Read the whole thing - but without picking it apart all over the place - right or wrong I like some of the intellectual work behind it. The Brits have done some good, modest, and reasonable intellectual ponderings;
"122. The UK needs affordable solutions to deliver a balanced fleet. It requires the agility to adjust to an uncertain future where it is not known precisely, who, where and when, it will be required to fight. It only knows that history has shown that it will be required to fight. Defence, therefore, needs an intellectual and physical agility that is able to deliver this fleet, fit for task. If not, the Navy risks slipping into terminal decline unable to protect the UK’s vital interests."...
"206. Evolution Rather than Revolution in Maritime Affairs. As the Royal Navy is always in contact, its response to technological change has always demanded an evolution, rather than revolution, in maritime affairs. As one of the major tasks of the Royal Navy is ‘to exert power and influence in support of national political objectives with the aim to prevent conflict by deterring, coercing, stabilising and reassuring others in time of crisis’, the audience needs to believe in that power. It is this interpretation that prevents conflict. A maritime power, such as the UK, would not wish to risk a revolutionary change in its means of applying that power being misinterpreted as a marked reduction in its warfighting capability and/or credibility. Therefore, any change not only needs to deliver improved capability but also requires a clear articulation of its credibility in order to support the primary objective of maritime power: to prevent conflict."OK, the concept has some typical RN issues (like undergunning) - but I like the intellectual nature of their paper. Worth your time.
No comments:
Post a Comment