Caribbean

[Caribbean]

Curacao and Aruba are within range of Venezuelan artillery.

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?

[Repulse]

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

Will 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.

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.

Given 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.

For the threat to be real we would need to be prepared to sink their ships and then manage / accept the consequences - would we?

[tomuk]

Curacao and Aruba are within range of Venezuelan artillery.

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?

Only applies to NATO territory north of the tropic of cancer in the Caribbean that is a line slightly north of Cuba.

[tomuk]

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

Will 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.

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.

Given 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.

For the threat to be real we would need to be prepared to sink their ships and then manage / accept the consequences - would we?

No the possibility would still be a deterrent.

[Repulse]

No the possibility would still be a deterrent.

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

[tomuk]

No the possibility would still be a deterrent.

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?

You repeated posts are bringing me to the conclusion that you think the RN should sit at home doing nothing.

[Repulse]

You repeated posts are bringing me to the conclusion that you think the RN should sit at home doing nothing.

Not 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.

[tomuk]

You repeated posts are bringing me to the conclusion that you think the RN should sit at home doing nothing.

Not 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.

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.

[jimthelad]

Not sure if there are enough 5* hotels for the RAF.

[Repulse]

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.

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).

[Caribbean]

Only applies to NATO territory north of the tropic of cancer in the Caribbean that is a line slightly north of Cuba.

Do 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.

[Phil Sayers]

Personally, I do not see much chance of Venezuela proceeding with an invasion because they will be conscious that it could easily end up with war against both the US and Brazil. If however we are thinking that there is a realistic possibility and it is something we should be seeking to deter ourselves rather than relying on the aforementioned to do it then there is really no reason not to deploy an infantry battalion to Belize for 'exercises' and a circa company sized detachment to Guyana itself.

[abc123]

You repeated posts are bringing me to the conclusion that you think the RN should sit at home doing nothing.

Not 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.

Sure about that?

[tomuk]

Only applies to NATO territory north of the tropic of cancer in the Caribbean that is a line slightly north of Cuba.

Do 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.

No I don't think it would be ignored but any response wouldn't be done under NATO Article 5.

[Tempest414]

Only applies to NATO territory north of the tropic of cancer in the Caribbean that is a line slightly north of Cuba.

Do 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 France

[Caribbean]

No I don't think it would be ignored but any response wouldn't be done under NATO Article 5.

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

[tomuk]

No I don't think it would be ignored but any response wouldn't be done under NATO Article 5.

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.

Just with other treaties, such as the EU. the 'overseas' territories are treated differently despite being part of the 'mainland'.

[Caribbean]

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

[tomuk]

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

Where did I say that?

[SW1]