[Zyx]

Zagadka, PM me with ideas--especially on how to make efficient private discourse.

Also, we're not going to join NATO.

We can use the liberal view of foreign policy on our side and say that no democratic governments ever waged war. We'll specify nominally democratic governments, and be out of war's path with the US.

Vladimir, take up the issue of ministry disparity in the SN-RF thread.

[ingliz]

What designs do you intend to base our frigate, corvette, and patrol boats off of?

MEKO 360

MEKO 140

River Class

But I am no longer Defence Minister, FallenRaptor is, and he may be minded to change procurement plans.

But renewing our surface fleet is not my priority, modernising the submarine flotilla was.

Submarines:

The shortlist

Sweden - Kockums, cost 1.5 billion Swedish Krona per unit.

Germany - Type 214: hybrid diesel-electric/AIP, long-range submarines incorporating successful design features from Type 209 and 212A boats as well as the Dolphin-class, which are diesel-electric boats tailored to Israel's demands, cost 1 billion euro a brace

Russia - Kristall class IHD-AIP third generation, cost $370 million each.

Four are considered to give the same capability as eighteen conventional diesel/electric vessels, I was looking to purchase eight, maybe twelve, and keep our present flotilla of conventional subs for littoral duty. In normal circumstances we would keep two of our fancy machines on station at any given time; in times of tension or war we can, of course, deploy more.

we're an english-speaking nation anyways

I am sure Grenada thought the same; if you want peace, you prepare for war.

[Falx]

Why the hell are we even talking about a major military budget? Are we completely isolated from the rest of the world so the current economic crisis does not deserve to be the single most important issue we face?

If we are to plan strategically ahead we need to secure resources. Exactly where is pofo in relation to other countries? As far as I'm aware we are somewhere around where classical atlantis is meant to be:

as such until we diceide exactly where we are geographically we are in a position to contest the north pole as well as have a claim on the south. In those scenarios a strong blue water navy is essential as well as a military that is able to project power, otherwise we will be in the same position as France when it comes to international dealing no matter what size we make our army to be.

[ingliz]

We are a resource rich nation. We have no claims on either the North or South polar regions. We have an ageing, vunerable surface "blue water" navy, we don't need, and are busy modernising our fleet to better meet our armed but neutral status . This will be achieved by selling on, or scrapping, half our existing fleet and investing in a modern hybrid diesel electric submarine flotilla to complement our existing conventional diesel electric subs. This will be done in stages as we are bound by budgetary constraints. To protect our oil fields and fisheries in peacetime we do not need fleet aircraft carriers, obsolete US cruisers, missile launching platforms, etc etc. a few frigates, corvettes and patrol boats will do. And in war, given the threat analysis, they wouldn't last five minutes anyway.

[Falx]

What for?

All conflicts between first and second world countries have shown that navies are completely irrelevant to the equation when it comes to defence. What you need is a good air force to keep bombers from being able to run amok and assymetric ground forces to keep the enemy army in a quagmire if an invasion does occur. As it stands I can't see why we would want to spend money on toys that are completely and utterly useless and will most likely be destroyed in port by stealth bombers if we ever get in a war with a first rate power.

[ingliz]

Undetectable toys with an 8000 mile range, no need to surface for a month, and a heavy torpedo or anti-ship cruise missile capability easily enough to sink a Nimitz class aircraft carrier with the loss of 5000 American lives.

[Falx]

And with the ability to protect the home island from sustained aerial bombardment? From the details you've provided they can last about a month without contact with home base, the war on Serbia has shown that Nato, if it really puts its mind to it, can sustain a constant an aerial campaign for close to 4 times that length of time from non-naval bases. Which as I said meana that the subs will most likely be destroyed in port while being serviced.

[ingliz]

They can be replenished at sea and are very reliable.

[Falx]

By surface ships, which might as well have a big "aim here" sign.

I don't get why we are fetishising the navy, this isn't the 19th century, we either use it for power projections or we don't need it at all. An air force can reliably do everything you've listed at a fraction of the cost and be an actual deterrent to a land invasion.

[ingliz]

By merchant ships flying any flag we choose.

Of course, we should acquire the "bomb" our toys could then deliver short range nuclear tipped cruise missiles to any city on the eastern seaboard from New York to Miami

[Falx]

Which is a clear breach of naval conventions opening the flood gates for our soldiers to be treated as terrorists and all our shipping become legal targets.

[Potemkin]

We can use the liberal view of foreign policy on our side and say that no democratic governments ever waged war.

lolwut?

Of course, we should acquire the "bomb" our toys could then deliver short range nuclear tipped cruise missiles to any city on the eastern seaboard from New York to Miami

That's a really, really bad idea, ingliz. We don't want to become the North Korea of the Mid-Atlantic. We don't have China backing us up, remember?

[FallenRaptor]

I agree with Potemkin. The "Bomb" is not of strategic use to us and we should strive for nuclear disarmament.

There's no reason we can't use both naval and aerial forces for defense, but I believe there needs to be a greater emphasis on intelligence.

I will work to decrease the size and budget of the standing army and start creating a framework for a national militia system. I believe militias would be cheaper and more effective at defending the people during peace times than our currently bloated and crippled army. We will still keep an army reserve for cases of war and emergencies, though.

[HoniSoit]

...we should strive for nuclear disarmament.

Definitely. Perhaps the Foreign Ministry and the Defense could jointly propose it?

[Zyx]

lolwut?

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/demowar.htm

I've witnessed this debate on Usenet several times, and it always follows the same pattern:

1. Somebody casually brings up the old factoid about how no two democracies have ever gone to war with one another.
2. Somebody jumps in and lists a dozen or so wars which have been fought between democracies.
3. Somebody else points out that those countries weren't democratic, not really.
4. Everybody gets into arguments over who was or was not democratic.
5. The argument fizzles out except for two guys continuing to argue over whether the American Civil War was about slavery.

It's an American joke. You Brits wouldn't understand. We teach ourselves that Democracies never wage war with one another, therefore we ought to spread Democracy. Isn't that cool? It's called "Liberalism" in Political Science Foreign Policy circles.

[Potemkin]

We teach ourselves that Democracies never wage war with one another, therefore we ought to spread Democracy. Isn't that cool? It's called "Liberalism" in Political Science Foreign Policy circles.

America is truly a more fucked-up place than I thought.

[Zyx]

Best nation in the world. Ever. Period.

[ingliz]

We don't want to become the North Korea of the Mid-Atlantic.

It wasn't a serious suggestion but there is a reason why nuclear proliferation is becoming a problem, the 'bomb' is the only sure way a second class power can stand up against aggression from the US.

We haven't a chance of winning using conventional weapons. Does that mean, using Falx's argument, we shouldn't bother defending ourselves at all? I don't think so, we can make our losing very expensive for the US, in both the short and the long term, if we pick the best mix of technology and tactics.

Military toys are not expensive ornaments, of course, they will be destroyed in a war. The destruction of my submarine flotilla is not an argument against investing in them. This latest technology will level the playing field at sea, at least for a time, and with a crew of only 35 and their capability to destroy shipping undetected we should acquire at least six and I would double that number.

[Oxymoron]

Are you people actually talking about viewing America as an enemy?

[ingliz]

We are the "communist" country next door, we have lots of oil, we are weak. I am not considering the US an enemy but if you want to ensure peace, you prepare for war.