last month was a good month for a sea born invasion

  bob. 14:56 02 Nov 2011
  Kevscar1 15:30 02 Nov 2011

and what makes you think this country is worth invading anymore

  lotvic 15:35 02 Nov 2011

It's too late anyway...

  wiz-king 15:49 02 Nov 2011

That's a good idea - get Switzerland to invade us, surrender and then claim compensation and reparations.

  anskyber 15:54 02 Nov 2011

It presumes that we need a navy at all.

There will be those who use examples like this to say we need such a defence force when arguably there is little reason to expect one, two or more ships to get to the so called invasion in time.

I can see an argument for ships to be deployed around the world for specific conventional warfare or as mobile airstrips but not otherwise. After all the fastest response to a seaborne terrorist attack is likely to be airborne with perhaps enough firepower to do the job.

  Woolwell 16:07 02 Nov 2011

The headline, as usual with the Mail, is incorrect. One ship cannot protect UK and that is not the main role. It's role is to be at a high state of readiness to deploy anywhere to help in an emergency, terrorist threat or counter drugs. This means that we no longer have any reserves and have no slack left to respond. It also indicates the the Navy has been cut too far.

Better article with interesting comments Defence management

  morddwyd 20:10 02 Nov 2011

Successive governments have forgotten that, Channel Tunnel notwithstanding, we are still an island.

No matter how stable the world appears that could change in 24 hours.

We must, absolutely must, be able to enforce free passage on the high seas.

Ex-Air Force or not, I have no illusions about the importance of the Andrew to the nation's security and well being.

  daz60 20:41 02 Nov 2011

The Somalian pirates appear to be doing a good job maybe we could hire them at little cost.

  oresome 15:15 03 Nov 2011

When there is a need to save money, hard choices often have to be made.

When were we last invaded? There you are then! Easy peasy.

I understand we are still likely to go ahead with a Polaris replacement at enormous cost. The lack of a credible conventional force as a first line of defence means it's deployment gets ever more likely as the only choice in a hostile situation.

  Woolwell 15:30 03 Nov 2011


As I pointed out earlier this is not only about defence of UK and in fact the ship was more likely to be used in an emergency elsewhere in the world including providing humanitarian support or rescue of British holidaymakers. So it is not easy peasy.

Polaris was replaced by Trident. It is debatable about whether we should replace Trident and whether it should be part of the MOD budget.

I don't really understand your last sentence. Are you trying to say that conventional forces act as a deterrent?

  oresome 16:50 03 Nov 2011

Sorry Woolwell, I meant Trident where I said Polaris and followed recent comments from the new defence minister who is in favour of a replacement.

My point on the Trident replacement being that the more we run down conventional forces to afford this, the closer the nuclear option becomes.

The easy peasy comment was tongue in cheek.

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

Samsung Galaxy S9 review

Wacom Cintiq Pro 24 and 32 review – hands-on

When is the next Apple event?

Qu’est-ce qu’Amazon Prime ?