tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3972180575010200279.post1086172537575884646..comments2024-03-24T01:51:21.859-07:00Comments on Engaging Strategy: A Nation in Retreat: Britain's Continental CenturyBritishGrenadierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09141624704388898556noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3972180575010200279.post-9146037038202503392016-05-05T18:36:48.758-07:002016-05-05T18:36:48.758-07:00A difficult read, but he did have many very useful...A difficult read, but he did have many very useful insights. Does war require violence? Most people would of course say yes, I would contend that it doesn't. Czechoslovakia in 1938 is an interesting example.<br />With due acknowledgement to Clausewitz I would define War as:-<br /> The use of force in pursuit of a political aim.<br />Any thoughts? Whitelancerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17889758951437227921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3972180575010200279.post-65667742948461534132016-05-04T16:12:10.358-07:002016-05-04T16:12:10.358-07:00I like Clausewitz's definition from On War: &q...I like Clausewitz's definition from On War: "an act of violence intended to compel our opponent to fulfil our will"BritishGrenadierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09141624704388898556noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3972180575010200279.post-89820439786793961272016-03-20T17:43:30.952-07:002016-03-20T17:43:30.952-07:00Sorry I haven't had the chance to read your fu... Sorry I haven't had the chance to read your full blog yet, but as one of the better commentators on UK Defence Forum and I see a War Studies student I have a question.<br /><br /> What is WAR?<br /><br /> To be more precise how would you, or your War Studies department define War?<br /> I ask because to date I've not found what I would regard as an acceptable definition and certainly not an agreed one.<br /> Any help you can give would be appreciated.Whitelancerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17889758951437227921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3972180575010200279.post-71561090613195590062016-01-26T08:46:17.302-08:002016-01-26T08:46:17.302-08:00I agree that UK should pursue a Maritime Stategy r...I agree that UK should pursue a Maritime Stategy rather than the Continental Stategy we have chased for far too long.<br /><br />The Central Front of NATO has expanded far to the East and it is not a situation that suits UK strategic position. Its too far East for us to deploy effectively.<br /><br />NATO has a shortfall in its Maritime power projection as well as its shifting Eastern Border.<br /><br />It makes sense for UK to concentrate on its strategic advantage. UK can contol and dominate the UK-Iceland-Greenland Gap, the North Sea, the North Atlantic, support in and reinforcement in the Norwegian Sea, and project into the Mediterranean Sea. No other Nation is positioned to do this so effectively. But it cannot be done by such a tiny Maritime capacity. <br /><br />UK should concentrate on being the dominant regional Naval Power. This is increasingly important, as the USA concentrates its strategic focus on the Pacific; the more that UK takes responsibility for the Atlantic, the more that USA can divert its power to its key strategic issues.<br /><br />As the UK Army is being steadily reduced in numbers, it would seem sensible for us to concentrate on rapid deployment and reinforcement of the flanks of NATO.<br /><br />I suggest that with concentration on Maritime power, backed up with a substantial and signicicant increase of Air Transport capacity (including far more in strategic lift as well as substantial increase in helicopter assets,) the UK can act as elite reinforcement of a threatened area; (a sort of National ACE Mobile Force) a force multiplier to existing allied assets.<br /><br />The main Central Front of NATO must be defended by the main Continental Powers, i.e. Germany, Poland, Hungary, and to a lesser extent France. Germany has had serious advantages during the Cold War of relying on UK and USA mainly to provide for its defence whilst building up its economic prowess. It is time Germany absorbed its full responsibility and the cost, as the main Central European Power, and substantially increased its Continental Land Forces.<br /><br />By concentating on a strong Maritime Strategy, UK will fulfill its strategic position in NATO as a maritime nation, whilst also having to forces to intervene in international (outside NATO area) commitments.<br /><br />A case in point is the remarkably successful intervention in Sierra Leone that was achieved with power projection from the sea. UK must maintain sufficient Maritime and Air Transport assets to project what meagre army assets are left abroad when required. Its all well and good having armed forces, but pointless if you don't have the means to put them where they are needed most. <br /><br />This requires a strong Royal Navy, strong Amphibous forcess, strong RN Reserve and a sufficient and signicicant Strategic Air Lift capacity.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08955641445297412167noreply@blogger.com