Jump to content

US and Western Defense Policy in the Next Four Years


BansheeOne
 Share

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, R011 said:

The USN doesn't name CVNs after historic ships anymore.  Those names are for LHAs and cruisers.  If Enterprise wasn't on Star Trek, it wouldn't be a new CVN.

Personally I think the next C.V.N. should be named the U.S.S. Rush Limbaugh and the U.S.S. Walter Williams the next one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 717
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Supposedly during the war, Churchill wanted a warship named HMS Cromwell. The Royal Navy, perhaps seeing the thin end of the wedge refused it. Hence why we have names to day that hark back to the glory days of naval power, rather than after insipid politicians. Can you imagine Carriers called Hms Tony Blair and HMS David Cameron?

I suppose the only way out of it for the USN is to start building smaller carriers and claim they are through deck cruisers hence unworthy of a politicians name. Name politicians after SSBN's instead, they are good at going down and causing trouble. Then you can blame Barak Obama for starting WW3. :)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Supposedly during the war, Churchill wanted a warship named HMS Cromwell. The Royal Navy, perhaps seeing the thin end of the wedge refused it. Hence why we have names to day that hark back to the glory days of naval power, rather than after insipid politicians. Can you imagine Carriers called Hms Tony Blair and HMS David Cameron?

I suppose the only way out of it for the USN is to start building smaller carriers and claim they are through deck cruisers hence unworthy of a politicians name. Name politicians after SSBN's instead, they are good at going down and causing trouble. Then you can blame Barak Obama for starting WW3. :)

 

You got that wrong, at the tail end of WW2 there was a HMS Cromwell

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HNoMS_Bergen_(1946)

What you are referring is an incident before WW1

https://winstonchurchill.hillsdale.edu/hms-cromwell-naming-warships/

"Immediately after becoming First Lord, Churchill proposed Africa, Assiduous, Liberty, and Oliver Cromwell for the four battleships in that year’s [Naval] Estimates. The King rejected naming a dreadnought Cromwell after the man who had chopped off the head of King Charles I. He accepted Africa and proposed Delhi, Wellington, and Marlborough. The four ships eventually went to sea with the names Iron Duke (which Churchill liked better than Wellington), Marlborough, Emperor of India, and Benbow.

The following year, the First Lord proposed four names from England’s warrior history for the four great fifteen-inch-gun, oil-burning superdreadnoughts of the 1912 class. On his desk, the King read: King Richard the First, King Henry the Fifth, Queen Elizabeth, and—again—Oliver Cromwell.

Lord Stamfordham, the King’s Private Secretary, immediately wrote to Churchill that ‘there must be some mistake…that name was proposed for one of the ships of last year’s programme; His Majesty was unable to agree to it and…personally explained to you the reasons for his objection.’

This time, Churchill persevered. ‘Oliver Cromwell was one of the founders of the Navy and scarcely any man did so much for it,’ he wrote to Stamfordham. ‘It seems right that we should give to a battleship a name that never failed to make the enemies of England tremble.’

King George refused to budge and the First Lord declared, ‘I bow.’ The new ship was named Valiant, and of Churchill’s original choices, only Queen Elizabeth went to sea. The other two dreadnoughts were named Warspite and Barham, and a fifth sister of the class, Malaya, was named after the colony that paid to build her.

Churchill’s final brush with the King on the subject of names occurred over two ships of the 1913 class. The First Lord proposed Ark Royal and Pitt.* The King had various arguments against Ark Royal, but he rejected Pitt on an intuition derived from his own many years at sea. Sailors, he knew, tended to find obscene or scatological nicknames for the ships they served on; Pitt was much too easy and would have an inevitable result."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/30/2021 at 7:53 PM, JasonJ said:

FGS Bayern and INS Trikand conducted joint training in the Gulf of Aden on August 27th.

https://m.economictimes.com/news/defence/navies-of-india-and-germany-carry-out-joint-exercise-in-gulf-of-aden/amp_articleshow/85689645.cms

FGS Bayern and JS Yugiri conducted joint-training in the Gulf of Aden on August 29th.

https://www.mod.go.jp/js/Press/press2021/press_pdf/p20210830_02.pdf

Sept 25th, Bayern with Kaga and Murasame in the Indian Ocean.

https://www.mod.go.jp/msdf/release/202109/20210925.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On Sept 21st, a US F/A-18G trained with Myoko, an EP-3, an OP-3C, and a UP-3D in the Sea of Japan.

https://www.mod.go.jp/msdf/release/202109/20210922-1.pdf

 

On Sept 29th, US Yukan did replenishing training with Kaga and Murasame in the Indian Ocean.

https://www.mod.go.jp/msdf/release/202109/20210930.pdf

 

Sept 18th to Oct 1st, Carl Vinson, Chafee, Lake Champlain, Rappahannock, Chokai, Kirishima, Ikazuchi, and Yamagiri trained south of Okinawa.

https://www.mod.go.jp/msdf/release/202110/20211001.pdf

 

On Sept 21st, a B-52, eight F-15Js, and six F-2s trained in the Sea of Japan, East China Sea, and around Okinawa.

https://www.mod.go.jp/asdf/news/houdou/R3/20210923.pdf

 

On Sept 24th, a B-52, two USMC F-35Bs, and two F-15Js trained northwest of Okinawa.

https://www.mod.go.jp/asdf/news/houdou/R3/20210928.pdf

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, glenn239 said:

 What assistance did Israel provide to Syria and Iran as these were battling ISIS in Syria from 2015 onwards?

Well, if Israel did not help in this, then what is the point in subsidizing her armed forces?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, sunday said:

Well, if Israel did not help in this, then what is the point in subsidizing her armed forces?

IMO, the Israelis are far more the regional solution than the are part of the regional problem.  And, in her defense with Syria, it wasn't like the West had a rational policy there either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, RETAC21 said:

You got that wrong, at the tail end of WW2 there was a HMS Cromwell

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HNoMS_Bergen_(1946)

What you are referring is an incident before WW1

https://winstonchurchill.hillsdale.edu/hms-cromwell-naming-warships/

"Immediately after becoming First Lord, Churchill proposed Africa, Assiduous, Liberty, and Oliver Cromwell for the four battleships in that year’s [Naval] Estimates. The King rejected naming a dreadnought Cromwell after the man who had chopped off the head of King Charles I. He accepted Africa and proposed Delhi, Wellington, and Marlborough. The four ships eventually went to sea with the names Iron Duke (which Churchill liked better than Wellington), Marlborough, Emperor of India, and Benbow.

The following year, the First Lord proposed four names from England’s warrior history for the four great fifteen-inch-gun, oil-burning superdreadnoughts of the 1912 class. On his desk, the King read: King Richard the First, King Henry the Fifth, Queen Elizabeth, and—again—Oliver Cromwell.

Lord Stamfordham, the King’s Private Secretary, immediately wrote to Churchill that ‘there must be some mistake…that name was proposed for one of the ships of last year’s programme; His Majesty was unable to agree to it and…personally explained to you the reasons for his objection.’

This time, Churchill persevered. ‘Oliver Cromwell was one of the founders of the Navy and scarcely any man did so much for it,’ he wrote to Stamfordham. ‘It seems right that we should give to a battleship a name that never failed to make the enemies of England tremble.’

King George refused to budge and the First Lord declared, ‘I bow.’ The new ship was named Valiant, and of Churchill’s original choices, only Queen Elizabeth went to sea. The other two dreadnoughts were named Warspite and Barham, and a fifth sister of the class, Malaya, was named after the colony that paid to build her.

Churchill’s final brush with the King on the subject of names occurred over two ships of the 1913 class. The First Lord proposed Ark Royal and Pitt.* The King had various arguments against Ark Royal, but he rejected Pitt on an intuition derived from his own many years at sea. Sailors, he knew, tended to find obscene or scatological nicknames for the ships they served on; Pitt was much too easy and would have an inevitable result."

That sounds right, my apologies.

Looking it up, it was a C class destroyer. Which is explicable in that there could only have been a finite number of C's they could use. As it was, she seems to have been only in service briefly before disposal to Norway as the HMNS Bergan.

Well better a destroyer than a Battleship.

https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205120833

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/1/2021 at 7:15 PM, glenn239 said:

 What assistance did Israel provide to Syria and Iran as these were battling ISIS in Syria from 2015 onwards?

Nothing. 

In my comment I have clearly said it fought all these groups either independently (i.e not in assistance to Syria or Iran), or in assistance to allies (i.e not in assistance to Syria or Iran).

If anything, in some of ISIS' areas of control Israel had an interest in Iran and Syria spending resources. They were only a threat in the Golan, Europe, Sinai, Gaza, and West Bank - numerous regions where they had little presence.

On 10/1/2021 at 8:22 PM, sunday said:

It's not suspicious. You're just being an idiot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Soldiers with a NATO-led peacekeeping mission are keeping watch at the Kosovo-Serbia border after the two countries reached a deal to deescalate tensions triggered by a dispute over vehicle license plates.

Kosovo Force troops from the United States Italy and Poland were seen patrolling Saturday as ethnic Serbs removed the trucks they had used to block the road to two border crossings while protesting the Kosovo government's decision not to allow vehicles with Serbian license plates into the country.

Kosovar special police forces also pulled back from the border, where they were deployed two weeks ago to remove the license plates from entering cars and to replace them with temporary registration in Kosovo.

The government in Pristina said they were replicating what Serbia had done to Kosovar motorists for a decade. Kosovo was a Serbian province before it declared independence in 2008, and Serbian troops and ethnic Albanian separatists fought a bloody war in Kosovo during the 1990s.

European Union mediator Miroslav Lajcak persuaded representatives from the neighboring Balkan nations this week to let the Kosovo Force (KFOR) troops take over the areas for the next 14 days.

“As from this weekend and for the next two weeks, KFOR will maintain a temporary robust and agile presence in the area,” a statement from the NATO mission said.

As part of the agreement, both countries will put stickers over the other's name and emblem on license plates of vehicles entering their territory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
Quote

Germany, 4 EU states launch military reaction force initiative — report

By Leah Carter | 1h ago

Germany, Finland, the Netherlands, Portugal and Slovenia said their EU-wide initiative to expand the bloc's military units was inspired by recent events in Afghanistan.

Germany and four members of the European Union have launched an initiative to establish a bloc-wide rapid reaction force for future military crises, the German news agency dpa reported on Thursday.

The initiative, which also draws in Finland, the Netherlands, Portugal and Slovenia, aims to expand the existing EU battle groups, which are multinational military units of 1,500 personnel each on standby to respond to crises.

The new force is expected to include space and cyber capabilities, along with special forces and air transport.

The five countries said recent events in Afghanistan have shown that the EU must be able to act swiftly, according to a document cited by dpa.

To this end, the availability, readiness, deployability and competence of the forces had to be improved, the document added.

Force could activate dormant EU Treaty article

In order to provide greater flexibility, the five states also proposed using Article 44 of the EU Treaty, which has never been activated before.

The article allows coalitions of willing member states to carry out security activities with the permission of other non-participating countries.

The plan also calls on EU member states to utilize more regional cooperation arrangements. It does not, however, make any specific proposals on the size of the force in terms of personnel.

The document says that the land-based forces should be of brigade strength, or about 5,000 troops.

The current battle group concept provides for two units, each with around 1,500 troops, to be on standby, with forces from different member states rotating every six months.

[...] 

https://m.dw.com/en/germany-4-eu-states-launch-military-reaction-force-initiative-report/a-59574641

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Allies lobby Biden to prevent shift to ‘no first use’ of nuclear arms

European and Asian capitals intensify behind-the-scenes pressure amid fears US will change doctrine

Demetri Sevastopulo in Washington and Henry Foy in Brussels

4 hours ago

US allies are lobbying Joe Biden not to change American policy on the use of nuclear weapons amid concern the president is considering a “no first use” declaration that could undermine long-established deterrence strategies aimed at Russia and China.

The lobbying — by treaty allies including Britain, France and Germany in Europe, and Japan and Australia in the Indo-Pacific — comes as the Biden administration is in the middle of a “nuclear posture review”, a regular inter-agency process that sets US policy on nuclear weapons.

Although some allies believe Biden will refrain from setting a “no first use” policy in the review, most remain concerned he is considering a policy known as “sole purpose”, which would make clear the US would use nuclear weapons only in a narrowly-prescribed set of circumstances — such as to deter a direct attack on the US, or to retaliate after a strike.

“This would be a huge gift to China and Russia,” one European official said.

American policy towards the use of nuclear weapons has, since the cold war, remained intentionally vague, suggesting the US could use them preemptively and allowing allies in both Europe and Asia a clear sense of protection under the American “nuclear umbrella”.

While some non-proliferation advocates argue that “sole purpose” or “no first use” declarations increase stability by clarifying circumstances when nuclear weapons would be used, critics counter that it would embolden Russia and China.

They also fear it could prompt allies such as Japan and South Korea to develop their own nuclear weapons, triggering a regional arms race. Biden supported a shift to “sole purpose” as US vice-president and during the 2020 election campaign.

“The problem with ‘sole purpose’ and ‘no first use’ is that the allies believe it, and adversaries do not,” said Michael Green, an Asia security expert.

Earlier this year the US sent a questionnaire to allies who provided an overwhelmingly negative response to any changes in nuclear policy, according to two people familiar with the correspondence.

But some allies remain worried that US officials have not conveyed the extent of their opposition directly to the president, fears exacerbated by the administration’s failure to heed allied concerns over the withdrawal from Afghanistan and a nuclear submarine agreement with Australia.

[...]

https://www.ft.com/content/8b96a60a-759b-4972-ae89-c8ffbb36878e?accessToken=zwAAAXzQHzKwkdOLlqYKdZtJctOuicj_uzaHjg.MEUCIQDxW2owS7_bBgUkebxwr9CGoCYDqNhFKE_Mw17y7y1Z1wIgSrHTKXZsjAaoISFEmpH7gv-eryJeZckh5DcgoRcn828&sharetype=gift?token=b64d9889-8590-4153-bd44-a6c33a772d2e

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...