Ghost of a flea: The fifteen year rule

? Laibach: Anglia | Main | (no subject) ?

February 22, 2007

The fifteen year rule

By the end of the Great War the British boasted the largest, best equipped and most technologically advanced army and navy in the history of the world. But two years of conscription had taken their toll and with the expansion of the franchise there was a larger voting public to be bribed with bread and circuses. Consequently, the decision was made to take advantage of the peace dividend and justify it in part with a forecast of no repetition of events for the foreseeable future. The so called "ten year rule" held that extensive military research, training and procurement could all be held in abeyance as no major war would threaten the Empire for at least that time. The assertion was made year after year with increasing conviction until 1928 when - once again under Winston Churchill's watch - the "rule" was made permanent; to be assumed as a fact of the future in absence of evidence to the contrary. This deliberate enfeeblement was the state of affairs until sanity dawned in 1932. And of course by then it was very nearly too late.

The near tragedy of the continuation of the War repeats itself as farce in the ever tightening death spiral of Tony Blair's tenure as Prime Minister. DefenseTech covers a more recent manifestation of the old stupidity as Her Majesty's government may decide not to decide if the realm is worth defending. This time with half the fleet going into mothballs and the Royal Navy smaller than the French for the first time in centuries. I could spit.

If the Trident debate remains binary – renewal vs. no renewal – Blair has more than enough votes to push his proposal through Parliament. There may be a third option, though: delay the decision. U.S. nuclear experts Dick Garwin, Philip E. Coyle (disclosure: my boss), Theodore A. Postol, and Frank von Hippel recently argued that the Vanguard subs can last up to 15 years longer than the government said, with refurbishments and light use. They argue that putting the decision off would be the best way to maintain "a variety of options." It is unclear whether the government is interested in this option, but over 100 MPs (out of 646) have called for the decision to be delayed.

Posted by Ghost of a flea at February 22, 2007 07:07 AM

Comments

Smaller than the FRENCH?

Oh, you're not talking about appendages. Still, that's pretty bad.

Posted by: agent bedhead at February 22, 2007 02:27 PM

I am confident even Parliament could not get the first one wrong. Though frankly it is touch and go whether that would be worse than destroying the Royal Navy; if pressed I expect we can always make it bigger again.

Posted by: Ghost of a flea at February 22, 2007 02:41 PM