Gordon Brown's weakness risks disaster in the South Atlantic

Over the years I've done a number of posts on the Falklands. I've tried to point out how Labour's defence policy is driving us to a bloody disaster.

Today we have confirmation that Labour is doing nothing to counter claims over UK territory. The next logical step for Argentina is to stop the oil rig moving south to the Falklands.

This will be easy for them. After all Labour's politically correct Royal Navy with equal opportunities and iPods for all has failed on every challenge recently:

eg The HMS Cornwall humiliation and the kidnap of the British couple from their yacht - floating right next to a Royal Navy vessel equipped with Royal Marines.

This sort of craven weakness invites aggression.

Here are a number of past posts on this subject:

Thursday, April 13, 2006 Threat to the Falklands again
Monday, April 17, 2006 The Battle for the Falklands
Tuesday, June 27, 2006 Blair dangerously weak on the Falklands
Friday, July 14, 2006 The Economist article on the Falklands ( War of words )
Monday, October 16, 2006 The decision to scrap Sea Harrier now comes back to haunt Blair
Saturday, March 31, 2007 We need to decide what were about.
Tuesday, April 03, 2007 Lest we forget 25 years ago
Sunday, April 29, 2007 Spanish Ambassador stabs Britain in the back
Argentina pushing its colonialist and aggressive claim to sea bed between Falklands and South Georgia
Wednesday, March 19, 2008 National security - but no mention of the Falklands
Tuesday, July 08, 2008 A threat to the Falklands ?
Sunday, December 07, 2008 Does Gordon Brown want the Falklands to be invaded again ?
Sunday, January 17, 2010 Military manoeuvres
Wednesday, February 17, 2010 We need to watch the Falklands a bit closer

Lets be clear any weakness will be punished by disaster and we have the weakest dis-functional government this country has had in living memory.

We really can't go on like this !

The strange story of the defence cuts

So its been announced that the carriers will be commissioned a few years later. That may mean the construction happens according to schedule, though frankly its hard to be sure from the disinformation the government issues.

Cancelling or delaying defence contracts is a sign of real desperation in the current climate. Why ? Because most of the money spent on them flows straight back to the UK economy. Blow a couple of billion on VAT reduction and the Chinese and South Koreans will be very grateful for the fiscal stimulus your sending them ( as most of what a change in VAT levels might impact will be electronic luxury items ). But buy a new tank and the money stays in the UK.

Now in the long term we can pay for what we eat by building tanks and aircraft carriers, but if your in the business of panic fiscal stimulus's then its a good place to spend your money. After all its only a few weeks ago we were being sold the spin line that the government would 'bring forward' major projects to stimulate the economy.

So what we are being told doesn't make sense - as it stands. Unless, unless government finances are much closer to collapse than is being admitted.

The carriers have been a very political project. The Royal Navy no longer has the escort vessels to protect them and their supply lines, since for political reasons the obvious use of Nuclear power has been ruled out.

In addition a new generation of Russian anti-ship missiles is giving the US Navy a real headache, and we must assume the problem is far worse for a small and shrinking navy like ours.

Of course the construction in Scottish ship yards helps Labour with its Unionist message in its central belt heartlands.

But what use are these carriers really ? Would they ever be risked against a half capable Navy ? You really need three to be serious, one or two are just for show. Fine for helping out in a local disaster, but worse than useless for defence of the realm. ( Why is it worse ? Well can you imagine the political implications of the loss of one of the two carriers with all hands ? Given current defence spending and strategy its more than likely to happen. It also encourages what's left of the Royal Navy to over reach itself. ).

In short they will be very expensive to maintain ( much larger crews ), to support (fuel ships etc as the Govt ducked the Nuclear power option), impossible to defend ( due to a shortage of escorts and new Russian missile technology ), and impossible to use ( due to the war over nature of the loss of either ship ).

Doesn't make a whole load of sense does it ?

Does Gordon Brown want the Falklands to be invaded again ?

Eventually the bull shit from Labour will have a real cost in terms of territory and lives. ( Of course it already has in Iraq and Afghanistan ).

Today we learn that the Royal Navy can't spare a war ship for the Falklands. At the same time the force commitment down in the South Atlantic looks very bare.

Its almost as if Gordon Brown wants to hand the people of the Falklands over to their enemy as part of some sort of spite he held back from the 1980's.

David Cameron should bring this up in PMQs.

Update: The ship that was to be sent to the South Atlantic has been diverted to the EU Navy of Somalia - the BBC proudly announces that "The operation is the first EU defence mission commanded by a Briton", so thatsmakes the destruction of the Royal Navy all right then.

I wonder if the French and Germans will be willing to take the loses we endured in the South Atlantic to come and help their EU partner ? ( For those who are even wondering the answer will be No ).

Saxa vord must be reactivated

Its quite clear that Russia now presents a clear threat to the UK - as a Russian supersonic heavy nuclear bomber getting within 90 seconds of Hull shows.

Our air defences are far too weak if this is allowed to happen.

Time to bring the Saxa vord radar station on Shetland out of the mothballs Gordon Brown placed it in.

We have a credit crisis, debt crisis, and now a defence crisis.

All of them are the fault of Gordon Brown.