OxBlog

Front page
XML Feed

Read Our

"Love your site" -- Dan Savage

"A great read" -- Fareed Zakaria

"I enjoy OxBlog very much" -- Michael Barone

OxBlog: Trying to live up to the hype since April 23, 2002!

David Adesnik, a research analyst in Washington DC, received his doctorate in international relations from Oxford.

Email David

[Powered by Blogger]

The Media:
NYT
WaPo
OpinionJournal
TNR
Weekly Standard
NRO
Slate
Commentary
BBC

Other Blogs We Like:

George Washington:
InstaPundit

James Wilson:
Brett Marston
Volokh Conspiracy

Alexis de Tocqueville:
American Scene
Crescat Sententia
Crooked Timber
Galley Slaves
Eve Tushnet
Christopher Hitchens

Theodore Roosevelt:
Amygdala
Belgravia Dispatch
Phil Carter
Joyful Christian
Joe Gandelman
Adrianne Truett
Winds of Change
Pejman Yousefzadeh
Global Guerrillas

Calvin Coolidge:
ScrappleFace

Winston Churchill:
Sasha Castel
Innocents Abroad
Andrew Sullivan
Tim Blair

Franklin Roosevelt:
Kevin Drum
Josh Marshall
Matt Yglesias
Democracy Arsenal
Dan Nexon

David Ben Gurion:
GedankenPundit
Kesher Talk

Friedrich Hayek:
Jane Galt
Virginia Postrel
Natalie Solent
VodkaPundit
Matt Welch

Ronald Reagan:
Power Line
RealClearPolitics
Worldwide Standard
RedState
Liz Mair

Daniel Patrick Moynihan:
Daniel Drezner
How Appealing

Monday, January 26, 2004

# Posted 10:44 AM by Patrick Belton  

IS THE ROYAL NAVY STILL FIGHTING THE COLD WAR? Prospect Magazine argues that it is:
The most significant threat our ships face is air attack. The only utility of frigates in air defence is as sacrificial shields, and our current destroyers [which are capable of launching surface-to-air missiles: ed] are obsolete. Our fighter screen is cleverly improvised but only works in cold weather. New destroyers may be available in a few years, but we will be without fleet fighters for some time, and will be very weak in airborne radar, which could solve so many of our problems.
In response, author Lewis Page calls for a massive reduction in Britain's frigate and dated destroyer fleet, and a reinvestment in nuclear submarines and an unmothballed third carrier.
With the money saved, we could build effective armed forces and be the terror of the world's dictators and ethnic cleansers, as we should be. Britain would have a capability independent of the US, a situation more dignified than relying on the Americans, while moaning about how they manage each crisis.
(0) opinions -- Add your opinion
Comments: Post a Comment


Home