The case for naval investment

Steve.W

Or rather than spend the money on the navy we could stop mucking about with wind farms and build more proper power stations.

Also I like the quote - “or even nation states to interrupt this supply”. Nice little dig at nation states, but then they are so evil, best off in the EU!

A bigger navy or political confederation is not the answer.

TrevorsDen

"command the seas"? What utter crap. There is no way we can afford that. We are NOT a superpower.

Gas comes via overland pipes and through continental Europe. We cannot even protect our shores from pirates and illegal immigrants with the billions we already spend.

Malfleur

And from where is government going to find the resources to enable the Royal Navy to command the sea, now that the present British government has bankrupted the economy and mortgaged our future with the printing of vast amounts of funny money?

I argued on another thread that we should target the oil resources of Libya in order to secure our supplies of oil and oil products and to provide a source of funds with which we could rebuild a Mediterranean fleet. We should take over Libya with cast-iron guarantees that the 5.7 million people more generous provision than they ever dreamed of under Gaddafi. That provision would be paid from the wealth generated there and would in addition have their rights to worship as they wished secured and protected. With this wealth guaranteed to them, following annexation of this vast country with its tiny population, we should offer them a ticket to any other country in the Middle East or, if they preferred to stay, full rights of British citizenship, including the right to elect representatives to the Westminster parliament.

Henry VIII, confined within a system of "international law" that frustrated his understanding of England's vital interests, and in particular observing the great cargoes of gold flowing into Spain from the New World, broke the conventions of the international "legal system" by breaking with the pope and seizing the wealth of the dissolved monasteries as a way to counter-balance Spain's new wealth.

He saw that his own interests and those of England coincided. He acted ruthlessly in pursuit of those interests; despite the conventions of the international order and the formidable opposition in continental Europe. He set England on a new path to independence from foreign pressure. Even the measure of independence which he won for us however, or, you might argue, BECAUSE of the measure of independence which he won for us, Spain with its superior resources launched a fleet and an existential threat against England in 1588.

We are faced with a similar crisis. Our production of North Sea oil is falling off. We will be reliant for oil on whom? What price will they exact? What enemies are circling as they calculate our weakness?

Spain, with its claims to Spanish Morocco, would this time be our ally and would back us in an agreement for reciprocal defence in north Africa and support our use of Gibraltar as the base from which to secure the removal of the Gaddafi government and our annexation of the territory, in return for our support for the claims of Spain to Spanish Morocco and. yes, a guarantee of a supply of cheap oil from our Libyan oilfields.

The European Union, seeing Russia standing astride the oil pipelines in the east, and noting the hostility of the Saudis and Iranians with the encouragement of Russia to the revival of a vigorous European civilization, would be encouraged by the promise of a steady and reasonably priced supply of British oil products from Libyashire,which we would promote as part of our commitment to a European Common Market,and would close ranks with us against the hostile muslim states and their principals.

Guarding our eastern flank, in return for our robust support against our common enemies, and for its democracy and independence, would be Israel.

How else are we to ensure that the Royal Navy receives the resources to command the sea?

What is the alternative?

Is this unreasonable?

Simon Chapman

We need nuclear power stations as well as a deterrent.

I'm glad people are revisiting this speech of Liam Fox's. He made an excellent series of speeches on energy security and also highlighted the way that Russia and Iran were using energy receipts from the West to fund miltary expansion, thereby increasing the threat that we face. Within the constraints of being unable to make any budgetary commitments, Fox has used his time at defence to think in a clear and strategic way.

James

'Island nation needs Navy -shock'

Jack R

The provision for Britain's national defence has been irresponsibly treated by recent British governments.

Despite the economic difficulties, Britain's national defence needs to be given a much higher priority.

The role of the Royal Navy, for example, must involve defence against piracy, and protection of energy supplies world-wide, but of course the Royal Navy needs to have a much larger role than that in nation defence, alonside the British Army and Royal Air Force.

This is how Commander John Muxworthy, RN, of the UK National Defence Association, (UKNDA), puts it:

"'Ask yourself", he challenged:

"Is the world a safer place now than 25 years ago when the Royal Navy, the Army and the Royal Air Force and all of our Armed Forces were twice their present size? Are the threats facing us and our national interests any less?

"Do we now have sufficient; do we always have appropriate; and do we have fully funded Armed Forces? I declare to you that it the UKNDA’s answer to all of those questions is a resounding 'No'. The Nation is at risk and Defence is inappropriately low in the Nation’s list of priorities."

"The answer is more funding. If the government can find £100bn to bail out Northern Rock, then economic recession or not, the Government, ANY Government can, if it has the will, find money for whatever it wants it to do whenever it wants to do it. Politicians of all parties need to put our money where their mouths are when intoning their oft-quoted mantra that 'defence is the first priority of the any Government'. The Nation’s list of priorities is askew and needs to be rebalanced with 'Defence' being afforded its logical and rightful ‘first priority’.

"The UKNDA calls for defence spending to be increased sufficiently to provide our Armed Forces with the resources they need to deal with all of the many and varied challenges they are tasked to meet. Such funding must also provide the Armed Forces with some spare capacity to cope with the ‘unexpected’ – because it is always the ‘unexpected’ that the future has in store for us."

'uknda.org/royalnavy'

(29/07/08.)

UK defence budget is about 2.4% of GDP, the lowest since the 1930s; it needs to be increased.

bill

I remember at the time thinking the dash for gas was a mistake on the part of the Tories. A bit like getting rid of military hospitals. John Major; LOL.

Malfleur

The poor response to Mr. Blackburn's important post suggest that Coffee Housers have more important things to talk about than the protection of the country from foreign enemies. To that extent, and as Jack R's comments illuminate, it would seem that Coffee Housers are and have been well represented by the British government in recent years.

Jack R

As William Rees-Mogg says -

"This is jingoism in reverse: 'We don’t want to fight but by jingo, if we do, we’re short of ships, and short of men, and short of money too.'"

'Times' (24 Aug).