This tidbit was misplaced on the article about Kim's life style. I think it was meant to be on one of these articles.
The Telegraph (UK)
By Thomas Harding, Defence Correspondent
(Filed: 16/10/2006)
Drastic cutbacks in spending on the Royal Navy during the past decade means commanders are struggling to assemble a task force to participate in the UN-sanctioned blockade of North Korea.
Navy chiefs have also expressed deep concern about their ability to defend their ships against a hostile missile or fighter threat after a decision was enforced six months ago to scrap the Sea Harrier fighter. Ships will be entirely reliant on the American or French navies to provide "beyond visual range" air defence with aircraft carriers.
The Navy has been cut by almost a third since Labour came to power and commanders believe that any British contribution would amount to one or two ships. While the Navy has operational experience of interdicting drugs and arms smugglers in the Gulf and Caribbean, its resources are severely limited.
Since 1997, the number of frigates and destroyers has shrunk from 35 to 25 warships, one of three aircraft carriers has been taken out of service and the hunter killer submarine force has been cut by two boats to 10. There are 38,000 sailors in the Navy.
The Government was publicly warned that 25 frigates and destroyers were inadequate for the demands being made on the Fleet by the recently retired First Sea Lord Admiral Sir Alan West.
"We need far more hulls for what they want us to do," a senior Navy officer told The Daily Telegraph. "We cannot be in all these places at once. I am staggered that the Government is trying to make this commitment when it knows what our Armed Forces are going through."
Ministry of Defence sources said that because the UN resolution required an international effort "any contribution by us would be looked at" and deploying a warship was "always a possibility".
The Foreign Office said it would be liaising with its security council partners this week "to discuss the practical implementation of the resolution".
A frigate would be able to carry out stop and search missions with its helicopters and armed boarding parties. A Trafalgar or Swiftsure class submarine could also be used to covertly gather intelligence off the North Korean coast.
But without the Sea Harriers the ships will be vulnerable to attack if there are no US Navy Aegis class ships in the area. "Without Sea Harrier we are screwed and we cannot really protect ourselves adequately from the missile threat," the Navy officer said.
The Fleet will not have adequate air defence until the first Type 45 destroyer enters service in three years.
Richard Scott, the Navy editor of Jane's Defence Weekly, said recent cuts had placed "far greater limitations" on the number of tasks the Navy could undertake.
Admiral Nelson is spinning in his grave.
If Condi thinks China is not loving all this, she is a fool.
I've become very leery of news stories that are almost completely crafted around an anonymous source.
Doofus. All we need are naval mines laid by aircraft.
oh come on, how many submarines do you need to send Lil kims ships to the sea floor?
This tidbit was misplaced on the article about Kim's life style. I think it was meant to be on one of these articles.
The Telegraph (UK)
(Filed: 16/10/2006)
If you want to engage in gunboat diplomacy, it helps to have some gunboats. Britain has been in the vanguard of those pressing for sanctions on North Korea after its detonation of a nuclear device.
Now that the UN Security Council has authorised those sanctions, it falls to us to assist in their enforcement in any way we can, in particular via a blockade of North Korean trade.
But, just as the Army has been starved of the resources to do its job in Iraq and Afghanistan, so there are serious question marks over whether the Navy is equipped for this task.
Since Labour came to power in 1997, the Navy has lost a third of its ships. We should be able to rustle up a couple of frigates or destroyers, a submarine, even an aircraft carrier.
But as the Sea Harrier was withdrawn from service earlier this year, and its replacement does not arrive until 2013, those ships will be defenceless against missile fire.
Unless our fleet shelters under the protection of the French or the Americans, its air defences are pitiful; were the Falklands crisis to recur today, our task force would be sunk before ever sighting Port Stanley.
The threat of North Korea's missiles is not the only reason for trepidation. Even if Kim Jong-il accepts the presence of foreign vessels off his coast, it is easy to imagine a situation in which a misunderstanding or accident could spark an exchange of fire that escalates irreversibly.
The incident need not even involve North Korea: to have a Japanese and American fleet in its waters is the stuff of nightmares for China. Nor is the success of sanctions assured even if the naval operation works.
Is China able or willing to seal its vast border with the country? What will be done if, for example, an Iranian 747 flies into Pyongyang? Will Mr Kim, a leader happy to accept the starvation of millions of his own people, be especially touched by their suffering if his stockpiles of lobster and cognac remain intact?
Also, keeping ships on station and on alert is an expensive business; the temptation for an intervention force to sail back to port after winning a few token concessions will be great.
But the ships must still be sent – and British vessels must, if called for, be among them. We cannot have a repeat of the Lebanese situation, when fine words at the United Nations translated into embarrassingly low troop commitments.
Containing Mr Kim is not just about making sure that North Korea does not destabilise the international scene any further. It is about ensuring that other nations that might be tempted into nuclear adventurism see that there is effective punishment for defying the international order.
The lessons of North Korea will be learnt across the globe – in Malaysia and Indonesia, in Egypt and Saudi Arabia, and, above all, in Iran. As a result, dealing with Mr Kim will be one of the most vital – and delicate – diplomatic and military tasks of the coming years. It will be a disgrace if Labour's neglect of our Armed Forces renders us unable to play our part.
Rule Britannia,
Britannia Rules Some of the Waves....
Idiots at the telegraph can't even get the most basic facts straight. The Kitty Hawk in NOT nuclear powered.
My guess is, that despite the cuts, the Royal Navy will find a way to take an active and effective part. They tried to count them out in the Faklands and they proved that wrong...they will prove this wrong as well.
"Not a bit of it, I say! Ready for service!"
Well, so much for scraping your Navy.Real bright move there.
They had to give up rum. Sodomy and the lash were spared.
It's not like the British have a naval base in Hong Kong anymore...