain.
I agree somebody ought to be putting a damper on the Chinese, but Britain..? I'm not sure they're exactly quaking in their boots.
2 aircraft carriers does not a navy make.
you give an ex-empire one (1) glorified helicopter tender and suddenly everyone's getting delusions of grandeur
What if we add a fleet of rubber ducks and a couple dinghies?
So an island nation doesn't need a navy to protect its shores and merchant shipping? 🤔 This journo needs to stop writing about defence tipics, he doesn't have a clue what he's talking about
You say that and then talk about things likes its Ww2 and countries still need to give merchant ships naval escorts. That might be true in more volatile parts of the world. But thinking that we need a strong navy to defend the island is a fantasy? Defend it from who. Who in the 21st century is going to attempt a naval landing here
We are not at risk of invasion right now. But navies are expensive things to build and operate - so you plan 5, 10, 20, or even 50 years ahead. It's not impossible that the world in that period of time may become more hostile, so it's better to have that capable armed force ready rather than not if it becomes needed. After all, Europe was peaceful in 1905 and ten years later it was
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLr-jfbX0zM L E T H A L I T Y
I guess its a difference in perspective, at a time when major parts of our society are breaking down and heading for crisis due to lack of funding I don't think spending even more money than we already do on our armed forces just in case there's a war in 20 years is a good way of proceeding. Or at least its an incredibly unsustainable way of running the country. I also wouldn't describe Europe in 1905 as peaceful, yes there were no major wars that specific year but Europe was a patchwork of massive empires in the middle of arms races and two of those had been at war about 30 years prior. It was far more volatile than things are now and increased military spending made sense because it was obvious something was going to happen. I don't think the Europe of today will be at war with itself in 20 years time, its far more likely this country will either be roughly in the same spot it is currently or we'll be a broken down mess with a large military and some ships, if the government hasn't sold them all off by then.
To be honest, I think it's important, especially given dwindling US-UK relations, the increasing agression from Russia, and China's attempt to dominate the West, I think it's important for the UK to have a strong military. Obviously we should also strengthen European relations too, but I think increasing British military presence is a necessary evil.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.