Britain should leave NATO?

Please stop putting influence ahead of interests and power. We do we need to project power, what for?

Have you read anything I have written so far?

They obviously aren't benefiting Britain given we are losing power and interests, while the US, Russia, Germany and France aren't losing power, or at a slower rate than we are. We get someone benefits from the US because we are in NATO, however we are constrained in our action because of it, this is weakening Britain.

No I haven't fallen into that trap, it is just that the only benefits we get out of NATO come from the US being in NATO. We get nothing from the Germans, French or anyone else for that matter.

Wrong the German army was the bedrock of NATO, to be supported by the US and Britain. Much of the US spending was on US equipment to fight the global fight against the USSR, not just in Europe.

Given what happened before WW2 and what the Germany army was before 1990. I think your comment that Germany isn't a threat is very short sighted. If Germany builds up its military strength to threat Denmark or the Low Countries, it would direct threaten the British interest of keeping those placed independent of France and Germany. Currently however Germany is constrained within the EU. France maybe couldn't directly threaten British interests, however it could indirectly in any number of way that would have the same affect. The French have had their main success against Britain using this strategy. With the North American Proxy war and 1798 Irish rebellion as examples. The French can also suck Britain into actions it doesn't want such as it did in WW1. So The French are a threat simply because of their geographical position in the end. Yeah so what interests does British have in Mali?

The reason is they have interests that Britain can threaten because of Britain's size and location. That is of course why they want to weaken and curtail Britain. The factors that go into why Britain wants to weaken them.

I am interested in geopolitics, so look at things geopolitically to gain an understand of why things happen and what could happen in the future. I look at history, culture and geography as being the deciding factors. Not politics or what people want.

It isn't their trade though, it is international trade with national flagging. So we escort ships in international waters into French and Germany waters, in doing so we protect our flagged ships. We wouldn't be doing anything illegal and if the French want to do the same thing that is fine they expend resources on it weakening them. Either way Britain gains from such an action if we wanted to weaken or curtail France and Germany for some reason.

How do we gain anything from this? The ships will go to their destinations exactly asthey would have done with or without the escorts.

I think the OP needs to read up on soft power.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_power

Actually, we do need to project power in some cases and is always argue that capabilities should be maintained for an eventuality on the future.

But the joys of NATO are you can share the costs.

For example. The RAF can support the Norwegian airforce in policing the North Sea and vice versa with the Norwegians supporting the RAF.

Being capable of doing it independently requires both nations doubling efforts.

The Royal Navy used to operate like that. The decision was that the navy had to be larger than the next two largest navies. The result was crippling expenditure because the next two largest navies included France who was an ally.

But we don't have the interests worth the cost of projecting power. The aircraft carrier is a vanity project, the destroyers are curtailed in their capabilities and numbers to protect such an asset in a war or conflict. We have excellent ASW capabilities and could have excellent ASuW capabilities, if we dropped the power project assets. I do believe we need to protect the right of self-determination of the Falklands and our South Atlantic territories, they are of vital long-term interest. However we don't need carriers and destroyers to do that. We need to increase our submarine force and amphibious capabilities. The Tide class and MARS FFS replenishment ships are very good, they could conduct and support our year round operations for a squadron in the South Atlantic and a South Atlantic command structure with increased assets and capabilities.

Britain has no interest East of the Suez Canal, so why are we sending more ships, aircraft and forces their? Because we are in NATO and their for must support the Americans. The same goes for sending aircraft to the Baltic states or sending ships to Japan. It is wasting our limited resources for the benefit of someone else. Britain isn't a world power anymore, it doesn't have the interests anymore to warrant projection for eventualities all over the world.

No the joys of NATO is that you can have 20 plus slightly different kid for 20 different countries and have to modify your equipment so they can use it as well. This is the problem with all NATO procurement programs different countries have different needs and the equipment must try and fit their needs. Rather than just building one bit of kit and then exporting it. Indeed NATO procurement is more costly per unit than joint procurement with the US or independent procurement. However the hope is that the cost is kept down by numbers of unities, however this has not happened as well. Basically the idea of NATO procurement has failed and doesn't work. It is a lie.

No we can't because we have to send aircraft to Iraq, Afghanistan and the Baltic states because we are in NATO. Instead of doing it one to one with Norway and being able to send all those aircraft to help Norway. So that is wrong again, we don't get that benefit from NATO.

No it doesn't it just means having a new agreement between Norway and Britain on joint exercises. We can already operate in the North sea and Norwegian sea independently.

I have said nothing about massively increase the size of the Navy, nothing. I said I wanted it to have independent logistical capabilities to sustain operations year round without having to change ships. To be able to but the bulk of the fleet to see in regular training exercises and sustain them. So the goal wouldn't be to have the larger fleet on paper, but to be able to put more ships as sea and use them effectively to combat an enemy who has more ships on paper, but who doesn't have the logistics to put as many to sea and use them effectively. So the strategy would be to have the best fleet possible, not the biggest. So basically the opposite of the pre-WW1 strategy.

I have read you've posted and it's generally a work of fantasy.

We get an awful lot from NATO. Germany being in NATO means that they bear the cost of a few extra armoured divisions and a highly capable airforce. We don't need to have a fleet to protect the North Sea and the Baltic because the Germans do that.

Germany gains nothing from threatening Denmark in the modern day. It's a loose losse situation for Germany to conquer Denmark. They loose more than they gain.

France never sucked Britain into ww1. Germany invading Belgium sucked us in. But again, it was mutually beneficial for Britain to work alongside the French.

You're thinking of fighting yesterday's wars when there's no logical risk of them ever happening again

Hiw could France threaten UK interests now? Our needs are the same in general.

You're looking at things that aren't geopolitical.

If you're interested in geopolitics may I recommend clash of civilisations to read.

How do we gain anything from this? The ships will go to their destinations exactly asthey would have done with or without the escorts.

I think the OP needs to read up on soft power.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_power

Yes. We aren't a strong enough military power to intimidate countries like France and Germany. Also the use of military power in such a way would make us very unpopular internationally.

Britain leaving NATO? You got more chance of seeing pigs fly

I tend to find you're anti NATO brigade are made of a sub culture of those who want anarchy and those who have something to gain from a weekend NATO. I.e your legacy communists who haven't quite understood that the Soviet Union collapsed because nobody wanted to be communists.

A mobile airfield is a very useful asset.

Although is agree that we need more type 45s, the advantage of being in NATO is that when we deploy one of our NATO allows sends a few ships along. ( you've also forgotten that in modern day naval operations it's no longer necessary to have fleet the size of that going to Jutland.)

We've been able to overcome issues relating to different kit. Try reading up on link 14.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_Data_Link

In fact, from a naval perspective NATO navies have been operating in unison very effectively for the last 50 years.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_NATO_Maritime_Group_1

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_NATO_Maritime_Group_2

As for your statement about we have no strategic need to go east of suez, I most definitely remember sweating my balls off in Iraq and Afghanistan when I was younger. Both were east of suez.

Sierra Leone? Oman? Brunei? South east Asia? That submarine that was looking for the missing air Malaysia aircraft sure as he'll wasn't over there on a jolly?

I'm confused as to what your saying about Norway. Are you argueing we should get rid of a mutually beneficial defence pact to set up another mutually beneficial defence pact.

We've had 50 plus years of NATO building up doctoring, training together and more recently fighting together in some cases .

We have the best fleet possible at the moment. The Andrew, for all their faults are world class. They are equally geared and admired throughout the world. So spending more money on increasing a fleet that we're already struggling to staff, just so we can take more responsibility on ourselves without sharing the load is counterproductive and not cost effective.

Out of interest. You've never served have you?

The worlds moved on. Germany isn't invading anybody.

You're about 50 years behind the times.

The defence policy he's advocating - dominate local waters and forget the rest - came into fashion in an attenuated form under Fisher as First Sea Lord just before WWI, being further entrenched after Suez. It lasted until the 1998 SDR.

The foreign policy he's advocating - renounce European and trans-Atlantic alliances even where our interests align - was never in fashion and with good reason.