Another Nail in the Coffin of the Former British Empire

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jan 5 2007, 01:19 PM) [snapback]371334[/snapback]</div>

I'm not sure I agree. I'm no expert, but historically at least they've tended to underfund the development of aircraft carriers, which seem to be the weapon of choice for imposing the will of one's country upon another.

Isn't it safe to say that the British Navy's heyday was in the 18th and 19th Centuries; that it was shattered by the outcome of WWII, and has never regained its stature since?

I'm not sure this is quite the big deal you make it out to be.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jan 5 2007, 01:19 PM) [snapback]371334[/snapback]</div>

With the Soviet Union gone as a threat, what do they need a navy for? Glad to see someone is getting a peace dividend.

 

What vessels are being mothballed? If it's an aircraft carrier and the missle-launching subs, that's substantial. Otherwise, it might not be that big a deal.

Granted, the Cold War is over, but special forces, etc. are need to deal with terrorism.

Outside our own, I trust the British military far more than any other nation. Some at this board would put them ahead of us in Iraq.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Delta Flyer @ Jan 5 2007, 02:39 PM) [snapback]371352[/snapback]</div>

The times story talks about mothballing an additional 6 ships (4 frigates, 2 destroyers) in addition to 13 already in that state, leaving the navy with 25 or so active ships.

Checking the royal navy's website led to this article titled "'No decision to mothball warships'" dated Jan 5 2007.

http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/06...-name_page.html

Maybe they were just. .. er... floating....the idea.

 

First off, dbermanmd, can you post a link to something legitimate that talks about how they hate the US more and more? I can't find anything, and haven't heard anything along those lines (and i happen to know several people who have spent considerable time in London in the past few years)... so whats the big deal there?

Second, what's the purpose of having a Navy? In international waters, a Navy is next to useless in day-to-day things - they have no power to enforce laws. A Navy is present as a means of transporting and protecting troops, as a base for launching attacks on other countries, and as a defense force. Whats the point of keeping around ships that essentially do nothing?

Finally, what do they need to be protecting themselves from? Is France suddenly going to get the urge to start a war across the channel? Does some other developed nation with an established navy have some serious problem with England that could lead to a war? in the past 100 years, the only wars that England has been seriously involved in was WWI and WWII - anything else was as part of a NATO force. With the invention of the atomic bomb, war between developed countries is pretty much over, and undeveloped countries don't have the technology to be any sort of threat to England.


You take a small item like this, and project huge problems for a country, projections which are entirely unfounded.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jan 5 2007, 03:15 PM) [snapback]371378[/snapback]</div>

The story was also told Dec 31 by the Times. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2524444.html
>>HALF of the Royal Navy is to be “mothballed†as it bears the brunt of cuts imposed after a series of expensive procurement projects and the hidden costs of the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq.<<

So maybe because they're helping us in Iraq and Afghanistan is why.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jan 5 2007, 02:15 PM) [snapback]371378[/snapback]</div>

Why should they care about the Straits of Hormuz? They got North Sea oil, they probably figure, rightly, that's it our problem. As for projecting force, they still have their nukes & air force. As for tsunami relief and other transport needs, they can do what even our Army and Navy do and charter private stuff as necessary. Do you really think we are in the middle east to protect the Brits? Too funny.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jan 5 2007, 01:15 PM) [snapback]371378[/snapback]</div>

Lets see... if they're sitting there with 23 or 44 warships in their navy, whats the major difference? plus their building 2 aircraft carriers. yeah, seems like they can't project any power what-so-ever. But i ask again, in what way is their navy protecting them? They aren't this huge empire that has colonies all over the world anymore - remember that pesky little rebellion we had here in the US? Sure, they have a few territories, but how much does it take to actually protect them?

What are the major sea powers? how many of them are going to take any action against the UK? The simple fact is that their navy is still plenty powerful enough to project force where it's needed, and if they need a little more, they have allies (or did you forget about NATO) they can call on.

The US spends its money on a Navy for it's own reasons, not the UK's. There is no way that our Navy takes orders from England. Sure, there are times when they might operate in a joint task force, but that doesn't mean that they are at the UK's beck and call.

Simply put, all the situations you gave don't need a huge Navy to solve. there are only two reasons to have a huge navy: to be able to handle military engagements with other huge navy's (not going to happen in this day and age), and to be able to project power in multiple areas simultaneously. England simply doesn't need to be able to do that.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jan 5 2007, 01:19 PM) [snapback]371334[/snapback]</div>

You didn't read the last line of the Telegraph article? These are proposals, not decisions.

You should also know that the Telegraph is a very right wing newspaper and will put a right wing slant on anything from the present government. I haven't seen readership figures lately but I read some time ago that sales have been sliding steadily for some time.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jan 5 2007, 02:19 PM) [snapback]371334[/snapback]</div>

How does this statement of opinion have anything to do with the British Navy?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Delta Flyer @ Jan 5 2007, 02:39 PM) [snapback]371352[/snapback]</div>

This is really just dobermann making a big fuss out of nothing.

2 of the ships being mothballed are Type-42 destroyers, which are being replaced in the next few years. To say the 42s are long in the tooth is a bit of an understatement.

Most of the rest of the ships being motballed are Type-22s, which I'm assuming are due to manpower cuts. To be honest, the RN probably is a bit heavy on the frigate side, and a bit light on the destroyer side (destroyers and cruisers to US-folk), and I'd assume that some of the 22s are going to have to be cut for the Darings (replacements for the 42s).

HMS Invincible is also being mothballed, but there are 2 other carriers active in the RN, and a third amphibious carrier (Ocean). Two new carriers are on the way (one has been laid down) and should be in service by 2012 (I believe). Each one of the new carriers will have the capacity of 2 of the old carriers, so that's a substantial upgrade.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hyo silver @ Jan 5 2007, 03:00 PM) [snapback]371411[/snapback]</div>

It doesn'y but I think it indicates that dbmanmd wrongly believes that the present Brtish government is a socialist one. Perhaps he's confusing socialism with dictatorship? Dictators do tend to be self destructive, e.g. Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini et al.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Oxo @ Jan 6 2007, 06:47 AM) [snapback]371707[/snapback]</div>

Wasn't Mussolini a Fascist?

Isn't Socialism the label Neocons stick on anything Liberal? Or I should say left of their position, which is pretty much everything?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jan 8 2007, 07:16 AM) [snapback]372399[/snapback]</div>

Could you define, or at least give examples of, a socialized society? A search of socialist countries in wikipedia gives current and previous communist countries.
In which case, China has strong military.

 

and to add to that, the USSR had a strong military at one point - so strong, in fact, that it was called one of the worlds two superpowers, and their military strength, combined with the US's military strength was the direct basis for the cold war...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jan 8 2007, 10:20 AM) [snapback]372468[/snapback]</div>

France: Democracy
Sweden: Democracy under a constitutional Monarchy

There are socialist parties in countries (one of the main ones in France is), but i can't think of a single significant country that is socialist. Some countries are closer to socialism than others, with, for example, national health care or heavily subsidized transportation. But the last i checked, France (only since you mentioned it) allowed individuals to gain wealth, and to spend that wealth on their personal desires (such as apartments, houses, personal goods) instead of controlling the distribution and use...