Reply to thread

Message

I am sure zen's last is right. Admiralty did a remarkable job in keeping a hefty blue water Force after BPF was decommissioned. There's an Attlee 1946 quote: "who is there to fight at sea?" Yet the Strike carrier Task Forces were funded. So: Korea and Suez answer Attlee's Q. Now, early-1957, PM Macmillan believes "we get no defence from defence" and it's his sacrifice to hold down taxes so he wins 1959's Election - "most of our people have never had it so good". So POD: he chops Deterrence (after ordering Skybolt, 1960, he did in 1961 contemplate no follow on. After all what's the point: from 1958 the weapon was no longer "independent"). What he actually did, though, was to continue the White Man's Burden, of "defending" the Indian O. Quite why we subsidised our competitors is baffling. So your options are: even more, dearer, longer East of Suez, maritime and air; or scuttle sooner, confining UK to Saclant convoy protection, to slowing armour on the N.German Plain, and to cheering up Norway and Greece/Turkey on the flanks. Not a lot of Power Projection Navy.

<blockquote data-quote="alertken" data-source="post: 145967" data-attributes="member: 393">I am sure zen's last is right. Admiralty did a remarkable job in keeping a hefty blue water Force after BPF was decommissioned. There's an Attlee 1946 quote: &quot;who is there to fight at sea?&quot; Yet the Strike carrier Task Forces were funded. So: Korea and Suez answer Attlee's Q. Now, early-1957, PM Macmillan believes &quot;we get no defence from defence&quot; and it's his sacrifice to hold down taxes so he wins 1959's Election - &quot;most of our people have never had it so good&quot;. So POD: he chops Deterrence (after ordering Skybolt, 1960, he did in 1961 contemplate no follow on. After all what's the point: from 1958 the weapon was no longer &quot;independent&quot;). What he actually did, though, was to continue the White Man's Burden, of &quot;defending&quot; the Indian O. Quite why we subsidised our competitors is baffling. So your options are: even more, dearer, longer East of Suez, maritime and air; or scuttle sooner, confining UK to Saclant convoy protection, to slowing armour on the N.German Plain, and to cheering up Norway and Greece/Turkey on the flanks. Not a lot of Power Projection Navy.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="alertken, post: 145967, member: 393"] I am sure [i]zen's[/i] last is right. Admiralty did a remarkable job in keeping a hefty blue water Force after BPF was decommissioned. There's an [i]Attlee[/i] 1946 quote: "who is there to fight at sea?" Yet the Strike carrier Task Forces were funded. So: Korea and Suez answer [i]Attlee's Q.[/i] Now, early-1957, [i]PM Macmillan[/i] believes "we get no defence from defence" and it's his sacrifice to hold down taxes so he wins 1959's Election - "most of our people have never had it so good". So POD: he chops Deterrence (after ordering Skybolt, 1960, he did in 1961 contemplate no follow on. After all what's the point: from 1958 the weapon was no longer "independent"). What he actually did, though, was to continue the [i]White Man's Burden[/i], of "defending" the Indian O. Quite why we subsidised our competitors is baffling. So your options are: even more, dearer, longer [i]East of Suez[/i], maritime and air; or scuttle sooner, confining UK to [i]Saclant[/i] convoy protection, to slowing armour on the N.German Plain, and to cheering up Norway and Greece/Turkey on the flanks. Not a lot of Power Projection Navy. [/QUOTE]

Verification