Both of which are part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. Unlike the BOTs, they are an integral part of the country.
NATO Article 5, anyone?
Both of which are part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. Unlike the BOTs, they are an integral part of the country.
For the threat to be real we would need to be prepared to sink their ships and then manage / accept the consequences - would we?Icedragon9 wrote: ↑10 Jan 2024, 12:39Given the state of Venezuela's navy and Guyana's lack of a navy a T31 could actually make a substantial difference. It might at least ward off a potential naval invasion and force Venezuela to invade through the jungle.Repulse wrote: ↑09 Dec 2023, 09:38Will we intervene in a conflict with Venezuela and Guyana? If so, how far? Will a T31 really make a difference, if we want to make a difference surely do it properly with a combined force package and use a CVF task group for some overflights (1970 Belize style). Having a ship floating offshore but not capable of anything significant is pointless - you are either in or out, and you need to demonstrate you can make a difference. Doesn’t have to be permanent deployment, it has to be able to be deployed quickly and be credible.Tempest414 wrote: ↑09 Dec 2023, 09:02 In the first place to be a deterrent in the region and in this action be part of any multi national naval force
For me having duty escorts around the world helps the RN case for having them if any colour of HMG sees escorts hanging around in UK ports waiting to surge anywhere they will be seen as not needed and cut
I also disagree that by forward basing numerous Escorts somehow makes them protected from cuts - quite the opposite, it’s seen solely through its value to and of a particular region which is prone to politics. It’s also not optimal to have maximum effect. The only arguable region is the Gulf, but as our reliance on imported Gas / Oil reduces that will also become increasingly questioned.
IMO, it’s much better to offer the ability to surge and sustain world class top tier capabilities globally, because not only does it offer real value to our allies, but it’s also gives biggest political bang per buck and is something that is more manageable from a personnel standpoint also.
Only applies to NATO territory north of the tropic of cancer in the Caribbean that is a line slightly north of Cuba.
No the possibility would still be a deterrent.Repulse wrote: ↑10 Jan 2024, 17:21For the threat to be real we would need to be prepared to sink their ships and then manage / accept the consequences - would we?Icedragon9 wrote: ↑10 Jan 2024, 12:39Given the state of Venezuela's navy and Guyana's lack of a navy a T31 could actually make a substantial difference. It might at least ward off a potential naval invasion and force Venezuela to invade through the jungle.Repulse wrote: ↑09 Dec 2023, 09:38Will we intervene in a conflict with Venezuela and Guyana? If so, how far? Will a T31 really make a difference, if we want to make a difference surely do it properly with a combined force package and use a CVF task group for some overflights (1970 Belize style). Having a ship floating offshore but not capable of anything significant is pointless - you are either in or out, and you need to demonstrate you can make a difference. Doesn’t have to be permanent deployment, it has to be able to be deployed quickly and be credible.Tempest414 wrote: ↑09 Dec 2023, 09:02 In the first place to be a deterrent in the region and in this action be part of any multi national naval force
For me having duty escorts around the world helps the RN case for having them if any colour of HMG sees escorts hanging around in UK ports waiting to surge anywhere they will be seen as not needed and cut
I also disagree that by forward basing numerous Escorts somehow makes them protected from cuts - quite the opposite, it’s seen solely through its value to and of a particular region which is prone to politics. It’s also not optimal to have maximum effect. The only arguable region is the Gulf, but as our reliance on imported Gas / Oil reduces that will also become increasingly questioned.
IMO, it’s much better to offer the ability to surge and sustain world class top tier capabilities globally, because not only does it offer real value to our allies, but it’s also gives biggest political bang per buck and is something that is more manageable from a personnel standpoint also.
It’s only a deterrent if the threat is credible and there is a plan to what happens next - otherwise it’s just stupidity and bluster and our foes aren’t stupid
Have you seen the actions of the Venezuelan government?
Not at all - what I don’t agree with is to pretend you can do things half cocked.
What? You were moaning that anything more than the the OPV sent recently would inflame the situation and be seen as provocative and colonialist. Now you want troops on the ground and an RAF detachment.Repulse wrote: ↑10 Jan 2024, 21:48Not at all - what I don’t agree with is to pretend you can do things half cocked.
If the UK is serious then it should deploy tier one warships, ground troops and a RAF attachment at short notice and make it clear that the talk is backed by intent and capability. The assets are there, just needs a clear decision and commitment.
I was, and I have also said many times, you either go in hard or you do not - my position is consistent. Going in half cocked is my objection if you want to threaten - if you want a subtle show of force a OPV is perfect (again as I’ve said now many times).
Do you honestly think that NATO would ignore a direct attack on the home soil of an EU/ NATO member?
Sure about that?Repulse wrote: ↑10 Jan 2024, 21:48Not at all - what I don’t agree with is to pretend you can do things half cocked.
If the UK is serious then it should deploy tier one warships, ground troops and a RAF attachment at short notice and make it clear that the talk is backed by intent and capability. The assets are there, just needs a clear decision and commitment.
No I don't think it would be ignored but any response wouldn't be done under NATO Article 5.Caribbean wrote: ↑11 Jan 2024, 09:54Do you honestly think that NATO would ignore a direct attack on the home soil of an EU/ NATO member?
I know people have a hard time getting their heads around this, but the French & Dutch islands in the Caribbean are actually part of their respective countries, sending representatives to their respective parliaments and integrated into all aspects of their respective societies.
Also, of course, the US regards the Caribbean as its own personal lake.
Quite if you are French and travel direct to one of these French OST you haven't left FranceCaribbean wrote: ↑11 Jan 2024, 09:54Do you honestly think that NATO would ignore a direct attack on the home soil of an EU/ NATO member?
I know people have a hard time getting their heads around this, but the French & Dutch islands in the Caribbean are actually part of their respective countries, sending representatives to their respective parliaments and integrated into all aspects of their respective societies.
Also, of course, the US regards the Caribbean as its own personal lake.
It's the only article that allows for concerted action. NATO is at liberty to re-define the area that Article 6 applies to, as it did with Afghanistan
Any response would be made outside of NATO there is no need to redefine anything.
Where did I say that?Caribbean wrote: ↑11 Jan 2024, 17:32 So NATO didn't take over ISAF in Afghanistan at the request of two NATO members, then?
The change to the area that Article 6 applied to was simply approved by a vote of NATO Ambassadors. All NATO members contributed to the ISAF mission, effectively implementing Article 5