The government's decision to scrap its remaining aircraft carrier and the Harrier jets flown from it has been attacked in The Times today by retired senior naval and military figures. Those in service are not, for obvious reasons, permitted to make comments on government decisions. The warning that these fellows have given is reasoned and based upon their substantial experience. The UK's government of the day includes many neophytes who should, undoubtedly, listen to the voice of experience. The signatories to the letter warn that the scrapping of the carrier (not to be replaced for several years) could open up the real possibility that Argentina could successfully invade the Falkland Islands and inflict a national humiliation on a par with the loss of Singapore. Surely, any government worth its salt would take every measure to prevent any such thing?
The picture is an artist's impression of the two replacement aircraft carriers which, some say, will not be fully operational for many years.
Posts
cuts are needed; your words a few weeks ago; So tell me, do you regulary want to have your cake and eat it?
ReplyDeleteOne of the best moves this Govt has taken I think; we are joining up with the French to reinforce our joint defence strategies; they are broke too. Also, those old guys put out to grass; well, they would say that wouldnt they. What sense would their lives have made if they didnt really believe we were still a world power?
As for the Falklands; a grand piece of PR for the then hatchet Tory PM
Defence and the health service should be end of line for cuts. The NHS is one of the biggest employers in the world. Indian railways have more employees and, until a few years ago, the MOD (including the forces' personnel) topped the NHS. But the British forces should be allocated to close defence of the Islands and overseas' possessions and the British people there and not sent to back US invasions in Iraq and Afghanistan. The current government has to come to grips with the economic consequences of the Iraq and Afghanistan fiascos but, on the other hand, who supposes that Britain is not 'in' on important deals for oil as a result of backing Bush Jr? That should fund the forthcoming aircraft carriers. However, what about the meantime? If aircraft carriers are (as they seem to be) forecast as needed in 20 years' time, they must be needed now.
ReplyDeleteThe aircraft carriers wont be built it seems for 20 years; the contracts mean they must be paid for and so are described rather artificially as needed.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAnon. All informed persons seem to agree that aircraft carriers are needed. It is illogical and dangerous to scrap what is still in service now and have to wait twenty years for replacements. This is just common sense. Your reasoning seems to be off the wall.
ReplyDeleteTell that to David cameron et al; he's your man and target for this; not me. I watched all of this on newsnight; paxman etc; get out of it!!!!!!!!!!!
ReplyDeleteAnyhow just back from a hard day as a legal eagle; brain is so very dead right now!!!!!
Are you telling me I fell off the wall into the dirt with Cameron et al? Ah me
ReplyDeleteCameron seems a wishy washy would-be crowd pleaser, like all the rest of the recent smug and smarmy swine.
ReplyDeleteSMUG AND SWARMY; BRILLIANT; YOU'LL GO FAR
ReplyDeleteI said 'smarmy' not 'swarmy'.
ReplyDeleteAh then, bang goes the originality; think of all those poets who made up words and it was brillig. I shall use swarmy; yippee!!!!!!!!!!
ReplyDeleteWhat I find so amazing is that political debate seems to attract far more attention here than anything else.
ReplyDelete