´óÏó´«Ã½

I wish to comment regarding the discussion on the Burkha.
The guest today Giles Brandron displayed extreme tactlessness in commented about the woman's lovely eyes whilst dressed in the Burka. Does he not understand that is a sexist comment and a reason why she is wearing the Burkha

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Why are the ´óÏó´«Ã½ wasting time on the Burkha issue. The one show is a first class early evening light entertainment programe focusing on issues which, by & large are really important. The Burkha issue will rage for years. The one show is too good for this nonsense.

OK fine - moderate my message however while the limits of broadcasting are being curtailed by the day, and the internet police are looking at everything - is it not correct to say that the one show is good, just because it contains the word Burkha, what is there to be afraid of, and you are aware thie issue will rage for many years, sadly.

(RE-SENT WITHOUT HTML)

IRRATIONAL 'UK ARMED-FORCES-RATIONALIZATION's' (IE: CUTS) NOT NEEDED!!"

While it's a truism that all countries' armed forces need to be efficient, once the consequences of meeting efficiency-objectives result in the effective neutering of a country's armed forces- or branches thereof- then whoever is pushing for- and/or facilitating- these 'armed forces branches' 'rationalizations' becomes party to a form of traitorous negligence...

The UK's armed forces have been severely 'over-rationalizing'- IE making too many cuts in men, heavy-fixed-assets such as warships, materiel & even basic-training for most of the last 10-years...

The egregious results have been entirely predictable- for example- the Royal Navy today isn't fit to fight anything close to a real conflict- whether a one-off skirmish or an ongoing war- against even a modestly-modern-weapons-equipped foe(s)...

The RN's elderly, defective &/or obsolescent Submarines, Destroyers, Frigates & Aircraft Carriers have not been replaced in a responsible (IE with up-to-date technologies) or timely manner & certainly not in mission-sufficient numbers....

Over the last 10-years, when RN warships have been (or planned to be) replaced, the rule under Labour has been to tamper with & chop-off vital components of designers'/contractors' specifications & designs for new warships- to the point that the ships produced are dangerously under-equipped in terms of weapons systems, ship-board defenses and levels of technology...

- The new Type-45-model Destroyer programme- with several under construction for the Royal Navy today- is a case in point:



AND



What few Type-45's that are being built- less than 1/3 of needed- are functionally incapable of any war-fighting/military tasks other than launching primary defensive missiles at incoming air-borne threats...

These front-line warships have no 'secondary defensive systems', (also known as 'Close In Weapons Systems' (CIWS)) installed, for use in known-to-be-likely combat situations when the Type-45's 'primary' defensive system (missiles) miss their target- or when the Type-45 expends its puny supply of 48 defensive missiles...

The directives that Type-45's be constructed with a virtual void of weaponry, ammunition-capacities & defensive systems have resulted in brand new Royal Navy warships that easily could have been the most potent and effective (for their displacement) of their type in the world- being third-rate 'make-work-projects' at best...

Why Type-45's are being built of a size & with on-board facilities capable of embarking/supporting just 1 helicopter each, instead of 2- like other top-tier countries' navy's Destroyers- has never been justified by Labour...

2 copters are particularly useful to have, if, in the middle of a battle, 1 copter is lost while the suspected location of a known threat is out of delivery-range of the ship's on-board weapons and sensors...

Similarly, the Labour-handicapped-design of the planned new aircraft carriers for the Royal Navy is- if proceeded with- going to result in ships that would barely be suitable to fight a WW II type conflict, and certainly not 21st century ones...

Why?

The RN's new aircraft carriers won't be built with catapults.

Catapults are necessary for Aircraft Carriers to be able to embark, launch & recover a variety of the most versatile & capable types of fixed-wing aircraft, such as Airborne Early Warning & Control (AWACS) types...

The RN's new carriers will be restricted to Harrier type (short/vertical take off & land ) fixed-wing aircraft & helicopters- that can not duplicate even remotely the function of modern, fixed-wing AWACS...

Without AWACS planes flying high above the respective carrier & its battle group- scanning OVER THE HORIZON for potential threats & theatre data- carriers & their support/escort ships are enormously vulnerable to low-flying (sea-skimming) incoming airborne threats such as supersonic anti-ship cruise missiles & aircraft...

The new carriers won't be nuclear powered meaning these ships- if built- will be unable to generate sufficient power for fitting them with coming on stream/under-development 21st century armaments such as Directed Energy Weapons (DEWS) & will be significantly range/endurance-limited due to their fossil-fuel engines- & their aircraft- requiring constant refills of fuel from supply ships- particularly problematic if, during a conflict, the carrier's supply ships get sunk....

As well, due to their 'on-the-cheap' design, the RN's planned new aircraft carriers won't be able to stock & use tactical nuclear weapons- ...

Thereby eliminating these ships' usefulness in a legitimate hot-war- a situation that only the very most willfully ignorant/tunnel visioned would say can be ruled out during the projected 30- 50 year operational life of these "central to the RN's function" ships...

Similar to the country's emaciated & canabalized indigenous research & development base, the UK's armed forces need substantial long-term investment- not another politically-driven review.... guaranteed to cause money-wasting inter-service rivalries....

This in addition to the armed forces needing political & military leaders who are prepared to speak against the intellectually-dishonest falsities that Labour- & some in the MoD- have been disseminating for over 10-years...


Roderick V. Louis,
Vancouver, BC, Canada,
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]

#1 Perhaps these women should stop wearing heavy eye make up, e.g. kohl, to emphasis their eyes! It's all in the eye's! ; )

We can't beat the Taliban with aircraft carriers; come to think of it, we won't beat the Taliban with anything; Pakistan has to clean up the tribal areas, with US dollars and expertise of course.

We are not a superpower; we must not delude ourselves that we will need to fight wars in the next 30-50 years; US and/or China will handle that.

Terrorism? Let Obama do his thing in the Middle East; might be helpful if UK apologized for its meddling in the Middle East ever since Moses left Dumbarton, but that's about our useful limit.

Trace Arab-Israeli conflicts, Pakistan/India/Kashmir disputes, Northwest Frontier/Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran, both deeply suspicious of British involvement in anything to do with their interests, and you'll find us meddling at the beginning.

Time to say sorry; yes we can!

It makes me physicaly sick watching these spoilt selfish self centered people acting like their half thier age and hundreds of thousands of pounds wasted on these countless series on people,s meaningless atempts for attention because they dont want to eat a carrot. When their are children dying every second all over the world from starvation not just in the trendy media poverty spots Asia,India,South America but also here in the UK the little island of mainland europe.

Wake up stop wasting the vast resourses paid by the public to the ´óÏó´«Ã½ get some perspective stop being a symptom of the problem. If you say something long enough are insistent enough and my god persistaent enough people will believe it.

The fact is we have never been so healthy lived so much longer and look younger in all known history. Although their arent any prizes to be won for knowing that one.

22.00 Hrs

As part of the trail for tonight's NN ......

Sir JP asks Q .... And is it time for an amnesty for illegal immigrants .... unQ

Answer ......... No.

Period.

NOR LIVED IN A CULTURE SO FAR REMOVED FROM NATURE (#8)

"The fact is we have never been so healthy lived so much longer and look younger in all known history."

Nor imprisoned so many, slaughtered so many, and driven so many more mad - I venture.

By my reckoning, we are designed to function properly to around 50. Thereafter, all manner of useful functionality goes rogue, and bits start to fail. Nature intends we should be 'taken out' before becoming an insult to the life force, but our anomalous cleverness, untempered by wisdom, and abetted by cockeyed culture, works against her.

Nature will win.

Did I just hear JP state in a between-programme reminder that tonight's Newsnight will include discussion of amnesty for illegal immigrants?
If so, is the short notice intended to curtail potential posts on this controversial issue?

Re spending. This government has been misleading Parliament and the public for years over the state of the economy, but now it is resorting to blatant obstruction and lies. To delay the CSR 'til after the election is an act of almost criminal irresponsibiliy which would put this country in even greater danger than it faces at present. To do so purely because it is scared of revealing the mess it has caused would be disgraceful - to do so to cling onto power would be an act of treachery.

11. At 10:26pm on 30 Jun 2009, indignantindegene wrote:

No, not a discussion, that's a bit too controversial sadly. It is part of an audience hook for the dross they call "The Political Pen" going by the footage in last nights preview.

When will the proper debate follow? ...... Hold your breath now.

For me this is a new topic for comments.
Bringing Burha issues are not high standard of viewing by ´óÏó´«Ã½.
That custom is prevailing from so many centuries.
Very difficult to write,comment on it.
Now, French President wants to discourage of using Burha in some places.
For that lot of hue and cry among Muslim nations,muslim clerics.
Please do not try to mix religion with day today life.
If entire world accepts networks,modern media,higher education,higher economic footings among many religious minorities,then these customary practise will come to very minimum levels.

13. At 10:59pm on 30 Jun 2009, JAperson wrote:

Apologies .... it's "The Politics Pen"

Dross by any other name is still dross.

Think some One Showers have wandered into the Newsnight Blog

/blogs/theoneshow/consumer/2009/06/30/should_schools_allow_teachers.html

Excellent report by Michael and all his interviews in Norwich plus lively debate by Jeremy with Michael Gove et al on what a future government would spend, and how non-committal/vague they were. What a state! Loved Jeremy's interview with Ariana Huffington & Anne McElvoy on "citizen journalism" which is gaining prominence in the wake of the Iranian elections, but not a replacement for journalists per se.

I liked Paxo's tough questioning of Huffy on verification. One question: does Paxo verify every fact that his guests will say on his show? If not, the difference between Paxo and Pico is????

Paxo also suggested that Huffy's posts gave only one side of the story. No, Jeremy, the Iran government gave the other side. What's more, their side was also free to send posts and twitters to all and sundry

Was There An Error ?

Mr Paxman opening quote-

"Shadow Chancellor walked away from an apparent promise to protect education spending , then claimed ...."

Mr Paxman to Mr Gove (Shadow Children, Schools and Families) quote -

"There are problems with your figures too isn't there ?"

"What you are saying now is not what Andrew Lansley said only a few weeks ago."

June 10th
The day Mr Lansley (shadow health minister) made a statement that included the alleged budget promise ?

That evening Mr Hammond (Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury) was on News Night and Mr Lansleys earlier incorrect statement about the education budget.

So what apparent promise on education did the Shadow Chancellor walk away from on Tuesday ?

COUP DE HEADLESS CHICKENS

Now that our political factions are climbing on a moribund Britain to gain a higher position to swipe at 'the enemy' (other parties) I feel my constant plea to "SPOIL PARTY GAMES" takes on a new urgency.

That MPs are to be viewed 'all of a piece' is inescapable, when they remain incapable of stewarding this beleaguered country in a mature manner, even though soup kitchens loom.

Could Britain perhaps be put into 'special measures'? We could call in a management team from some proven state, to get us back on track (and close down Parliament).

If nothing else it would SPOIL PARTY GAMES.

How can Mistress76uk @ 17 say:

"Excellent report by Michael and all his interviews in Norwich"

when there wasn't a single reference to Craig Murray, the most interesting and challenging candidate who is standing in Norwich? Did the ´óÏó´«Ã½ edit him out, or were they just following orders?

Dear Gordon,
Ive just thought of a way you could not only save a lot of expenditure, but also pull in a substantial sum to use subsidising bankers: why not raise inheritance tax to 100%, with zero threshold, and bring in compulsory euthanasia for the over 70s? After all, youve shown those of us whove saved to support ourselves in old age precious little recognition of our thrift in the past, so why not maximise the opportunity we represent?
Yours,
OAP (Own Annuity Provider)

@21 Globalissues - I did not know who Craig Murray nor did I know he was standing as an Independent Candidate for Norwich!

However, having Googled him on

I was impressed to see that he was a former British Ambassador,writer, human rights activist and current Rector of Dundee University. Reading his blog on the site, he would be an extremely interesting person to interview.

#21 and 23 Craig Murray, thanks for bringing him to my attention globalissues. Like Mistress76uk I'd never heard of him, but he looks a good candidate, one Barrie would like, spoil party games. It appears control of what we are allowed to know is very alive and kicking here. Fancy the Beeb not interviewing him, is it censorship? Or is the Beeb campaigning for the three main parties only? Or just Labour?

Non verified media?

it doesn't matter if things have been verified or not because by the same process people will correct it if its wrong. I have several times put false info on news boards just to see how long it takes before someone corrects it. it doesn't take long. try it.

Bending the Military?

if the good of a uk military is to protect the uk then that is its just use.

it is clear there are some who wish to bend the uk military to be fighting liberal interventionist regime changing conflicts that have little to do with uk interests. This might suit the current FO but it is a perversion of what a uk military must ultimately be able to do which is to defend the uk.

so we need jets, ships, trident etc . we should not pervert the design of the uk military to fight neocon wars.

if the uk military is good for the uk defence it is unlikely to be much good for neocon wars.

On the crash so far as I can see nothing much has changed at all. The banks could still make the same mistakes.

The credit rating agency probably does not have new high powered staff.

The government has never fully acknowledged errors and so has not suffered direct retribution - so why would some future government not get sucked in?

The regulators probably would not know what was going on in the banks as they have limitations. They can't limit the instruments used - so far as I know - so we remain in a position where I understand the the value of CDS is four times or so greater than the ability to pay for it. The maths that determines that that is OK has been proven to be based on faulty assumptions.

Risk management was inhibited at HBOS in favour of company growth by people unqualified to make the call. The FSA probably does not have the capacity today to stand up to the government if it thinks there is something wrong.

Following Richard Norths report I saw Channel 4's Mumbai report.

I am probably stating the obvious but the terrorist controller is recorded.

There are only so many people with the background in Pakistan to plan that.

Perhaps a GCHQ guy on the Beeb said the other day that voice recognition software is fantasy. So maybe you can't simply plug every serving or ex ISI officer's voice into a computer and catch the villain in five minutes - or clear the ISI.

But given the Ripper Hoaxer was caught years after by analysing the voice for clues to geographical background and age and so on is it not possible to pursue the perpetrator?

Pretty simple question from me, why wasn't Craig Murray included on your list of declared candidates for the Norwich North bi-election? He's been fairly prominent campaigning, has he really not declared or was this an oversight on Newsnight's part?

PLEASE Newsnight will you discuss this...



You never seem to talk about it, why not devote a whole programme to this huge problem for us, you managed to put a celebrity, Michael Jackson on for a whole programme!

It would be interesting to know if we have to just accept our work going to foreign workers. But it makes a nonsense of the future for British workers. We keep being told everyone must work, including single mothers, and future retirement will be 68. Just where are these men and women going to find work, if 70percent has gone to people from other countries?

What's going to happen to pensions? All these new people living here will need a pension, do we then import yet more people to pay theirs? WHY doesn't anyone talk about this problem? Do they hope it will just go away? Perhaps as Young Bill wrote, euthanasia for the over 70s?is going to be the answer!

Why does the far right get so molly coddled by those in authority and the media?

The far right chap and his son arrested in the North East for encouraging terrorism and possessing a jar of ricin have hardly had more than a couple of lines written about them. Should the muppets have been able to create a weapon with ricin that is a big deal.

The law of probability says that sooner or later one of these head cases will succeed.

Maybe its a trade off to those in the far right who provided the information to the police - if so it was bad deal.

Von Bruun in the US killed a security guard at a Holocaust Memorial and was a member of the American Friends of the BNP. His rabid anti-semitic views (they run the Fed and the global economy) are echoed on this page almost daily by the far right posters - who are not Nazis or the BNP so they often say, but usually contradict themselves later.

As a for instance they explain their views on Jews by stating that Stalin ejected a large number in the thirties as they were "anarchists and Trotskyites". That makes sense to them.

The Nazis were so impressed by their "statist" neighbour that Hitler invaded the Soviet Union and slaughtered tens of millions.

Todays posters claim they are not Nazis but they pursue all of the components of National Socialism and revere Hitler.

Bizarre.

#30 Ecolizzy

The films coming out in 2010, sure there will be debate on NNR

Why indeed was Craig Murray's candidature for the Norwich North by-election not mentioned on Newsnight last night? Why did his name not even appear in the list of candidates, as it is required to do?

Craig Murray is a very strong candidate. He is of at least equal stature and calibre to Martin Bell and could make the same kind of impact. He is the rector of Dundee University. He is Britain's former ambassador to Uzbekistan. He is a decent, principled and articulate man. He is in possession of enough first-hand evidence regarding the Labour government's complicity in torture to make the Cabinet squirm with shame.

I'm sure none of this has any bearing on Newsnight's bizarre omission. I'm sure it was just an unfortunate oversight. I'm sure Newsnight will be broadcasting a correction and apology tonight.

- with any luck, he might rattle a few cages. Bit soft on Neocons etc though.

#32 Thanks Leo ;>)

At least you gave me something to laugh about! : )

thegangofone (#31) "As a for instance they explain their views on Jews by stating that Stalin ejected a large number in the thirties as they were "anarchists and Trotskyites". That makes sense to them."

Try seeing them as an endogamous political group with dissenters (Zionists and assimilationists).

Why you keep complaining about people reporting is quite beyond me. Dark games of geo-political/military strategy were played by both sides (Germany and Britain) at the end of WWI, the former to tople Russia and the latter to unsettle the Ottoman empire via the Balfour Declaration. These games were played at great cost to Tsarist Russia and to the Middle East. Ultimately there was blowback for Germany too. Hitler was dealing with that blowback.

Please learn the history. Much of it is documented in Hansard (or Lloyd George's memoirs).

30.

in the same way common land was enclosed [beyond access to locals] for the profit of the lords so jobs are being enclosed [beyond access to the locals] for the profit of foreign multinationals.

unlimited migration is as much an extremist policy as no migration. It comes from Nulabour's core idea that the markets are the best determiner of national outcomes [which is why we have pfi, privatisations, foreign multinationals owning strategic industry etc]. Despite the mountain of evidence to the contrary the govt still love this false belief.

I second the call to give some coverage to Craig Murray's campaign. I'm pretty sure the reason the bbc doesn't want to cover Murray is that he has some fantastic dirt on Jack Straw and various other new Labour types and if he gains a wider audience Straw will have to face the music sooner.

After reasonable coverage in the lead up to the European elections, the ´óÏó´«Ã½ has reverted to its anti UKIP stance.
Despite the success of the UK Independence Party in recent elections, local as well as European, the UKIP candidate in the report on the Norwich North by-election was completely ignored, except in the compulsary list of candidates at the end.
UKIP has a strong local candidate and is fighting an impressive campaign.
It is undoubtedly one of the big 4 Parties in UK polits and has every chance of causing an enormous upset in Norwich.
Fair play, please, ´óÏó´«Ã½.

"the UKIP candidate in the report on the Norwich North by-election was completely ignored, except in the compulsary list of candidates at the end"

BUT, Craig Murray was not even on THAT list. So you're already getting more coverage than him.

(Sorry, Mistress76uk, I wasn't complaining about you, I was angry with Newsnight for ignoring a candidate who may end up not only causing a surprising "upset" in the result in Norwich, but a major upset for certain people like Straw ...)

Craig Murray on . Sometimes quite .

1. Neocons ...grrrrrr.
2. Libertarians = anarchists (some became Trotskyists).
3. Don't tell 'The Thing' about the right wing bit...

#30
If these migrant workers have worked here for more than 10 years and have during this time, been paying taxes to the UK government just like a British citizen, I think they should be eligible to the UK state pension. I dont know the specifics of the UK law, but that is what happens in North American countries which also face large influx of migrant workers. No one is getting an automatic, free ride on the state pension after they have migrated to the country - they have to work to earn it.

However, I dont think that is the root of the problem. There are simply not enough jobs in Britain to accommodate indefinite inflow of migrant workers from across the EU. Rather than struggling to bring in new money to create jobs or hoping new comers will be deterred as the economy slows down, the government should just stop adopting EUs open border policy and replace it with a point system, and have EU workers fill the vacancies of skills shortage as needed.

Perhaps the Editor (or the Web Team) could come onto this blog and do us the courtesy of explaining the omission of Craig Murray from the Newsnight slot on the upcoming Norwich North by-election.

It is very patronising to invite comments and not respond to them.

Craig Murray's most recent post on his web site reads:

"I have just been telephoned back by what sounded like the most junior member of the Newsnight team. He told me that in the "Editorial judgement" of the ´óÏó´«Ã½, I was not a "Significant candidate".

I will therefore not figure in ´óÏó´«Ã½ coverage other than the mandatory two second caption at the end. For Newsnight, Michael Crick will give the statutory mention this evening".

Not significant eh? The current odds from Ladbrokes make Murray fourth, behind the Conservatives, Labour and the Greens but ahead of the Lib Dems. Are we to take it then that the Lib Dems won't feature either, other than the mandatory two second caption at the end?

Just read the comment about a guest showing lack of tact when commenting about a burkha-clad woman's eyes. Has it occurred to the writer that eyeliner, which is used in the East even more than the West (kohl is not a European word!) is used precisely to draw attention to the eyes so they may be admired. Of all possible reasons for wearing a burkha, this is not one of them.

In all the many discussions about the burkha nobody has asked, much less answered, the question why, if it is such an integral part of Islam, it is not worn much in Pakistan even now, and when I first went there four decades ago, it was not worn at all.

bridgehope (#45) "In all the many discussions about the burkha nobody has asked, much less answered, the question why, if it is such an integral part of Islam, it is not worn much in Pakistan even now, and when I first went there four decades ago, it was not worn at all."

An interesting observation.

Pakistan, like India is still quite British? It is, however, like India, and Iran, getting quite interested in the SCO - which is really the 'we're not NATO' group to replace the Warsaw Pact.

I can't help but think that are somehow ultimately behind all of this ;-(.

#42 _h

If these migrant workers have worked here for more than 10 years and have during this time, been paying taxes to the UK government just like a British citizen, I think they should be eligible to the UK state pension.

Ah if only it was that easy! 10 years won't get you a state pension! I've worked 35 and my husband 42, so we've been paying a little more than that. Have you seen our pittance of a state pension? The worst in europe, well the richer part. And it's going to get worse, we are now going to have to work until 70 according to Lord Hunt head of the FSA. I thought all these new immigrants were going to pay our pensions in the future, but not so, they send their money home, and then demand pension rights here. It's a massive time bomb, in future we are going to have destitute old people living on the streets.

Oooopps Make that Lord Turner, getting me lords mixed up! : (

IRRATIONAL 'UK ARMED-FORCES-RATIONALIZATION's' (IE: CUTS) NOT NEEDED!!"

PART 2:

1 TRILLION POUNDS CAN BE FOUND TO RESCUE THE UK's INSOLVENT BANKS BUT THE UK ALLEGEDLY 'CAN'T AFFORD TO DEFEND ITSELF'- BUNK!!!"

The RN's new Type-45 Destroyers are comparable to the US Navy's Burke (batch IIA) Destroyers in type/class, but Burkes have an anti-airborne-threat missile capacity nearly 7 times that of Type-45's... with each Burke able to be armed with more than 360 primary anti-airborne-threat missiles... to the Type 45's maximum of 48...

Type-45's and Burke's primary anti-airborne-threat missiles are roughly similar in that both Type-45's and Burke's missiles come in medium and long range versions, with both missile versions loadable into and fire-able from their respective ships' on-board missile launchers...

In the case of the Burke, each of these ships' missile launchers have a total of 96 'slots' for loading missiles into.

Each 'slot' will allow 1 long-range or 4 medium-range primary anti-airborne-threat missiles to be loaded into and fired from it.

This enables Burkes- with their 96 missile launching 'slots' per ship- to be put on patrol armed with anywhere from a minimum of 96 up to more than 360 primary anti-airborne-threat missiles, depending on whether the respective Burke Destroyer's missile launchers are loaded with medium or long-range versions- or a mix of the two...

Although both the medium and long range versions of the Type-45's anti-airborne-threat missiles can be loaded into and fired from the same on-board launchers- unlike the US Navy's Burkes, 'quad-packing' the Type-45's medium-range missiles into (respective Type-45) missile launchers' individual 'slots' that normally are loadable with one long-range missile isn't possible...

Individual Type-45's missile launchers have only 48 missille launcher 'slots'.

A Type-45 launcher 'slot' that can be loaded with one long-range missile can not be loaded with 4 medium-range missiles...

So, Type-45's each have a maximum capacity of only 48 anti-airborne-threat missiles regardless whether each Type-45 is armed entirely with medium or long-range or a mix of medium and long range variants of their anti-airborne-threat missiles...

Potentially more than 360 anti-airborne-threat missiles for each of the US Navy's Burkes vs a maximum of only 48 for the UK Royal Navy's 'newest, best warship'- the Type-45...



This is not to say that Burkes' or Type-45's missiles are better at defeating airborne threats...

Which one would you want to be protecting your country's interests??

Roderick V. Louis,
Vancouver, BC, Canada,

IRRATIONAL 'UK ARMED-FORCES-RATIONALIZATION's' (IE: CUTS) NOT NEEDED!!"

PART 3:

1 TRILLION POUNDS CAN BE FOUND TO RESCUE THE UK's INSOLVENT BANKS BUT THE UK ALLEGEDLY 'CAN'T AFFORD TO DEFEND ITSELF'- BUNK!!!"

As commented in 'Part 1' above: "Over the last 10-years, when RN warships have been (or planned to be) replaced, the rule under Labour has been to tamper with & chop-off vital components of designers'/contractors' specifications & designs for new warships- to the point that the ships produced are dangerously under-equipped in terms of weapons systems, ship-board defenses and levels of technology..."

Labour appears to be doing the same thing with the Trident ICBM & Vanguard nuclear submarine replacement programme- if it goes ahead:

:

NOTE THE COMMENTS: "...The UK's next-generation ballistic-missile submarines will have (12) missile tubes rather than the (16) aboard the existing Vanguard-class Trident-armed submarines, (and much less than the (24) aboard the US Navy's current Ohio-class Trident submarines and their planned replacements- rvl) ... British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said... "

While the proliferation of and increase in nuclear weapons & related technologies world-wide is an assurity over the coming decades, the Labour govt appears to want to- for cost reasons only- handicap the country's ability to defend itself and/or present a credible deterent to potential aggressors...

It's bad enough that the RN's now coming-into-service newest, 'most advanced' warships, Type-45 Destroyers are not- thanks to Labour- fitted with weapons/sensor systems required for engaging surface and sub-surface targets (Type-45's are not even capable of ship-launching torpedoes), but now Labour want to leave the country with 1/2 the nuclear deterent it will likely need in the coming decades...

If a new Trident and Vanguard aren't needed, and if the RN and other UK armed forces' branches don't need to be maintained at creditable force-levels- then what should the UK be oing about Russia rearming itself and selling masses of hardware/warships to countries like India, Brazil & China for??

Not to mention comparitively huge sales of advanced submarines, Frigates and similar vessels by France and Germany to many non-NATO nations... such as India, Singapore, Vietnam and many Persian Gulf countries...

1) Russia is reactivating two of its retired Typhoon SSBNs:



2) Russia Might Complete Bulava Flight Tests in 2009:



3) Russia Set to Build New Nuclear-Armed Submarine:



4) Russia to build eight nuclear submarines:



5) President Medvedev visited Sevmash, inspected Yury Dolgoruky:



6) State-of-the-art nuclear submarines to the Russian Navy:



7) Russia to lay down 2nd Graney class nuclear sub in July:



"...Under the Russian State Arms Procurement Program for 2007-2015, the Navy will receive several dozen surface ships and submarines, including five Project 955 Borey nuclear-powered strategic ballistic missile submarines equipped with new Bulava ballistic missiles, two Project 885 Yasen nuclear-powered multipurpose submarines, six Project 677 Lada diesel-electric submarines, three Project 22350 frigates and five Project 20380 corvettes."

8) Russia may export up to 40 diesel submarines by 2015 :


Roderick V. Louis,
Vancouver, BC, Canada,

PART 4:

1 TRILLION POUNDS CAN BE FOUND TO RESCUE THE UK's INSOLVENT BANKS BUT THE UK ALLEGEDLY 'CAN'T AFFORD TO DEFEND ITSELF'- BUNK!!!"

Oh,and about that Type-45 Deck Gun:

Type-45's were designed to each be fitted with a new-technology small bore HUGELY EXTENDED-RANGE AND ACCURACY 'Deck Gun' not the standard issue small bore Deck Gun- standard issue on most RN Destroyers and Frigates since WW II...

Thanks to Labour, Type-45's are not being constructed with their designers' intended HUGELY EXTENDED RANGE AND ACCURACY Deck Gun, and are instead being fitted with the obsolescent-technology type Deck Gun used on Type-42 Destroyers...

A job for Newsnight could be finding out if, in fact, the Deck Guns being fitted to Type-45's are brand-new (but obsolescent technology) Deck Guns or are they recycled (obsolescent technology) Deck Gun's from retired RN warships...

Why is this an issue?

Because the objective at the start of the Type-45 programme (in the late 1990's) was to produce cutting-edge, multi-role warships and today we're getting nothing of the sort... in large part because Labour seems to have decided to make the project into a make-work exercise (currying votes) while almost entirely eliminating the produced Type-45's abilities to be functional, effective additions to the Royal Navy...

The proposed new Aircraft Carriers and the new-Trident ICBM/Vanguard class submarine system replacement- on the face of it- appear to be being deliberately rigged with the functionality and effectiveness of the resulting products relegated to bottom priority with "make-work-projects for votes" the top-priority (cutting corners and costs anywhere possible- regardless of the short and long-term consequences)...

Roderick V. Louis
Vancouver, BC, Canada
[Personal details removed by Moderator]

LAST INSTALLMENT PART:

1 TRILLION POUNDS CAN BE FOUND TO RESCUE THE UK's INSOLVENT BANKS BUT THE UK ALLEGEDLY 'CAN'T AFFORD TO DEFEND ITSELF'- BUNK!!!"

The same false-logic 'justification' seems to be behind the reported Labour govt plan to substantially 'slow down' the already 8-years late & hugely reduced in nubers-to-be-built Astute fast-attack submarine construction programme...

DON'T BUILD ASTUTES SLOWER- BUILD 'MORE'!!

Why delay the currently projected build-programme for (4) Astute Submarines- substantially less than the (8) Labour committed to in 2001- when instead, govt committments to the construction of the needed (12) or more Astutes over the next 10-years would ensure that there is consistent submarine work at the Barrow yard- up to and during the commencement of the (Vanguard replacement) new-Trident-system submarine programme??

Who knows, maybe if this approach were taken, BVT/Vosper/BAE and other UK naval-engineering & construction companies could leverage their increased business and resulting (if done right) experience into foreign contracts for non-nuclear submarines/vessels...

If France and Germany can get away with heavily subsidizing their ship-building firms, and, obtain dozens of contracts world-wide for non-nuclear submarines, the UK ought to at least put in place policies/spending programmes so that it can compete...

Roderick V. Louis,
Vancouver, BC, Canada,

#52 Mr RvLouis

One of the things I have been campaigning for is the end of shipbuilding in the UK for warfare purposes.

The objective is to use the budgets and ship building capability to produce a fleet of vessels to clean up and manage the world's oceans.

These will range from research and exploration to equipment for removing toxic waste dumped at sea. Hopefully before many of the containers break down and release poisons into the water itself.

Not only have we to protect the oceans from what we are doing now and in the future we need to clear up the legacy of past abuse before the consequences manifest.

This is part of our agenda to achieve global mutually assured survival.

This will support our manufacturing, engineering and research base in the UK and be of benefit to all and this planet. We believe there are enough weapons of death, we need an organisation for life.

My great uncle was a sea captain and his death certificate reads 1872 miles west of Vancouver BC.


Celtic Lion

REALLY, REALLY LAST INSTALLMENT:

LABOUR REDUCING UK's NUCLEAR DETERRENT BY 50%- WITHOUT A PARLIAMENTARY VOTE OR EVEN ADVISING MP's LET ALONE A PUBLIC CONSULTATION/ADVISEMENT!!

Re the UK's Trident replacement programme and Labour's apparent dishonesty- and attempted public deception re this issue:

The present Vanguard submarine based UK nuclear deterent consists of 4 Vanguard submarines, with each having 16 missile tubes capable of launching Trident nuclear missiles...

In other words the UK's total nuclear deterent today in 2009 is 64 submarine launched nuclear missiles...

The UK MoD has been openly saying for many months that they are 'OK with the RN's present 4 Vanguard nuclear missile carrying submarines being 'replaced' with 3 of the under-development ones and their new Trident missiles'....

Prime minister Brown recently 'decreed' that the UK's new Trident system submarines, when built, will each have only 12 missile tubes- instead of the Vanguard's 16- or the US Navy's Ohio class submarines 24...

3 new Vanguard-successor submarines X 12 missile tubes each= 36...

64 missile tubes with the present 4 Vanguard submarines-based Trident system vs only 36 missile tubes with the apparent Labour & MoD toadies'
3 Vanguard-successor submarines/new Trident system->> almost a 50% reduction in the UK's nuclear deterent, and all without a public debate or public consultation/advisement...

1) "UK MoD remains open to three-boat nuclear deterrent option":



2) "Some commanders may feel uneasy about (reducing Trident carrying subs from 4 to 3) given the fact that recently two of the (present Vanguard)submarines were out of service due to major repairs. In the future a similar scenario could leave Britain with one or zero active nuclear deterrent submarines...":



3) "The UK's next-generation ballistic-missile submarines will have 12 missile tubes rather than the 16 aboard the existing Vanguard-class Trident-armed submarines":



4) "The Royal Navy is cannibalising parts from various ships and (Trident nuclear missile/Vanguard) submarines to keep other vessels afloat and operational it has emerged..."

"... The revelation that the (present Trident/Vanguard submarine) nuclear deterrent is being gutted for parts is particularly worrisome. If there was a national or international emergency some of the Vanguard class submarines would most likely have to be left in the docks since they would most likely be missing parts crucial to the subs operations....":



Roderick V. Louis,
Vancouver, BC, Canada