January 14, 2007
NO ONE WONDERS ABOUT THE STRANGE DEATH OF BLACK SMITHS:
THE STRANGE DEATH OF THE ROYAL NAVY (ARTHUR HERMAN, January 14, 2007, NY Post)
A 400-YEAR epoch of world history is about to draw to a close. If Britain's current Labor government has its way, Britain's Royal Navy will mothball at least 13, and perhaps as many as 19, of its remaining 44 ships, or nearly half its effective fleet.With one bureaucratic stroke, the Ministry of Defense will end a naval tradition reaching back to Sir Francis Drake - reducing the Royal Navy, which 40 years ago was still the second-largest fleet in the world, to the size of navies of countries like Indonesia and Turkey.
This decision, of course, has to be set against the background of Britain's decades-long decline as a world power. But it also reflects a struggle for the soul of Great Britain that has been going since World War II: Is Britain part of an English-speaking, Atlantic-based strategic alliance that includes the United States and Canada? Or is it part of Europe as envisioned by technocrats in Paris, Brussels and Berlin?
Maybe they're just moving into the 21st Century and realize the Navy is as useless as the Cavalry was in the 20th?
MORE:
Recessional (Rudyard Kipling, June 22, 1897)
Far-call'd our navies melt away--Posted by Orrin Judd at January 14, 2007 9:32 PM
On dune and headland sinks the fire--
Lo, all our pomp of yesterday
Is one with Nineveh and Tyre!
We tried not having a Navy once. It didn't work.
Posted by: HT at January 14, 2007 9:50 PMDo you use a whale blubber lamp and a quill pen too?
Posted by: oj at January 14, 2007 10:12 PMWell, if we didn't have a navy, we would be launching strike raids in Afghanistan from some pretty far-flung places. Ditto for the Persian Gulf (I don't think the AF would be happy to put lots of fighters and other aircraft in Dubai or some other airbase in the region).
Then there's Taiwan.
And the Monroe Doctrine.
Not all problems are best solved by a B-2 or a Minuteman III.
Posted by: jim hamlen at January 14, 2007 11:47 PMSo the great advocate of passenger trains claims navies are outdated...?
Posted by: PapayaSF at January 14, 2007 11:49 PMIt was all over when they eliminated the grog ration.
Posted by: Guy T. at January 14, 2007 11:53 PMOne more cession of power to the world government.
We may wonder what the residents of the Falklands think about this.
Posted by: Lou Gots at January 15, 2007 6:37 AMWe need to move workers from where they live (in the country) to where they work (the city). We don't need boats that are designed to fight other boats--the future navy will be nothing but missile launching platforms.
Posted by: oj at January 15, 2007 9:30 AMThe invasion of Taiwan is made considerably less likely by the announcement that we'll just nuke Beijing if they flinch.
Posted by: oj at January 15, 2007 9:31 AMAh, Mr. Plutonium speaks!
Flexibility is worth more than you think. As I wrote before, not every problem is best solved by a Minuteman III.
And what of the submarine fleet?
American sovereignty today depends on our 12 carrier battle groups more than any other weapons system we have. There are (I think) 24 B-2 bombers, and I don't know how many B-52s and B-1s. The land-based ICBM force is a deterrent, but only for 2 nations. Baby Assad, Hugo Chavez, and Ahmadinejad don't care a bit about any MIRVs falling on their heads. But if we parked a carrier off the coast of Lebanon, you can bet Assad will be wondering.
Posted by: jim hamlen at January 15, 2007 10:09 AMYour argument is self-refuting. Nuke Damascus and Assad ceases to be an annoyance.
Posted by: oj at January 15, 2007 10:24 AMYour argument is a non-starter. Damascus won't glow unless a couple of US cities go first.
But it's nice to thump your mighty plutonium chest now and again, eh?
Posted by: jim hamlen at January 15, 2007 10:50 AMOnly because we retain the outdated forces. Had we naught but nukes we'd use them.
Posted by: oj at January 15, 2007 11:22 AMDo you use a whale blubber lamp and a quill pen too?
Only when I travel by train.