posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 09:15 AM
reply to post by orangetom1999
Did not Neville Chamberlin think the way you do back in the 1930's??
I don't think so no. Just because I think it is realistic to say that Britain can no longer afford new CBGs, and perhaps shouldn't prioritise
acquisition of those specific type of military assets at this moment in time, especially given the latest info suggesting we can't even afford to
complete these projects let alone fully arm, fuel, supply, man and protect them, doesn't mean that I think we shouldn't be investing in defence, or
that I don't recognise several important threats out there.
As I guess you know, Britain is currently attempting to build two new carriers - but with no word that I have heard about providing the type of
support group vessels and aircraft to fill it, that would say appear standard for a US CBG deployment, plus they plan to fuel them with...oil?
To many of us here, the whole project appears far more political (arising under the previous Labour Government to create jobs in specific key Labour
constituencies) than a good match to our strategic needs. In a way, I guess I would prefer to see them shelved, and the money redirected into more
clearly practical assets - but how does that mean my head is in the sand re: current threats?
PS - I meant it about the USA running into issues on defence spending: If China manages to maintain it's growth and international trade networks,
and growing influence, whilst the USA/Europe continue to struggle or fall into a more severe double-dip recession or currency crashes, and there is no
intense war started to resolve/defer these differences, there remains a serious risk that US defence spending could crumble, just as it did for the UK
in the wake of the loss of it's empire and wealth post WWII, or maybe similar to the Russian 'superpower' military dismantling/disrepair phase
immediately after the 'end' of the cold war? A British military expert would have said that was impossibly unrealistic in 1911 too.