Royal Navy is too small to manage UK interests

Myler

Member
Joined
May 30, 2019
Messages
96
You are basically making stuff up as you go along.
They are living on twitter.
Ironically, this is me and the then UK Defence Minister versus a couple of guys on the internet.
It's clearly designed […] to test our response, and any weaknesses in the alliance, and we must make sure we respond in due measure.
That the act had political significance is without question, by anyone with any kind of substantial interest in the matter.
Yes, do you think they use fresh water to flush toilets and for fire systems? Do you think these systems only pump in water when a toilet is flushed?
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make, when the broad shape of the issue is clear to anyone balanced.

The QE2 pumps in seawater under pressure, which it processes for its freshwater need. I'm sure that, at any given moment, this means there is an amount of seawater on board in the process.

If you ask the question "how did a load of seawater flood a couple of compartments?" the answer seem to be that it didn't come in because of a fault in the hull, but because one of the pipes sucking in seawater for processing catastrophically failed.

"Internal system" doesn't mean internal water. It means an "internal" system that sucks in external water failed, allowing that external water into the boat.

A balanced person wouldn't need the detail of explanation that I'm giving. But there it is for you.
 


rainmaker

Administrator
Joined
Mar 26, 2012
Messages
22,624
Ironically, this is me and the then UK Defence Minister versus a couple of guys on the internet.
Except that does not say anything remotely like what you said, Einstein.

You said the Russians had humiliated the the UK by sailing through the channel, something they would never have done before.

But it is something they have always done & they are entitled to do.

Now you post a link proving my point that they do it for the same reason they fly close to our airspace - to test response times.

This is what happens when you become a Google expert on something in five minutes to try and support a chip on your shoulder.
 

Myler

Member
Joined
May 30, 2019
Messages
96
You said the Russians had humiliated the the UK by sailing through the channel, something they would never have done before.
If you are attempting to deny the acknowledged political significance of the act, you are effectively contradicting your own Defence Minister at the time.

If you are attempting to say the Royal Navy has not lost significant capacity, you are also wrong.

If you are suggesting the QE2 is proven technology, in a context where the UK experienced significant problems with the Type 45, you've a struggle.

Maybe this will work out for you, or maybe you'll just find the significant costs you are taking on mean you will lack the capacity to do more basic tasks.

Which takes me right back to the start. We need to get more serious about defence, because we cannot assume the UK is doing it.
 

rainmaker

Administrator
Joined
Mar 26, 2012
Messages
22,624
If you are attempting to deny the acknowledged political significance of the act, you are effectively contradicting your own Defence Minister at the time...you are attempting to say the Royal Navy has not lost significant capacity,
Now you are simply making stuff up that was never said and arguing against that.

You said the Russians sailed through the channel and humiliated the British because they did nothing to prevent them doing so. You are clearly ignorant of this topic.

Otherwise you would have known that the channel is an international waterway, that the Russians are entitled to use it and that they have always used it - even at the height of the cold war.

The best bit though, is that the Russians sole, near forty year old carrier (& due to remain in service until the 2030s) is a superior warship to the QE class carriers because of a few problems that sea trials are meant to discover.

Quite why your comp the RNs problems with the Russian Navy anyway is baffling, if I recall they've only managed to build 3 or 4 small new vessels since 1991 or so.

They are currently incapable of replacing that rusting liability of a carrier they tow around.
 

Myler

Member
Joined
May 30, 2019
Messages
96
Now you are simply making stuff up that was never said and arguing against that.
No, you got lost in the minutiae of whether it was the first time a Russian naval vessel passed through the English Channel, and avoided engaging with the actual political significance of the event.

The subject of the thread is clear; does Ireland need to reconsider its defence policy, in particular given the current weakness of the UK?

I'd say the answer is pretty clear, too. Yes, we do.

Russia needed to send out a tug with their carrier, as it was old and needed the backup. Why the new Type 45 needs a tow on occasion is harder to account for, and may reflect a gap between ambition and reality.
 

rainmaker

Administrator
Joined
Mar 26, 2012
Messages
22,624
No, you got lost in the minutiae of whether it was the first time a Russian naval vessel passed through the English Channel, and avoided engaging with the actual political significance of the event.
Sorry, you're not moving the goalposts now. Explain how the Russian Navy legally passing through the channel is a humiliation of the UK.

You said it was because they previously avoided, which was a lie.

You then said it was humiliating because the Brits were powerless to prevent them from doing so, even though preventing that smoking hulk would not have posed a problem it would have been illegal.

You have also avoided explaining how it is only supposedly a humiliation for the RN, and not the other four NATO navies on the other side of the channel.

As for what Ireland is going to do nothing about it's naval strength, the answer is a resounding nothing.
 

Myler

Member
Joined
May 30, 2019
Messages
96
Sorry, you're not moving the goalposts now.
No goalposts have been moved. As British Ministers acknowledged at the time, the movement of the Russian fleet through the English Channel was a calculated challenge.

And, indeed, preventing the event would have required strategic action - like planning so that you didn't lack a functioning aircraft carrier.

You're in that classic internet corner of avoiding the main topic, by trying to restrict discussion to a pointless strawman. At least Between The Bridges isn't still here, pretending that you'd expect any naval vessel to have the occasional flooding event from an "internal" seawater reservoir .
As for what Ireland is going to do nothing about it's naval strength, the answer is a resounding nothing.
I actually agree that the likely response is a double nothing.

I just don't think we should do nothing.
 

rainmaker

Administrator
Joined
Mar 26, 2012
Messages
22,624
As British Ministers acknowledged at the time, the movement of the Russian fleet through the English Channel was a calculated challenge.
They were shadowed as they always have been, that is all that legally can be done.
And, indeed, preventing the event would have required strategic action - like planning so that you didn't lack a functioning aircraft carrier.
This really shows your ignorance on the subject.

There's no way the Russian Navy can be prevented from using the channel, as they always have done. It's an international waterway. What part of that are you not grasping?

So please explain why having a carrier already up and running would have prevented the Russians from legally sailing through the channel?
 

Myler

Member
Joined
May 30, 2019
Messages
96
There's no way the Russian Navy can be prevented from using the channel, as they always have done. It's an international waterway. What part of that are you not grasping?
In one sense, your persistence is commendable. I've no doubt that the Royal Navy would be equally persistent in acting to defend the UK, even in situations where they similarly lacked the ability to do so.

As I said in an earlier post, its not like anyone expected the Russian fleet to hang a right and invade the UK. Which, if we were both to make the kind of literal statements that you want to restrict the conversation to, would leave us in a puzzling situation. Why would the Royal Navy track the fleet at all, if we are all agreed it posed no immediate threat? After all, its only a few boats travelling international waters.

But the Royal Navy weren't as ambivalent as the Irish Naval Service would be in similar circumstances, were they? Or as oblivious as the Irish Air Corps would be when a Russian bomber appears off our West coast? And your Government weren't as silent as ours would be in such circumstances, were they?

So your literal, transactional focus isn't the point, is it? Is just an evasion tactic which, tbh, belongs more to my national culture than to yours.

If there's an absence from this thread, its an absence of Irish people concerned about our national defence. Strange that the conversation is reduced to a lonely expression of diminishing British military pride.

That's as straight as I can answer you.
 

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
26,929
Twitter
No
We don't have to worry about our national defence as much because we aren't in the habit for demographic and historical reasons of creating enemies.

Best defensive policy of all time has to be 'stop creating enemies'. Quite cheap, too. I normally charge for this kind of insight.
 

Nebuchadnezzar

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 15, 2011
Messages
10,837
We don't have to worry about our national defence as much because we aren't in the habit for demographic and historical reasons of creating enemies.

Best defensive policy of all time has to be 'stop creating enemies'. Quite cheap, too. I normally charge for this kind of insight.
I don’t see how that fits with your oft stated dumbass notion that we should pimp Shannon out to the Russian or Chinese military or else blackmail our neighbours and the USA into paying us off not to so.
 
Last edited:

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
26,929
Twitter
No
I don’t see how that fits with your oft stated dumbass notion that we should pimp Shannon out to the Russian or Chinese military or else blackmail our neighbours and the USA into paying us off not to so.
Business is business, as they say in New York.
 

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
26,929
Twitter
No
I think there are lessons from history where small island nations have successfully managed a policy for hundreds of years of alternate interest in supporting one power or another and managing through reverse-courtship to keep such powers at a sufficient distance from its own local interests.

Ireland not being a member of NATO is a decent step in that direction and well spotted by someone back in the day. Soon as we become a member of NATO then it would be entered in targeting systems faster than the news in the morning papers.

I think we would be well advised to view relations with the current UN Security Council Members (permanently) as a matter for balance rather than bias.
 

Newrybhoy

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 1, 2018
Messages
3,520
I think there are lessons from history where small island nations have successfully managed a policy for hundreds of years of alternate interest in supporting one power or another and managing through reverse-courtship to keep such powers at a sufficient distance from its own local interests.

Ireland not being a member of NATO is a decent step in that direction and well spotted by someone back in the day. Soon as we become a member of NATO then it would be entered in targeting systems faster than the news in the morning papers.

I think we would be well advised to view relations with the current UN Security Council Members (permanently) as a matter for balance rather than bias.
Ireland couldn't afford to be a member of NATO.

2%of GDP is the benchmark and you have practically nothing to start with.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top