| Submit your comments on this article |
| Europe |
| The Thin Red Line Gets A Little Thinner... |
| 2006-10-16 |
| ...This is NOT good - I had no suspicion that it was this bad and I have a feeling it's worse than we know - h/t to NRO's Corner - Mike Navy 'too weak' for big role in Korea blockade Plans to impose a blockade of North Korea to prevent the regime acquiring nuclear weapons were thrown in disarray last night. China said it would oppose attempts to inspect suspect vessels and Royal Navy commanders said Britain was unable to make a significant military commitment to the proposed United Nations naval task force. The United States is leading attempts to put together a force that would prevent suspect cargoes from entering the Marxist dictatorship and stop North Korea exporting weapons of mass destruction technology to rogue regimes such as Iran and terrorist groups. Attempts to assemble the force began in earnest yesterday after the UN Security Council unanimously passed a resolution late on Saturday imposing tough arms and financial sanctions against Pyongyang following its claim that it had test-fired a nuclear warhead last week. The UN resolution prompted an angry response from North Korea, which said it would regard the imposition of sanctions as an act of war and described the resolution itself as "gangster-like". China, which voted in favour of the resolution at the Security Council, immediately cast doubt over the effectiveness of the proposed naval force when government officials said they did not approve of the inspections regime and would not take part. Amended rules of engagement have been drawn up for the US 7th fleet, which is based in North Asia, and Pentagon officials said yesterday that they could count on support from the vessels of 15 "core" members of the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI), which was set up in 2003 to prevent North Korea acquiring weapons of mass destruction technology, and includes Britain, Australia, Japan, and Singapore. Condoleezza Rice, the US Secretary of State, will this week begin an intensive round of shuttle diplomacy, visiting China, South Korea, Japan and Russia in an attempt to shore up support for the UN resolution. But senior Royal Navy officers last night cast serious doubt over Britain's ability to make a significant naval contribution to the proposed UN force, claiming that drastic cuts in government spending on the navy over the past decade had severely reduced their ability to participate in major foreign operations. "I am staggered that the Government is trying to make this commitment when it knows what our Armed Forces are going through," a senior Royal Navy officer last night told The Daily Telegraph. "But it knows that to keep our presence on the Security Council Britain needs to demonstrate what we can do." Defence experts predicted that the most the Royal Navy could contribute was a single frigate, a Royal Fleet auxiliary support vessel and a Trafalgar class hunter killer submarine. But senior navy officers 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. As a result of government cutbacks any British ships deployed to the South China Sea to enforce the UN resolution would depend on the American or French navies to provide "beyond visual range" air defence with their aircraft carriers. The Navy has been cut by almost a third since Labour came into power, and the admission by Royal Navy commanders that they were struggling to find suitable ships to deploy to the UN force will raise further questions about the Labour government's handling of the armed forces' budget. Britain's military commitments to Iraq and North Korea have exposed glaring deficiencies in resources and equipment. The approval of the Security Council resolution bolsters the right of US naval commanders to stop and search suspect vessels. North Korean trade will now be liable to constant scrutiny. The nerve-centre of the non-proliferation web around the Korean peninsula is the USS Kitty Hawk, NOTE: the Kitty Hawk is one of the last two conventional-powered CVs in service, the other being USS John F. Kennedy a nuclear powered aircraft carrier that commands a fleet of 60 ships and 350 aircraft. China has repeatedly promised to tighten restrictions on North Korean shipments but any crackdown has so far been limited. A Chinese vessel carrying North Korean radar was intercepted in the Mediterranean last month. Security experts also fear that increased US air and sea activity around China will raise the risk of a clash with the 600-ship strong People's Liberation Army Navy.Not likely, the USN will board them in international waters, and with the exceptions of a very few vessels, the PLAN is not a blue-water force. They might watch closely, but they won't interfere. Mike |
| Posted by:Mike Kozlowski |
| #14 Cuz they've gotta contend with all the PCBS. And, that must be ture because we seem to be getting just a tad bit less aggressive/assertive and more politicized these days. What say You, Hon? |
| Posted by: Asymmetrical Triangulation 2006-10-16 21:22 |
| #13 I know. Do you know? No. Oh, Tammy tell me ture. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-10-16 20:51 |
| #12 Rather sad to reflect upon "reported" USN surface reduced capability (if valid). Silent Service is energized to the point that they realize we won't utilize their power (i.e., de-energized. Oops. Too many Zzzz,s in there). How did we let ourselves get to this point with all the +O-9's, SES and GS/GM-15's out there? I know. Do you know? |
| Posted by: Asymmetrical Triangulation 2006-10-16 20:45 |
| #11 RD is right. With all the money saved by using mothballed ships, the vast majority of the crew can be over-the-hill gang who would be more than glad to get good pay to be away from the old lady and wear a somewhat larger uniform again. Only the bording parties need to be young and strong, though I certainly wouldn't advise any Nork crew to try and take on the old swabs. You never know when they might have brought their cutlasses with them. The bottom line is for quick quantity of ships, so that if needed, our ships of the line can take off to attend to other business, while leaving the blockade whole. Giving the geezers enough teeth, as it were, to tear the Norks a new one if they try anything. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2006-10-16 19:23 |
| #10 Not sure it's the USN that's getting too thin. More and more it's looking like US and Oz, though Canada may be coming in from the cold. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-10-16 18:51 |
| #9 This is bullshit. Anything getting into North Korea has to come from China (we can't stop it with a blockade) or by boat. Boats leave wakes. Wakes that are visible from space in some cases. Post a sub on each side of the peninsula with orders to confront or sink any ships breaking the declared quarantine and its over. Anyone will risk being borded by the western powers but few will risk being sunk. Stop playing games. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2006-10-16 17:59 |
| #8 The USN is perfectly capable of handling NORK interdictin without help. The help is for PR purposes. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2006-10-16 17:27 |
| #7 Mess Specialist 4th Class Do you know how to make the Mystery Meat Surprise? And the brown stuff, the brown stuff was good! |
| Posted by: NoBeards 2006-10-16 16:05 |
| #6 And where, pray tell, Moose would you find the 50,000 extra trained personnel to man these ships in 6 months? hire us of course, the over »:-) |
| Posted by: RD 2006-10-16 15:53 |
| #5 And where, pray tell, Moose would you find the 50,000 extra trained personnel to man these ships in 6 months? |
| Posted by: Dreadnought 2006-10-16 15:08 |
| #4 As usual, the Chinese giveth, and the Chinese taketh away. Note that they're putting out BS about supporting a coup. There is no PR like Chinese PR. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2006-10-16 14:34 |
| #3 I would have to vie for the US resucitating its mothball fleet, for several reasons. First, sheer number of ships that can be floated in a short period of time. Second, far less cost than any new ship. Third, our allies just don't have the chutzpah to help much. It's important to remember that these ships do not have to be brought up to full capability, they mostly need good enough engines to perform interdiction of cargo ships. Defensive and offensive systems do not have to be organic, they can just be hauled aboard before departure and removed later. Put this "rust bucket" fleet over a broad area, with modern combat ships in reserve, giving support where needed. In six months of crash refitting, we could easily add 100 ships suitable for the job. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2006-10-16 14:11 |
| #2 I think it may be time to turn the annual RIMPAC exercises into something more than strictly training. For those unaware, RIMPAC is a multi-national naval wargame with traditional red vs. blue forces ( surface, air, sub-surface). Quite intense. IIRC from my active duty days, the US, Japan, Taiwan, Austrailia, Phillipines and others all played. I will hazard a guess that we also used our Marines to take a beach, but being an airdale, my focus was on keeping the planes in the air. |
| Posted by: USN, ret. 2006-10-16 13:55 |
| #1 To add to the woes, the US Navy has also been substantially reduced. Reagan built a 600-ship navy. Clinton dismantled almost half of it. We're just now beginning to get back to where we need to be (400-500 ships). We do have about 200 ships in mothballs, but most are old and out of date. Actually, the only country in NATO with a decent navy (outside of the UK) is Italy. Theirs, however, is primarily a defensive navy, with little capability of long-range deployment and open ocean capacity. The British people need to wake up and demand a more robust navy if they plan to keep their far-flung but greatly reduced empire. The Argentinans are still a threat to the Falklands, and pirates are a threat to many of Britain's small colonies such as Ascension and some Pacific islands. I think we're going to have to depend on Australia and Japan for help in the Far East. We used to be able to count on New Zealand, but they're now a "peaceful" people. The only reason they're not facing huge problems from outside is because they're at the end of the earth, literally. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2006-10-16 13:28 |