S M H wrote:Now if our government developed some if clever thinking they could build a extra hull or two but fitted with limited replenishment deck equipment with spaces fitted out as hospital/primary casualty ship. Retaining the helicopter set up, landing craft derricks , fleet communications but devoid of weapons . Funded from the aid budget R.F.A. crewed and possibly painted white with the red cross markings. Providing you can get our political masters to think outside there own departments boxes.
I think that is much closer to being acceptable. Stupidly painting it white with the red cross markings makes a big difference, and is totally something we should have. Without that it is purely a military asset with a very limited scope for delivering foreign aid. For example which of these says foreign aid?
foreign aid?
foreign aid?
For me one ship has a clear purpose that enables war.
The other has a clear purpose of delivering aid.
Dahedd wrote:I reckon we spend more than enough on foreign aid. Given the amount of aid the forces as involved in dishing out a hospital ship/FSS from the aid Budget seems more than fair.
Indeed we do spend plenty there, and I can certainly advocate a hospital ship from that, but a hospital ship is nothing like a FSS by definition. We shouldn't mix them otherwise it is no longer a hospital ship, it would be a primary casualty receiving facility which has a completely different status, which brings me back to the dilemma I have already highlighted.
The aid budget is an easy target for characters in our circle, and the amount fixed to it is disputable, but robbing it to buy military equipment is wrong. We wouldn't rob the NHS budget to build the solid support ship because it also provides medical care.