tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-66163179431572266952024-03-13T10:04:49.992+00:00Slightly Random MusingsToby's Random Musingshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01756931810010547397noreply@blogger.comBlogger127125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6616317943157226695.post-76620285672168476692013-10-17T15:06:00.000+01:002013-10-17T15:10:23.784+01:00On RBS privatisation<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-nlSWDsAPC1A/Ul_uxwYHdpI/AAAAAAAABjA/bVCyUlEohWU/s1600/images.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-nlSWDsAPC1A/Ul_uxwYHdpI/AAAAAAAABjA/bVCyUlEohWU/s1600/images.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
With my friend and sparring partner over the <a href="http://www.cps.org.uk/about/">Centre for Policy Studies</a>, <a href="http://www.cps.org.uk/about/staff/ryan%20-bourne/">Ryan Bourne</a>, I've got a letter in today's Times, on what we should learn from <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23253370">Royal Mail's privatisation</a> when it comes to privatising RBS. As there's a paywall, it's available on the <a href="http://centreforumblog.wordpress.com/2013/10/17/letter-to-the-times-royal-mail-sell-off/">CentreForum website</a>.<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
Toby's Random Musingshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01756931810010547397noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6616317943157226695.post-90227759705712665332013-09-20T23:12:00.000+01:002013-09-20T23:12:20.949+01:00The Capacity Case for HS2<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-XPCXuuKanVo/UjyoTcVczDI/AAAAAAAABgw/2uj25vwNQWI/s1600/hs2_2243796b.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="248" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-XPCXuuKanVo/UjyoTcVczDI/AAAAAAAABgw/2uj25vwNQWI/s400/hs2_2243796b.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
(Pointy shiny trains leaving Birmingham at 225mph. Most sensible!)</div>
<br />
Few of those who know me will often accuse me of being indecisive on public policy issues in which I take an interest. I am also unashamedly enthusiastic about railways, and can therefore normally be counted on to be in favour of rail investment, whether it is <a href="http://isengard.co.uk/#News">rebuilding steam railways in Snowdonia</a>, or <a href="http://www.bordersrailway.co.uk/">righting the wrongs</a> of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Marples">Marples</a>* / <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beeching_Axe">Beeching</a> in the 1960s.<br />
<br />
So, faced with a £42bn programme to build a UK TGV from London to Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds, I should be entirely on board with it, and indeed pushing for it to be built faster and further (to Edinburgh and Glasgow).<br />
<br />
Well, not quite. Yes, clearly superfast trains that can get me from <a href="http://www.hs2.org.uk/about-hs2/facts-figures/connectivity-journey-times">London to Edinburgh in 3h 38m</a> almost an hour faster than the 4h 21m best today, and half an hour quicker than the (once a day) best time to Glasgow of 4h 08m. Indeed, London - Scotland would be significantly faster if a high speed line is built north from Manchester to Edinburgh, a distance of approximately 420 miles which at an average of 180 mph would give a journey time in the order of 2h 20m. Wonderful!<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-AZ-PNsrajgg/UjyvsApv1sI/AAAAAAAABhA/r7gOLdWsU10/s1600/map.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-AZ-PNsrajgg/UjyvsApv1sI/AAAAAAAABhA/r7gOLdWsU10/s320/map.gif" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
(331 miles in a straight line. Well within range for transformation by High Speed Rail.)</div>
<br />
Indeed, with a 1h 15m flight time, plus getting to and from the airports, along with faffing around time at the airports, any time under 3h 00m from central Edinburgh / Glasgow to Euston would almost certainly decimate the domestic aviation market, especially as the high speed route will go via Old Oak Common with an interchange for Heathrow for international passengers, and to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossrail">Crossrail</a> for the City and Canary Wharf. (Better yet if it went via Heathrow, but we're not there yet). A significant reduction in the 299 flights / week from Edinburgh to six London airports (along with lots from Glasgow to London) will make a major reduction in CO2 emissions. Good. <br />
<br />
But not at any cost. <br />
<br />
The recent <a href="http://www.iea.org.uk/">Institute for Economic Affairs (IEA)</a> paper arguing that <a href="http://www.iea.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/files/The%20High%20Speed%20Gravy%20Train.pdf">HS2 will cost £80bn</a> has been <a href="http://www.railjournal.com/index.php/blogs/keith-barrow/the-iea-assessment-of-hs2-is-pure-fantasy.html">widely</a> <a href="http://zelo-street.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/hs2-iea-report-one-huge-turkey.html">rubbished</a>, as it included all sorts of unrelated costs (e.g. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossrail_2">Crossrail 2</a>, which has precisely nothing to do with HS2 and needs to happen anyway for London and the South East) and ignored the fact that the current estimate of £42bn includes £14bn of contingency funds. And though the anti-HS2ers had a good political summer whilst there was nothing in the media, the reality remains that leaders of the Conservatives, LibDems and Labour are all more or less behind the project, though Labour has put a limit of £50bn on the cost.<br />
<br />
All very sensible.<br />
<br />
But what of the arguments that £42bn is a totally disproportionate cost to shave 30 mins off a trip from Euston - Birmingham and 60 mins off London - Manchester? And that the business case that treats all of these savings as "productive time" as people don't work on trains? These are risible messages, and are probably causing some sleepless nights in HS2 HQ.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-LeryqVjpZZs/UjzHBeJeY3I/AAAAAAAABhQ/osHTCtXU11w/s1600/70001+Bradwell+03Dec09+Brian+Ringer.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="267" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-LeryqVjpZZs/UjzHBeJeY3I/AAAAAAAABhQ/osHTCtXU11w/s400/70001+Bradwell+03Dec09+Brian+Ringer.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
(The perils of a mixed-traffic railway - comparatively slow freight trains...)</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
But they are also irrelevant in that the proper rationale for HS2 has always been one of capacity. The southern end of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Coast_Main_Line">West Coast Mainline (WCML)</a> between London and Rugby, is, to all intents and purposes, <a href="http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CDMQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.networkrail.co.uk%2Fbrowse%2520documents%2Frus%2520documents%2Froute%2520utilisation%2520strategies%2Fwest%2520coast%2520main%2520line%2Fwestcoastmainlinerus.pdf&ei=Fbo8UpvcNarO0wWAooDIDw&usg=AFQjCNFzW_WcQP5hG6RaZUSJ48f26EXcxQ&bvm=bv.52434380,d.d2k&cad=rja">full</a>. And as a result, as demand rises - for passengers commuting to London, and for freight (largely containers) from the new port at <a href="http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=8&cad=rja&ved=0CFAQFjAH&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FLondon_Gateway&ei=obo8Ut72LOTs0gWW4YDoDg&usg=AFQjCNHepS-_8BNWlZTw3lZfez16-AX29g&bvm=bv.52434380,d.d2k">London Gateway</a>, capacity needs to be found from somewhere, or demand needs to be priced off the railway (a bad plan).<br />
<br />
Thus, if something must be done, the question "What?" is next. And here's where the real rationale for HS2 kicks in. In the 1990s and 2000s, the WCML was <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Coast_Main_Line#Modernisation_by_Network_Rail">effectively rebuilt</a> at a cost of roughly £10bn. Though now complete, the cost and disruption of widening the southern end of the WCML from four tracks to six at least as far as the Trent Valley is so vast - you'd end up buying a 50 - 100 meter strip of England all the way up the line - including through the towns.... - that it is much easier to build a new line. And if you're going to build a wholly new line, the cost differential in building it for 250 mph operation and 140 mph operation is marginal, and therefore you go for the highest speed credibly possible.<br />
<br />
This leads to a second pair of related points - high speed rail does two things very well. First, it is great at out-competing airlines out to around 500 miles with city centre-city centre connectivity. Beyond 500 miles, the faffing about with airports begins to be compensated for by an airliners speed. In other words, it will work brilliantly from London to Edinburgh / Glasgow.<br />
<br />
Second, like motorways / freeways, to maximise volume, you need to keep the traffic moving at roughly the same speed to keep it from tripping each other. As a result, removing the high-speed services on the WCML will actually release even more medium speed commuter and freight capacity than you may originally assume. It's not for nothing that the WCML is Europe's busiest mixed-traffic railway. <br />
<br />
Which leads to the final point.<br />
<br />
Public policy should seek to maximise the benefits and minimise the costs. No great shock there. But HS2 is taking an inordinate amount of time to build as it is being funded on the basis that the money that the Department for Transport (DfT) is currently spending on Crossrail 1 will then be spent on HS2. This suggests that it is not being built in the most economical manner, but rather "how much HS2 can I get of £2bn a year, please?" DfT should urgently show that it is building the line as efficiently as possible - and if it would be cheaper to build it more quickly, then it should do so. As well as hurry up with true high-speed connections to Newcastle and Scotland's two main cities.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">*Frankly, when the Minister of Transport also <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Marples#Controversies">owned 80% of a large road building company</a>, and closed lots of railways whilst building lots of roads, you'd think it was some sort of disgracefully ill-governed banana republic. But no, Macmillan's Britain. Gits. </span><br />
<br /></div>
Toby's Random Musingshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01756931810010547397noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6616317943157226695.post-16516168709324523862013-09-20T18:48:00.000+01:002013-09-20T23:39:32.133+01:00Is this the worst nuclear weapons policy ever?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-vLYHHNsVEHs/UjnENxcxTqI/AAAAAAAABf8/SpwjbZT1BCk/s1600/6a00d83451b31c69e2019aff668747970b-pi.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="247" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-vLYHHNsVEHs/UjnENxcxTqI/AAAAAAAABf8/SpwjbZT1BCk/s320/6a00d83451b31c69e2019aff668747970b-pi.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
(Actually, <i>pace </i>ConHome, this is one thing that didn't happen)</div>
<br />
Despite our leading cartoon (credit: <a href="http://conservativehome.blogs.com/">ConservativeHome</a>), the LibDem conference this week didn't actually do anything to contest the policies of the Coalition, with the exception of the Spare Room Subsidy (aka Bedroom Tax). This was especially stark in two areas of nuclear policy - weapons and power, where the LibDems both approved the party leadership's preferred positions.<br />
<br />
As a LibDem, I don't have a problem with the nuclear power position. Simply, the UK needs nuclear power to provide low-carbon baseload electricity, though if nuclear is to be subsidised (and it will be), then it makes more sense to me to have this as a publicly owned utility run on market lines. Otherwise, the lights will go out, and that's a problem that would require higher-carbon alternatives to bridge the gap, which is a distinctively bad idea.<br />
<br />
But on the issue of LibDem nuclear weapons policy, the situation is rather different. In fact, I'd suggest that the LibDem's new policy position has a solid claim to being the most incoherent - and dangerous - of any party in a democratic nuclear weapons state since the dawn of the nuclear age.<br />
<br />
As I understand party policy at this point, LibDems are now committed to:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-G3vrIDnPma0/Ujwg0AgaWHI/AAAAAAAABgM/4PIXE-EF19U/s1600/180913-Steve-Bell-Lib-Dem-002.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="233" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-G3vrIDnPma0/Ujwg0AgaWHI/AAAAAAAABgM/4PIXE-EF19U/s320/180913-Steve-Bell-Lib-Dem-002.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
(Steve Bell isn't entirely wrong.... but we're not saving 10%!)</div>
<br />
<div class="im">
-
Building two or three SSBNs (unclear) at a cost of 93 - 97% of the cost
of like-for-like Trident replacement (NPV cost of c. £25-33bn of capital
2018/19 - 2031/32, and running costs of c. £3bn 2030-50)</div>
<div class="im">
<br />
- <i>Successor </i>SSBNs to be carry 8
SLBM tubes for the Trident II D5LE. Each missile is capable of carrying
up to 12 100kt warheads to different targets (MIRV), even if the UK wouldn't
normally do so. </div>
<div class="im">
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
- A declaratory policy that the UK would not:</div>
<div>
- Conduct CASD patrols</div>
<div>
- Sail with the missiles</div>
<div>
- Arm the missiles<br />
<br />
Let me offer eight grounds on why it is such a poor policy:</div>
<div>
<br />
<b>First</b>, the UK's conventional forces are in need of very substantial
investment in equipment between now and 2030. This is not only because
of the bow-wave of procurement costs that has been building up since SDR
1998, but also because the tempo of operations over the last 20 years,
combined with an ever shrinking pool of assets means that a significant
investment bill is being built up. It is currently unaffordable with
Trident in the programme. (See Chapter 4 of "<a href="http://centreforum.org/index.php/mainpublications/316-dropping-the-bomb">Dropping the Bomb</a>".) </div>
<div>
<br />
<b>Second</b>, once <i>Successor</i> goes ahead, it will
need to receive whatever resources it demands. Nuclear MoD types will smugly
tell you that the V-boats came in on budget (true), but only because
the budget increased and because of a favourable strengthening of the
pound versus the dollar at the end of the programme. Given that two sides of
the capability-time-cost triangle are fixed, cost is the only variable, meaning that it can only
increase, taking further resources from the conventional forces. </div>
<div>
<br />
<b>Third</b>, moving away from CASD increases crisis instability. And <i>contra </i>Danny
Alexander and Sir Nick Harvey, if I were an aggressor with designs on the UK, I would </div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<br />
(i) ignore the declaratory policy unless backed up by independent
inspections - and therefore assume that the SSBNs were fully armed with
max-MIRV Trident (96 100kt warheads), and </div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<br />
(ii) I would specifically act
against the submarines when they were all in port. Faslane / Gareloch is
not that hard to get at, and there is only one route
out of the Clyde. </div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<br />
As a result, the non-CASD posture is actually more
likely to create a short-notice crisis than to reduce it. </div>
<div>
<br />
<b>Fourth</b>, the policy of sailing unarmed
SSBNs about and having to return for arming speaks for itself. In a
three SSBN world, you could knock out two in the Gareloch and ambush the
third on its' return to Coulport. </div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
This assumes, of course, that the
missiles were actually in the UK, which under current operations they
wouldn't be; easier still in the two SSBN world. If we were to move to
this posture, we would need to include the costs of maintaining a
missile store and maintenance facility in the UK - the missiles are currently maintained at <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Submarine_Base_Kings_Bay">King's Bay, Georgia</a>. These facilities were not included in the
current Trident programme to save money; such construction isn't going
to be cheap, and as a result will cut the (already meagre) savings vs.
like-for-like further. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>Fifth</b>, despite Danny's frequent assertions
of the in-depth nature of the Alternatives Review, the thinking in LD HQ
is less clear cut. Whereas the <a href="https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&ved=0CDUQFjAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.gov.uk%2Fgovernment%2Fuploads%2Fsystem%2Fuploads%2Fattachment_data%2Ffile%2F212745%2F20130716_Trident_Alternatives_Study.pdf&ei=4SY8UqrfNKTs0gXR0IDoBQ&usg=AFQjCNHk-iVO8UhfGQwykR4Re02uTAAExQ&bvm=bv.52434380,d.d2k">Trident Alternatives Review</a> (TAR) rightly frames a two axis chart of
readiness and system technical capability, what the party has done is
concentrate solely on the readiness element. </div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<br />
Let's be clear: in technical terms, the notion that "Trident Lite" is "disarmament" is risible; it is
nothing of the sort. What the LibDems are actually proposing is the purchase of half or
three quarters of a pint of full-fat nuclear deterrent, rather than, to
extend the metaphor to a free-fall option, half a pint of skimmed
nuclear deterrent. </div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<br />
With 2 SSBNs we can operate fully armed CASD for a
limited period, and with 3 SSBNs fully armed CASD for an extended
period. I would expect an aggressor state to see our position in this
light, and make no change in their posture as a result of it. And to claim, as the leadership did, that the UK dealerting and Trident vfm study
was causal in the US and Russia adopting New START is fatuous in the
extreme - I can't believe that they believe it, either.</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<br />
However, a free fall bomb programme - far from being "from the stone age" as Sir Nick Harvey told Conference on Tuesday - would be a real disarmament option as it is <i>both</i> less capable and at lower readiness than the Trident options the LibDems are now advocating. </div>
<div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<br />
<b>Sixth</b>, consequently from point five, the fiscal
savings that would accrue from going down to a free fall capability were
not seriously examined. There are two possibilities: either, because
the leadership actually just wanted Trident in some form, and think,
deep down, that the UK needs that level of technical capability, or
(and, I hope more likely) because the
wrong question was asked. <br />
<br />
Based on what Danny Alexander said in his Demos fringe last Monday, it seems that the question asked was: <br />
<div class="im">
<br />
<i>Q: "How much is a <u><b>new</b></u>
warhead and how long will it take?" </i></div>
<div class="im">
A: The TAR claims the answers
are "14 years" and "£8-10bn". (Which is only plausible if AWE has lost
much of its indigenous design expertise.) <br />
<br />
However, to accurately cost the free-fall option, the question that should've been asked is <br />
<br />
<i>Q: "How much would it cost and how long would it take to <u><b>build</b><b> an </b><b>existing</b><b> modern design</b></u><b> </b>(<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B61_nuclear_bomb">US B-61 Mod 11</a>, or if built, B-61 Mod 12)?" </i></div>
<div class="im">
A: The TAR as published is silent on this question. But based on conversations here and in the US, the answers should be "2-3 years, or 12-18 months if you're in a
hurry" and "Even if producing 50 bombs at Aldermaston is twice as
expensive as it
would be in the US, and we allocate £1bn for the infrastructure and
capital works for the RAF, you'll have change out of £4bn." </div>
<div class="im">
<br />
Less than £4bn vs
£25-33bn for <i>Successor</i> is all of a sudden a considerable amount of real money. Indeed, saving £2bn a year from 2020/21 to 2031/32 would increase the equipment programme by 45% in those years. </div>
</div>
<br />
<b>Seventh</b>, in losing the savings from cancelling <i>Successor</i>,
LibDems are at once opening ourselves up to looking "weak" by not
backing like-for-like, and also failing to have the fiscal ammunition
for the 2015 leaders' debate to challenge the Tories and Labour on where they were going to find £25bn+ on supporting the conventional
forces, pointing out that we don't need the technical capability of
Trident, but that freefall off JSF off the carriers will provide more
than enough deterrence against Iran / Pakistan / DPRK. In neatly turning
the question back onto the other leaders, the LibDems would also be in tune
with the majority of British (and overwhelmingly of Scottish) voters who
want Trident gone.<br />
<br />
<b>Eighth</b>, politics is not static. If the LibDems were to move away from Trident, it is less problematic for Labour - whose own policy is not defined yet - to do so as well. Having opted for this fudged Trident based solution, the opportunity and incentive for Labour to provide a non-Trident package at the next election is much reduced. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-2MybhxgqZq4/UjxpK81VSTI/AAAAAAAABgc/hYEeAARpB9s/s1600/HMS_Vanguard_(S28).jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="227" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-2MybhxgqZq4/UjxpK81VSTI/AAAAAAAABgc/hYEeAARpB9s/s320/HMS_Vanguard_(S28).jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
(Get ready for some more of this.)</div>
<br />
Sadly, the most likely outcome of all of this is that the UK will be stumble into a like-for-like replacement of Trident after the next election, and will end up denuding our conventional forces of the investment that they need in the 2020s and early 2030s to make good our role as a force for good in the world.<br />
<br />
In summary, our new policy is not credible in strategic, financial or political terms. And as a party, we are <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/10181734/Lib-Dem-plans-to-cut-Trident-would-save-just-50-million-a-year-says-Philip-Hammond.html">already being lampooned</a> for it - <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10321083/The-Lib-Dem-plans-for-downgrading-Trident-would-delight-Britains-enemies.html">including by MoD ministers</a>.<br />
<br />
We deserve nothing less. </div>
Toby's Random Musingshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01756931810010547397noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6616317943157226695.post-49365472461029933642013-09-12T13:44:00.000+01:002013-09-12T13:44:26.584+01:00Trident - Why I'm voting to retire it<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-xYdsX3dXKBs/UjDS0b7QtiI/AAAAAAAABfg/VmlmrAOI3yg/s1600/HMS-Vanguard-001.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="192" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-xYdsX3dXKBs/UjDS0b7QtiI/AAAAAAAABfg/VmlmrAOI3yg/s320/HMS-Vanguard-001.jpg" width="320" /></a></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">(How many SSBNs in this picture?!)</span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Ok, so if there were any regular
readers of this blog, I suspect that they'd be getting bored of the
current Trident focus. But see it through, as LibDem conference is next
week, and Tuesday sees the first time in a generation that a major
British political party is seriously debating scrapping the UK's weapons
of mass destruction (WMDs).</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">There, I said it. WMD.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Enough of the euphemisms of "independent nuclear deterrent"; we're talking about <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W76">100kt thermonuclear warheads </a>mounted
on long-range, highly accurate rockets; truly, a WMD. And "deterrent"
implies a positive value judgement - a good thing if it keeps the "bad
people" (or, if you're George W. Bush, "<a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/gen.bush.terrorism/">evil doers</a>") away. But unless it deters something or someone, it can't be a deterrent. Who is UK Trident deterring?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">So, <a href="http://www.libdemvoice.org/opinion-looking-forward-to-a-posttrident-future-36135.html">cross-posted from LibDemVoice</a>. Happy to discuss, as ever.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Toby </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">_______________________________________________________________________________________</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">Amid
general agreement on the thrust of Julie Smith’s Committee’s excellent paper, and
gratitude that Nick Harvey and Danny Alexander have delivered unprecedented
transparency on the UK’s
nuclear options, next Tuesday’s debate on defence offers two sharply differing
views of the future of Britain’s
nuclear future. </span></span><br />
<div style="margin-top: 12pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">On the one hand, there is Nick Harvey’s proposal to
retain the Trident missiles, their warheads and associated infrastructure, but
reducing our purchase of new Trident submarines from four to two. This means
that from the early 2030s, the UK
will no longer be able to mount the standing patrols of Continuous At-Sea
Deterrence (CASD) for the first time since 1968. Styled as a step “down the
nuclear ladder” it was endorsed by Julian Huppert on Lib Dem Voice this week,
though the Trident Alternatives Review dismisses Julian’s notion of new
dual-role submarines. </span></span></div>
<div style="margin-top: 12pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">The alternative view is being put forward by George
Potter, and would see the UK withdraw Trident from service, reinvest the £30bn
in capital investment that the new submarines would require in the UK’s
conventional forces, whilst retaining the capacity to build nuclear weapons if
future scenarios require it, and putting the UK’s scientific expertise to
address the technical challenges of verifying nuclear disarmament.</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-top: 12pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">Having written </span><a href="http://www.centreforum.org/index.php/mainpublications/316-dropping-the-bomb" target="_blank"><i><span style="font-size: 10pt;">Dropping the bomb: a post Trident future</span></i></a> <span style="font-size: 10pt;">for CentreForum and a </span><a href="http://cminteractive.net/ci/centreforum/tomfrostick/em_Trident_briefing_v4.pdf" target="_blank"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">primer</span></a><span style="font-size: 10pt;"> for BASIC, I have
strong preference for the second of these two positions. There are three
reasons for this:</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-top: 12pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><i><span style="font-size: 10pt;">First</span></i><span style="font-size: 10pt;">, as there is no
territorial threat to the UK
or its dependencies in which Trident would be relevant, the case for an
independent decision making pole that was the Cold War justification for the UK and French
nuclear programmes is removed. </span></span></div>
<div style="margin-top: 12pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><i><span style="font-size: 10pt;">Second</span></i><span style="font-size: 10pt;">, after 20 years of close
to continuous operations in the Balkans, Afghanistan
and Iraq, Britain’s
conventional forces are in need of major reinvestment. Between 2018 and 2032,
this includes new armoured vehicles for the Army, frigates for the Navy and
fighter-bomber and maritime patrol aircraft for the RAF. Additionally, there
will be costs for achieving full operating capability out of the new army
structures, the new aircraft carriers and the ambitious integration of the
reservists outlined at the last defence review. This currently looks
unaffordable. </span></span></div>
<div style="margin-top: 12pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">Yet according to our analysis at CentreForum,
replacing the Trident submarines will absorb between 25% and 33% of the defence
procurement budget in these years, meaning that we are mortgaging the useful,
conventional forces’ future in favour of a political weapon that we don’t need.
</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-top: 12pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><i><span style="font-size: 10pt;">Third</span></i><span style="font-size: 10pt;">, I remain to be convinced
that Nick Harvey’s proposal is strategically, politically and financially viable.
</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-top: 12pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">Strategically, two submarines instead of four will provide
rather less than half the capability, and does mean that there will be periods
when both vessels would be in port. A short notice crisis could require the UK to sail a
missile submarine in a period of profound tension, increasing it just as we
would be looking to de-escalate – a position avoided by CASD. The argument that
sailing a submarine in a crisis would be a "demonstration of British resolve" is
neither convincing nor comforting.</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-top: 12pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">Politically, this proposal makes the Lib Dems
appear as a caricature – sitting on the fence, without the courage of their
convictions either to back like-for-like replacement on a strategic basis, or
to present the British people with a clear narrative about why Trident is
unnecessary. </span></span></div>
<div style="margin-top: 12pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">Financially, the proposal saves almost no money.
Launching the Trident Alternatives Review, Danny Alexander estimated the
savings of three submarines instead of four at £4bn out of the £110bn
through-life cost; the savings for going to two submarines will be
proportionately smaller as the research, development, basing and engineering
support will merely be amortized over a smaller fleet. Worse, the savings are
backloaded, meaning that a compromised Trident force will still mortgage the
future of the conventional forces re-equipment plan. Far better to reject
Trident, reinvest the savings and then challenge the other two parties to
explain how they will be able to fund the conventional forces’ as well as
Trident. </span></span></div>
<div style="margin-top: 12pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">Given the choice, the party should back George’s
amendment because it is more strategically, politically and financially coherent
than the motion’s text.</span></span></div>
</div>
Toby's Random Musingshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01756931810010547397noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6616317943157226695.post-29692671358908392852013-09-06T15:30:00.000+01:002013-09-11T21:50:38.477+01:00Trident policy briefing<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-HQEk2ETWXys/UinQEH4OlzI/AAAAAAAABfI/soYq-4gp9Vc/s1600/8be4792fb1e84be68785f1b50ac3be07-0x0.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="225" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-HQEk2ETWXys/UinQEH4OlzI/AAAAAAAABfI/soYq-4gp9Vc/s400/8be4792fb1e84be68785f1b50ac3be07-0x0.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
(We can get it to do something more useful, you know....)</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
I've been beavering away with the <a href="http://basicint.org/">British American Security Information Centre (BASIC)</a> to put together a short primer for the <a href="http://www.libdems.org.uk/home.aspx">Liberal Democrats'</a> <a href="http://www.libdems.org.uk/autumn_conference.aspx">autumn conference</a> on the choices available for Trident. It's now done, and is available <a href="http://cminteractive.net/ci/centreforum/tomfrostick/em_Trident_briefing_v4.pdf">here</a>. </div>
<br />
<br /></div>
Toby's Random Musingshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01756931810010547397noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6616317943157226695.post-111491609430499752013-09-05T13:02:00.001+01:002013-09-05T13:02:39.652+01:00In praise of September....<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-oxUqityeu0o/UihmRde8M4I/AAAAAAAABe0/vlUbd_81hqg/s1600/DSC06930.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="266" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-oxUqityeu0o/UihmRde8M4I/AAAAAAAABe0/vlUbd_81hqg/s400/DSC06930.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
(Fall in the beloved mountains...)</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
It's September. And at this time of the year, I'm always having two thoughts close to the front of my mind: the natural phenomena of fall in Vermont and <a href="http://www.libdems.org.uk/autumn_conference.aspx">LibDem Annual Conference</a>. <br />
<br />
This year, LibDems are in Glasgow - a hop, skip and a jump from <a href="http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/The-Fleet/Naval-Bases/Clyde">HM Naval Base Clyde</a>, the home of the UK Trident fleet - and will be discussing the future of Trident for the LibDem's next manifesto. I have written a primer for <a href="http://basicint.org/">BASIC </a>on the choices, which will be published next week. As you would expect, it draws heavily on the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/trident-alternatives-review">Trident Alternatives Review</a> and on the work <a href="http://centreforum.org/">CentreForum</a> did <a href="http://centreforum.org/index.php/mainpublications/316-dropping-the-bomb">last year</a>.<br />
<br />
My thoughts are relatively simple, and are based on a three point premise:<br />
<br />
- That the UK is not currently, and is unlikely to become in the foreseeable future, short-notice direct nuclear threat;<br />
<br />
- That there is unlikely to be a significant increase in the UK defence budget, or a substantial reduction in the UK's national ambition abroad; <br />
<br />
- That NATO will continue to offer the level of nuclear deterrence the UK requires.<br />
<br />
Taken together, this means that the UK faces a choice on the sort of military capability it would like to have from now until the the late 2030s, and therefore, what a key component of the UK's "Hard Power" looks like over the same period. Against this backdrop, the question is one of choices: does the UK want to revamp the conventional forces, or does it want to have Trident (and very much smaller / equipped with older kit) conventional forces?<br />
<br />
It is important not to obscure this question within an argument about Trident with or without Continuous At-Sea Deterrence (CASD). The reality is that removing CASD as a readiness requirement and going over to two or three SSBNs instead of four saves £4 - 8bn over 30 years, or about 3.5 - 7% of the total budget to the 2050s, with the costs in the early years similar (they reflect R&D and the early builds). This means that the opportunity costs to the conventional forces are essentially identical, making the choice relatively binary in financial terms.<br />
<br />
Strategically, non-CASD Trident there are also major problems; the question of crisis instability (what happens if you don't have CASD and need to sail an SSBN at a time of tension.... raising tensions!) will only be definitively answered when someone tries it in a crisis.<br />
<br />
Similarly, the unspoken proposal to share deterrent patrols with the French (who could then reduce their number of submarines, too) is also ridiculous. Would a British Government really consent to Paris firing a British Trident at a target of France's choosing when our national interests were not engaged? And in the unlikely event that a British Government would, what are the chances of an adversary having enough fear that this could happen to be deterred? (I strongly doubt that the French would be up for the reverse situation, either....)<br />
<br />
So, do we want to spend the money on Trident or on the conventional forces? I will vote for the conventional forces everytime, and in the debate on the 17th of September. <br />
<br /></div>
Toby's Random Musingshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01756931810010547397noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6616317943157226695.post-25091675241795596232013-08-30T17:14:00.000+01:002013-08-31T14:19:06.207+01:00A Minor Constitutional Earthquake<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Cambria;
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;
mso-font-alt:"Times New Roman";
mso-font-charset:77;
mso-generic-font-family:roman;
mso-font-format:other;
mso-font-pitch:auto;
mso-font-signature:3 0 0 0 1 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-parent:"";
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:Cambria;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-noshow:yes;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;
text-underline:single;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-noshow:yes;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;
text-underline:single;}
@page Section1
{size:595.0pt 842.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt;
mso-header-margin:35.4pt;
mso-footer-margin:35.4pt;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
</style>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-WDVwE6WXacE/UiDEF_jMuCI/AAAAAAAABdo/j0an67AoiJo/s1600/ImageVaultHandler.aspx.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="160" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-WDVwE6WXacE/UiDEF_jMuCI/AAAAAAAABdo/j0an67AoiJo/s320/ImageVaultHandler.aspx.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In constitutional terms, Tony Blair could be described as
the gift that keeps on giving. Having failed with the <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13297573">alternative vote </a>and <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19149212">reform of the House of Lords</a>, last night’s seminal vote on Syria means that
David Cameron and Nick Clegg have enacted a major constitutional reform, albeit
probably not as they intended. On behalf of the current and future members of the Executive branch, they’ve relinquished
the power to engage in wars of choice.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12.0pt;">
This is remarkable. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12.0pt;">
Since <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Walpole">Walpole</a> was Prime Minister
to George I at the dawn of the modern British State, the settlement of powers
between the Executive and Legislative branches of Government have waxed and
waned depending on their comparative strength and the national and international
situation. Since 1721, however, one set of Royal Prerogative powers has
remained firmly in the hands of the Executive: the power to go to war. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12.0pt;">
Yet absent an immediate threat to
the UK, our overseas territories or to our allies covered by mutual defence
treaties (notably <a href="http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_17120.htm">NATO
Article 5</a>), it is now hard to conceive of circumstances under which a
British Prime Minister would order British forces to battle without the
explicit prior consent of the House of Commons. Indeed, to do so today would appear
to risk a constitutional crisis. Better, for international law, there appears
to be a new norm to publish the legal advice on the use of force, and a need
for express legality from the United Nations or through the emerging
Responsibility to Protect doctrine. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12.0pt;">
This matters. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12.0pt;">
For a nation with an unwritten constitution,
precedence and practice – combined with some national and international statutes
– provide the rules of the political game. If the Executive cedes power to the
Legislature or to the devolved administrations, it is unlikely to get it back –
and never more than in this case. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12.0pt;">
How did we get here? The 18 March
2003 vote on the invasion of Iraq was the first time that the Government
allowed the Commons to decide whether or not the UK would go to war. In the
2003 <a href="http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2003-03-18&number=118&display=allpossible">vote</a>,
the Labour Government majority was provided by the support of the Conservative
opposition; the invasion began the following day. And if 2003 provided the
opening for the change, then last night’s debate provided the dénouement:
when the House of Commons voted against action, Britain was unable to
follow the course that the Government of the day was apparently set on. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12.0pt;">
So despite the <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16050574">warm words</a> of David
Cameron in opposition and of Gordon Brown in office, it has fallen to the Commons
to take what the Executive failed to enact. In doing so, the House of Commons has
asserted a much greater crimp on Executive power than the famous US Congress <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution">War Powers Act</a> (WPA).
Enacted over Nixon’s veto in 1973 the WPA requires the US Executive to notify
Congress of the introduction of US armed forces into hostilities or “situations
where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the
circumstances” within 48 hours, and the gives the Executive up to 90 days to
secure Congressional support or to terminate the US armed forces involvement.
Britain’s new constitutional settlement for wars of choice doesn’t even give
Britain’s Executive this flexibility in future. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12.0pt;">
There will be those who downplay
the scale of these changes, noting that Britain's unwritten constitution is
inherently flexible, and that the irreducible element is whether a party can
command a Commons majority for its budget. This remains true, but the
counterfactual to consider is whether David Cameron could survive ignoring
Parliament to join a US-led attack on Syria regardless. The fact that this is
now politically inconceivable underscores just how much the Constitutional
position changed last night; it will be fascinating to see how this
develops.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12.0pt;">
But make no mistake: reports of a
constitutional earthquake last night were entirely accurate. </div>
</div>
Toby's Random Musingshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01756931810010547397noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6616317943157226695.post-83800710926162374082013-01-09T10:07:00.001+00:002013-01-09T10:09:26.925+00:00Classics combined<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ylCV3zf_olo/UO06YfJ-JzI/AAAAAAAABYQ/MDQYzRpNCqs/s1600/IMG_0204.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ylCV3zf_olo/UO06YfJ-JzI/AAAAAAAABYQ/MDQYzRpNCqs/s320/IMG_0204.JPG" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
(See, it does fit!)</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
In haste, a short post following up on a post from <a href="http://slightly-random-musings.blogspot.co.uk/2011/12/north-bennington-depot.html">December 2011</a> on the importance of North Bennington Depot having a classic SAAB 900 sitting outside it. And last week, I had both the car and the camera in the right place at the right time. I was actually voting on the <a href="http://www.benningtonbanner.com/news/ci_22308083/yes-creating-village-school?IADID=Search-www.benningtonbanner.com-www.benningtonbanner.com">privatisation of the North Bennington Graded School</a> (a plan to create a Charter School in Vermont without any of the legislation that would be required to support it - sadly, the plan passed, though it is subject to a review by the State Board of Education next week; they stopped it last time) but the snow was lovely and the station stood resolute and welcoming as ever. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
I also got a copy of "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Americas-Great-Railroad-Stations-Straus/dp/0670023116/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1357724817&sr=8-1&keywords=america%27s+great+railroad+stations">America's Great Railroad Stations</a>" over Christmas, which features North Bennington Depot in a beautiful spread on pp. 86 - 89, taking its place alongside the New York's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Central_Station">Grand Central</a>, Boston's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_South_Station">South Station</a> and Washington's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Union_Station">Union Station</a>. Wonderful book, well worth a read; all we need now is for Amtrak to be sufficiently funded to use these beautiful stations optimally. For <a href="http://www.railvermont.org/bennington-trains.html">North Bennington</a>, this means diverting the <a href="http://www.amtrak.com/ethan-allen-express-train">Ethan Allen</a> from New York to Rutland - and eventually to Burlington VT, via Manchester, Rutland and Middlebury - hopefully from 2015/16. </div>
Toby's Random Musingshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01756931810010547397noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6616317943157226695.post-85432694272643964652012-12-16T20:41:00.004+00:002012-12-16T20:41:43.692+00:00On the tragedy of Sandy Hook<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="comment-body">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-lhLOTjJnGg4/UM4tESoglAI/AAAAAAAABXc/27qBv0Wa1fk/s1600/HT_patch_sandy_hook_school_kb_121214_wg.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="180" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-lhLOTjJnGg4/UM4tESoglAI/AAAAAAAABXc/27qBv0Wa1fk/s320/HT_patch_sandy_hook_school_kb_121214_wg.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
Like most of the world, I'd never heard of Newtown, CT or Sandy Hook elementary school before last week; now, it has entered the unspeakable lexicon of horror, known worldwide. This happened to my hometown of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipswich_serial_murders">Ipswich, UK in late 2006</a> - and it's an awful thing. <br />
<br />
I write this as both an American and a Brit; and
having lived and worked in both countries, I don't for one second
believe that there is a greater proportion of the US population that is
psychotic or murderous than the UK. Therefore, how can we explain the wildly different murder rates? To
me, the only rationale explanation is that Brits with the requisite
intent don't have the opportunity afforded by widespread firearms
ownership to act on these impulses that their American counterparts
have - and take, on a daily basis. <br />
<br />
<br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-msRv7cJrxuQ/UM4uz-Hy5AI/AAAAAAAABXk/ucgV7SMgdeA/s1600/imagesizer.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="222" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-msRv7cJrxuQ/UM4uz-Hy5AI/AAAAAAAABXk/ucgV7SMgdeA/s320/imagesizer.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<h5 class="uiStreamMessage userContentWrapper" data-ft="{"type":1,"tn":"K"}" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span class="messageBody" data-ft="{"type":3}"><span class="userContent"><span style="font-size: small;">The alleged arsenal of the Sandy Hook mass-murderer: Glock<span style="font-size: small;"> and </span>Sig Sauer au<span style="font-size: small;">tomatic pis<span style="font-size: small;">tols</span></span> and AR-15 rifle</span> </span></span></span></span></h5>
</div>
<div class="comment-body">
<h5 class="uiStreamMessage userContentWrapper" data-ft="{"type":1,"tn":"K"}">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span class="messageBody" data-ft="{"type":3}"><span class="userContent">I can <span style="font-size: small;">conceive</span> of no sensible rationale for civilians to hold
semi-automatic military rifles (not required - and indeed use<span style="font-size: small;">less - </span>for hunting or target
shooting) or hand guns of any sort at all - and certainly not in homes.
The level of expert training and practice for these to be effective
"protection" should involve range work of several hours a week to
provide the required accuracy and target discrimination; less makes them
a danger to the owner and - in the case of semi-automatic rifles -
anyone within about 500m. Indeed, the 5.<span style="font-size: small;">56<span style="font-size: small;">mm rifle bullet can kill at 1300<span style="font-size: small;">m - 4<span style="font-size: small;">/5ths of a mile - though in fairne<span style="font-size: small;">ss </span>you'd have t<span style="font-size: small;">o have <span style="font-size: small;">been </span>very unl<span style="font-size: small;">ucky as aimin<span style="font-size: small;">g at these extreme ranges is a speci<span style="font-size: small;">alis<span style="font-size: small;">t skill. </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span><br /> <br /> If nothing else, the pol<span style="font-size: small;">itical recoil <span style="font-size: small;">from the tragedy <span style="font-size: small;">at Sandy Hoo<span style="font-size: small;">k </span></span></span></span>should lead to
banning - and compulsory purchase - of the most dangerous
weapons. This would inc<span style="font-size: small;">lude all </span>semi-automatic rifles and their large calibre single-shot / bol<span style="font-size: small;">t-action</span> counterparts,
along with a federal ban on the sale of their ammunition (e.g. 5.56 and
12.7mm rifle ammunition). Federal action is critical as the net is only
as strong as that of the weakest state regulation. </span></span></span></span></h5>
<br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Fa_eKWHg96w/UM4wzE9AhQI/AAAAAAAABXs/40aO_m2N9XY/s1600/bsa-gun-cabinet-4-rifle-gun-safe-deep-lock-top-gs4ltd-i4dbffe91b8485.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Fa_eKWHg96w/UM4wzE9AhQI/AAAAAAAABXs/40aO_m2N9XY/s320/bsa-gun-cabinet-4-rifle-gun-safe-deep-lock-top-gs4ltd-i4dbffe91b8485.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<h5 class="uiStreamMessage userContentWrapper" data-ft="{"type":1,"tn":"K"}" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span class="messageBody" data-ft="{"type":3}"><span class="userContent"><span style="font-size: small;">Keeping guns locked away is also a good idea - away from their ammunition, too</span> </span></span></span></span></h5>
<h5 class="uiStreamMessage userContentWrapper" data-ft="{"type":1,"tn":"K"}">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span class="messageBody" data-ft="{"type":3}"><span class="userContent">Add to
this a requirement for every weapon to be licensed and <span style="font-size: small;">ballistically</span>
tested, and kept in a locked container with ammunition held separately
and securely, then we may see a reduction in some of the tragic
accidents that make up a large proportion of US firearms casualties. <span style="font-size: small;">None of these <span style="font-size: small;">meas<span style="font-size: small;">ures will im<span style="font-size: small;">pa<span style="font-size: small;">ct legitimate <span style="font-size: small;">gun-<span style="font-size: small;">o<span style="font-size: small;">wners a<span style="font-size: small;">t all. </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span>Finally, we can impose taxes on ammunition to reflect the externalities
that gunfire imposes on the rest of society. These will be very high,
and over time will significantly reduce the amount of ammunition in
circulation. <br /> <br /> And no, none of this would have an impact on my rights as an American under the 2nd Amendment.<span style="font-size: small;"> <span style="font-size: small;">But it woul<span style="font-size: small;">d <span style="font-size: small;">reduce the danger<span style="font-size: small;">s to our f<span style="font-size: small;">riends and families in th<span style="font-size: small;">e US<span style="font-size: small;">.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></h5>
</div>
Toby's Random Musingshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01756931810010547397noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6616317943157226695.post-68540652462945974572012-04-22T22:41:00.000+01:002012-04-22T22:41:07.682+01:00Any sign of an MoD Budget?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Xegl72KURAU/T5R61rKptOI/AAAAAAAABWg/1ikd-8ulVUA/s1600/110213%257E1.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="211" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Xegl72KURAU/T5R61rKptOI/AAAAAAAABWg/1ikd-8ulVUA/s320/110213%257E1.JPG" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
(Lego, on a grand scale)</div>
<br />
Er, no. But the lego of the carriers is going together.<br />
<br />
We look forward to it with interest, etc etc.<br />
<br />
Sorry to have been away. Will post some more soon.<br />
<br />Toby's Random Musingshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01756931810010547397noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6616317943157226695.post-24397413357235994262012-03-25T23:05:00.000+01:002012-03-25T23:05:16.420+01:00More muddle, less leadership<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-imBK2dlHu8I/T2-Fj2wAGrI/AAAAAAAABWU/9mxQRzJfFL4/s1600/6441372109_434f443722_z.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="265" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-imBK2dlHu8I/T2-Fj2wAGrI/AAAAAAAABWU/9mxQRzJfFL4/s400/6441372109_434f443722_z.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
(What we're arguing about: An F-35C launched by EMALS at NAS Lakehurst, NJ - Look Mum, no Steam!)</div>
<br />
It seems that the UK MoD's trials and tribulations with the 2012 Planning Round (PR12) which have been referred to here before, are now so serious that it <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9164950/New-delay-over-fighter-jet-choice.html">can't be announced before the Easter recess</a>. In other words, the MoD is tacitly accepting that it won't be able to start the 2012-13 financial year with a plan that is costed and deliverable.<br />
<br />
Well done.<br />
<br />
To the cynics out there who could point out that this is hardly anything new, you have a point. Indeed, it is so consistent with previous MoD fiascos that one could be forgiven for thinking that Liam Fox - he of the "<a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm111010/debtext/111010-0001.htm">broadly in balance</a>" budget fiasco was still in charge.<br />
<br />
Fortunately he isn't. But "Spreadsheet Phil" Hammond needs to get the budget balanced without undermining the UK's semblance of a strategy. And for as long as this involves the carrier programme, the correct answer is F-35C, EMALS and traps - a cheaper, less complex aircraft that takes twice the bombload half as far again, or half again as many bombs twice the range of the F-35B jumpjet.<br />
<br />
If we're serious about Carrier Enabled Power Projection (CEPP), then the F-35C is the correct way forward. Find the money and move on.<br />
<br />
(And if you're having difficulty with the money, you could always <a href="http://www.centreforum.org/index.php/mainpublications/316-dropping-the-bomb">cancel Trident.</a>)Toby's Random Musingshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01756931810010547397noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6616317943157226695.post-57496376454825616242012-03-18T20:13:00.000+00:002012-03-20T21:14:38.855+00:00Must be time for more inept MoD decisions<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-e64b9TYlpeo/T2ZBONjSseI/AAAAAAAABVw/Seusco-RaKM/s1600/f35bgroundtest_20080529.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-e64b9TYlpeo/T2ZBONjSseI/AAAAAAAABVw/Seusco-RaKM/s400/f35bgroundtest_20080529.jpg" width="400" /></span></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">(F-35B - the most expensive way of getting half the bombload two-thirds the range of F-35C)</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
Those of you who read this regularly will know that the 2010 Strategic Defensive and Security Review (SDSR) made the sensible choice to replace the Joint Strike Fighter (F-35B) Short Take Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) variant with the carrier variant for use on the UK's new aircraft carriers. At the time, SDSR said of this (very welcome) decision:<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">"The last government committed to carriers that would have been
unable to work properly with our closest military allies,"</span><br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">and</span><br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">"It will take time to rectify this error but we are
determined to do so. We will fit a catapult to the operational carrier
to enable it to fly a version of the JSF with a longer range and able to
carry more weapons. Crucially, that will allow our carrier to operate
in tandem with the US and French navies."</span><br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">And now, it appears that in the </span><a href="http://slightly-random-musings.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/pr12-more-uk-defence-cuts.html"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">Planning Round 12 (PR12)</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"> decisionmaking the </span><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/mar/18/u-turn-aircraft-carriers-costs"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">MoD are going to reverse themselves</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">.</span><br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">Unbelievable.</span><br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">But as we pointed out in </span><a href="http://centreforum.org/index.php/mainpublications/316-dropping-the-bomb"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">CentreForum's "Dropping the Bomb"</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"> paper last week, there is no reason to do this if you were prepared to cancel Trident. Here's the table from page 52:</span><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Cvls8K_YKNM/T2ZBP7_PbFI/AAAAAAAABV4/_8HLI382l9g/s1600/dropping-the-bomb_Page_52.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><img border="0" height="640" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Cvls8K_YKNM/T2ZBP7_PbFI/AAAAAAAABV4/_8HLI382l9g/s640/dropping-the-bomb_Page_52.jpg" width="531" /></span></a></div>
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"> I give up. </span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
</span>Toby's Random Musingshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01756931810010547397noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6616317943157226695.post-51622002637027331882012-03-16T07:59:00.000+00:002012-03-16T08:02:00.068+00:00New RAF aircraft.... leased under UORs<div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-family: inherit; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-X87aXCbSHXc/T2Jn9gTIMAI/AAAAAAAABVY/s28diohT57c/s1600/A539C6BB_1143_EC82_2EEF48D19181C13C.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="228" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-X87aXCbSHXc/T2Jn9gTIMAI/AAAAAAAABVY/s28diohT57c/s400/A539C6BB_1143_EC82_2EEF48D19181C13C.jpg" width="400" /></a></span></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: small;">(Not all RAF BAe 146s are created equal - here's the rest of the fleet from <a href="http://www.raf.mod.uk/organisation/32squadron.cfm">32[TR] Sqn</a>)</span></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit;">
<span style="font-size: small;">Some interesting news at a time of further <a href="http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/herculesc4c5.cfm">UK MoD cuts</a>: the RAF is to <a href="http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/bae-to-modify-used-146-200-transports-for-royal-air-force-368093/">lease two BAe 146-200QC airliners</a> to fly <a href="http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/bae-to-modify-used-146-200-transports-for-royal-air-force-368093/">personnel and equipment around Afghanistan</a>. The idea is to take the pressure off the RAF's small<a href="http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/herculesc4c5.cfm"> C-130 Hercules fleet</a>, which has been on almost continuous operations since the initial deployments to the former Yugoslavia in the early 1990s. Indeed, it was the operations tempo that led to the <a href="http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/raf-faces-tough-choices-over-future-air-transport-fleet-346672/">C-130K fleet finally being retired without replacement</a> - as the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A400M">Airbus A400M</a> is running behind schedule and over budget. </span></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit;">
<span style="font-size: small;">What's interesting here is that this is being procured under an Urgent Operational Requirement (UOR) which is normally funded directly from the Treasury via an additional appropriation for operations. (This is in addition to the actual additional cost of fighting - known as Net Additional Cost of Military Operations, or NACMO).</span></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-tNQziUewLb4/T2Ltw3sG2XI/AAAAAAAABVg/RBLCa11tR5U/s1600/panic-button.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-tNQziUewLb4/T2Ltw3sG2XI/AAAAAAAABVg/RBLCa11tR5U/s1600/panic-button.jpg" /></a></span></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: small;">(UORs inbound!)</span></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit;">
<span style="font-size: small;">Now, back in ancient history (known as "2001") UORs used to be funded in full, with very few questions asked. This - and the failings of the conventional acquisition system led the UPR system to be the front-line's preferred route of getting the tools needed for the job in hand, and the costs exploded. This was made worse because UORs were by their nature temporary for a single conflict, meaning that the equipment would be withdrawn from service a maximum of 12 months after the end of the conflict - or the MoD would have to find the cash in their existing budget to sustain the equipment (known as bringing it into core MoD capability).</span></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit;">
<span style="font-size: small;">What this meant for the UOR kit was that there were rarely examples in the UK for large-scale training, spares were kept to a minimum (as it was a temporary expedient), and there was none of the conventional engineering and training support associated with conventionally procured equipment. But if the genius point for the hard pressed front line was that off-the-shelf kit arrived and worked (more or less), the fact that the Treasury's reserve paid for it made it a boon for the accountants faced with a deluge of overspends in the procurement budget. (And to the extent that defence industrial policy matters, <a href="http://www.rusi.org/downloads/assets/RDS_Maughan_Feb09.pdf">off the shelf kit was often built outside the UK</a> - often in the US, which didn't help Britain's defence industry too much.)<span lang="EN-US"> </span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><span lang="EN-US">And the sums were vast: </span><u><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #001de0;">the UK NAO</span></u><span lang="EN-US"> estimates that </span><a href="http://www.nao.org.uk//idoc.ashx?docId=85b907d4-1f92-402a-bf35-6340d78ff65d&version=-1"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #001de0;">UORs for armoured vehicles from 2003-11</span></a><span lang="EN-US"> consumed £2.8bn - in total, equivalent to about half
of the annual equipment budget - whilst £1125m was spent on conventional
programmes for similar vehicles, £718m of which actually resulted in
ZERO actual armoured vehicles being procured in the conventional route. The net
result is that the British military will be short of armoured vehicles until at
least 2024-25.</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><span lang="EN-US">Things got so bad during
the mid-2000s with Iraq and Afghanistan, the Treasury finally said no, and told
the MoD that there would be a cap, and that instead of UORs being "extra
free money", above a ceiling, Treasury would reclaim the UOR cash from
future years appropriations, further dragging the MoD's long-term planning into
the mire. </span></span><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span lang="EN-US">So how does this affect two
secondhand BAe 146s?</span></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-au2K1SSGgrg/T2LvCf_Y4iI/AAAAAAAABVo/0pWg6jQQ8nI/s1600/C27AtTopOfLoop.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="230" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-au2K1SSGgrg/T2LvCf_Y4iI/AAAAAAAABVo/0pWg6jQQ8nI/s320/C27AtTopOfLoop.jpg" width="320" /></a></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span lang="EN-US">(<a href="http://www.suslik.org/Humour/FilmOrTV/BlackAdder/ba4-4.html">"I don't care if they go up-diddly-up-up, etc"</a>... a C-27J swoons)</span></span></div>
</div>
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><span lang="EN-US">At one level, not at all.
The UK is going to withdraw combat forces from Afghanistan in 2014 and it would
pointless to procure this niche capability if we were to find it unnecessary in
less than 24 months’ time. Indeed, this is precisely the situation the United
States have found themselves in <a href="http://www.dodbuzz.com/2012/03/09/csa-praises-doomed-c-27js-role-in-afghanistan/">scrapping the Joint Cargo Aircraft (JCA)programme</a>, with the expensive embarrassment of having purchased brand-new <a href="http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/awst/2012/01/23/AW_01_23_2012_p27-415858.xml">C-27J Spartans</a>. Instead the UK will spend £6m + defensive modifications to provide a
useful intra-theatre airlift option. So far, so good.</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><span lang="EN-US">But it underscores
the lack of planning and delivery of core MoD capability - in this case A400M
tactical airlifters - continues to cause the panic button to be hit and UORs to
be required. </span></span><br />
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Times;
panose-1:2 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:3 0 0 0 1 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Cambria;
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:3 0 0 0 1 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-parent:"";
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:Cambria;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}
@page Section1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt;
mso-header-margin:36.0pt;
mso-footer-margin:36.0pt;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>Toby's Random Musingshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01756931810010547397noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6616317943157226695.post-69787981656158831142012-03-13T22:31:00.002+00:002012-03-14T20:43:19.245+00:00PR12 - More UK Defence Cuts?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-OBDDU7-OCgM/T1-_Of0RjWI/AAAAAAAABVQ/j---d2VwGAg/s1600/phil_1783078b.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-OBDDU7-OCgM/T1-_Of0RjWI/AAAAAAAABVQ/j---d2VwGAg/s320/phil_1783078b.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
(Philip Hammond: likely to make sure a balance sheet does. Good for him!)</div>
<br />
Parliament rises on the 26th of March - it's taking a break until the 16th of April for Easter and constituency business. And before the <a href="http://www.parliament.uk/about/faqs/house-of-commons-faqs/business-faq-page/recess-dates/">Recess</a>, it is expected that Secretary of State for Defence Philip Hammond will address the Commons to announce the outputs of the 2012 MoD Planning Round (<a href="http://slightly-random-musings.blogspot.com/2011/10/post-sdsr-implementation-through-pr11.html">known as PR12</a>) and explain how the MoD's budget has been trimmed from Liam Fox's being "<a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm111010/debtext/111010-0001.htm">broadly in balance</a>" to actually, well, er, <i>actually </i>being in balance. And to do so with no increases in funding, and presumably with no clear source of magic pixie dust that reduces the costs of military equipment. <br />
<br />
In other words, there are going to be more cuts. In fact, I hear that something like between £3bn and £5bn is likely to be cut from the forward programme. We look forward to understanding how this is going to work out - it is most likely that this will not be outright cancellation of existing contracts (gets very expensive) but is much more likely to be those projects that haven't been signed - but which the forces are expecting to get. Ouch.<br />
<br />
Let's see what they come up with - but it makes the case for <a href="http://slightly-random-musings.blogspot.com/2012/03/centreforum-trident-report.html">retaining the Trident replacement</a> programme at £25 - £33bn whilst taking more cuts in the conventional forces ever weaker.Toby's Random Musingshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01756931810010547397noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6616317943157226695.post-70866769578470986852012-03-10T17:37:00.000+00:002012-03-10T17:38:23.744+00:00CentreForum Trident Report<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-pQ-KpTrRWI8/T1uOm9jSAII/AAAAAAAABVI/J7chC8fnaWs/s1600/dropping-the-bomb-cover-270.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-pQ-KpTrRWI8/T1uOm9jSAII/AAAAAAAABVI/J7chC8fnaWs/s1600/dropping-the-bomb-cover-270.jpg" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
(Shameless self promotion, I know... deal with it!)</div>
<br />
Forgive my lack of posting - I've been totally consumed by getting CentreForum Trident paper finished. And now it is - <a href="http://centreforum.org/assets/pubs/dropping-the-bomb.pdf">you can get it here </a>- and there's been lots of interesting <a href="http://www.centreforum.org/index.php/mainnews/314-march-2012">media coverage</a>. I'm deeply indebted to many people - the acknowledgements are there for a reason - but the one I most liked was from the UK communist <a href="http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/news/content/view/full/116229">Morning Star</a>; only the comrades know the truth. (NB Irony Alert!) We also made the wonderful <a href="http://lewis.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/5036/tuppenny-trident">ArmsControlWonk</a> - with thanks to Dr. Jeffrey Lewis.<br />
<br />
Normal service will be shortly be resumed...Toby's Random Musingshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01756931810010547397noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6616317943157226695.post-85021633086287467292012-02-05T16:07:00.002+00:002012-02-05T16:08:13.065+00:00Labour Does Defence Cuts(ish): Part Two<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Wixw8I0xuGg/TyUxtSSOfKI/AAAAAAAABT4/Yf1ban6yHws/s1600/_46928634_jex_549545_de03-1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="180" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Wixw8I0xuGg/TyUxtSSOfKI/AAAAAAAABT4/Yf1ban6yHws/s320/_46928634_jex_549545_de03-1.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
(Ainsworth addresses the Commons
in December 2009 on defence cuts. He might have said
"I've done some sums, and they don't add up. But don't worry, I'm not
going to be here after the election to worry about that.") </div>
<br />
Apologies
for the lack of postings from here at SRM HQ - I've been very busy and,
as they say, all will be revealed shortly. Thus, it is with apologies
that this follow up to <a href="http://slightly-random-musings.blogspot.com/2012/01/mod-men-robertson-891-hoon-2034-reid.html">part one</a> has been delayed - but here we are now.<br />
<br />
The
figures are stark: the UK MoD is broke, and despite the cuts from the
2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) that we've discussed <a href="http://slightly-random-musings.blogspot.com/2011/10/post-sdsr-sdsr-numbers.html">here</a> and <a href="http://slightly-random-musings.blogspot.com/2011/10/post-sdsr-implementation-through-pr11.html">here</a>
before, there are reasonable grounds to assume that there are more cuts
to come. Indeed, whilst Liam Fox told Parliament on 18 July 2011 that
the defence budget was "<a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm111010/debtext/111010-0001.htm">broadly in balance</a>", it must be assumed that "broadly in balance" actually means "not actually in balance, so more cuts are required".<br />
<br />
But this is not news. Indeed, prior to the 2010 election, Labour belated recognized that they'd blown the budget. This was made powerfully clear in Bernard Gray's report, which famously described the budget as undeliverable under any likely future budget. This was demonstrated in his chart on p. 94:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ieTdGBV1HR0/Ty6n_30CKUI/AAAAAAAABUA/PrYO0tt4Urc/s1600/GrayReportReviewAcquisition_Page_096.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="247" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ieTdGBV1HR0/Ty6n_30CKUI/AAAAAAAABUA/PrYO0tt4Urc/s400/GrayReportReviewAcquisition_Page_096.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
(Not ever going to work)</div>
<br />
Moreover, Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls has made clear that <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16590904">Labour will accept the Coalition's cuts</a>, meaning that Jim Murphy and his team need to meet the same challenge as the Government - find £74bn over ten years to balance the defence budget. And that will mean a proper discussion of what the UK is going to do with it's place in the world, setting the Government's aspirations, and then providing the budget to cover them.<br />
<br />
Jim Murphy, over to you....Toby's Random Musingshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01756931810010547397noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6616317943157226695.post-44504034638655594222012-01-28T23:10:00.001+00:002012-01-29T09:03:27.471+00:00Anglican Human Rights<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-fAyKyzMoEZY/TyR82i_e5-I/AAAAAAAABTo/Ir8j6PA9VmA/s1600/John-Sentamu-007.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="192" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-fAyKyzMoEZY/TyR82i_e5-I/AAAAAAAABTo/Ir8j6PA9VmA/s320/John-Sentamu-007.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
(His Grace Archbishop Dr. John Sentamu, Archbishop of York)</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Nothing divides the Anglican Church like homosexuality. This is hardly news, but the genius of Anglicanism has always been that it is most opposed to intolerance, rather than letting rip with hellfire, brimstone and heaven only knows what else. So when Archbishops - as John Sentamu of York has - <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jan/28/archbishop-york-legalise-gay-marriage">start lecturing politicians on gay marriage</a>, I get worried in a hurry.<br />
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br />
I wade into this quagmire with reticence; the challenge is that the Anglicans have been going at this issue <a href="http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/content.asp?id=123257">for years</a>, and that there is little or nothing like a debate - instead there's lots of shouting from the anti-homosexuality side, and only a little less from the pro-human rights side. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
I deplore Sentamu's comments. And I hope he is slapped down by Rowan Williams - and David Cameron - quickly. The challenge that Sentamu's reported position holds is that it makes it ok for homosexuals to be discriminated against: imagine what the outcry would have been if he had held that Christian marriage was only acceptable between whites. Sorry, universal human rights are universal - and that includes homosexual couples. Christian love is not limited in this way.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>Toby's Random Musingshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01756931810010547397noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6616317943157226695.post-2101054874658878372012-01-23T18:46:00.000+00:002012-01-23T19:29:10.002+00:00Complementarity<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Rc2Wlsl1Lhk/Tx2OWnUbvQI/AAAAAAAABTg/3rFcF6rLxFQ/s1600/Flag_of_Libya.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="160" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Rc2Wlsl1Lhk/Tx2OWnUbvQI/AAAAAAAABTg/3rFcF6rLxFQ/s320/Flag_of_Libya.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
This week is madness here at SRM HQ. However, ICC complementarity is a very live issue at the moment, especially as it pertains to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saif_al-Islam_Gaddafi">Saif al-Islam al-Gaddafi</a>.<br />
<br />
In the spirit of not reinventing the wheel, here's an <a href="http://www.intlawgrrls.com/2012/01/libya-complementarity-challenge-at-icc.html">excellent piece</a> on the current state of play from IntLawGrrls.Toby's Random Musingshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01756931810010547397noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6616317943157226695.post-13581285363523318112012-01-21T00:02:00.000+00:002012-01-21T00:02:17.016+00:00Those crazy Victorians<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-3j-l_-tW70o/Txn2FuJsF-I/AAAAAAAABTA/xmfS18IdOlA/s1600/300px-SMR_2_below_halfway_05-07-19_11.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-3j-l_-tW70o/Txn2FuJsF-I/AAAAAAAABTA/xmfS18IdOlA/s1600/300px-SMR_2_below_halfway_05-07-19_11.jpg" /></a> </div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
(Well, it can be a long walk. And it does rain. Quite a lot.)</div>
<br />
In Britain, the majority of railways were built in the three "railway manias" - most famously <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railway_mania">1844-46</a> but also again in the 1850s and 1870s - when something like the internet bubble happened for roughly the same reason; a disruptive technology that made the flow of information and services easier than ever before. Some of the routes promoted were outright fraudulent, others were directly competitive (there was no obvious reason to have two mainlines from London to Birmingham or three from London - Manchester), and until the 1923 grouping there were a plethora of lines - more than one hundred survived to join the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Western_Railway">Great Western</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London,_Midland_and_Scottish_Railway">London Midland & Scottish</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lner">London North Eastern</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Railway_%28Great_Britain%29">Southern Railways</a>.<br />
<br />
But this very national network - reaching into odd corners (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laxfield_railway_station">Laxfield</a>), hopelessly romantic names (<a href="http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/a/ashby_magna/index.shtml">Ashby Magna</a>), high peaks (<a href="http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/b/bakewell/index.shtml">Bakewell</a>) and the mountain fastnesses (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cwm_Prysor_railway_station">Cwm Prysor</a>) and some - like <a href="http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/s/steele_road/index.shtml">Steele Road</a> - that served nothing but the railway itself - would be cut back by Beeching and the failure of network economics. But some of the strangest bits of Victorian over-enthusiasm for railways survive. And the <a href="http://www.snowdonrailway.co.uk/">Snowdon Mountain Railway</a> is one of the oddest.<br />
<br />
So mass tourism came to North Wales in the 1880s and 1890s. And Snowdon (snow hill in Anglo-Saxon) or <em>Yr Wyddfa </em>(The Tumulus in Welsh) Wales' highest peak, stood proudly at 3,560ft over the lake at Llanberis, along with a number of paths to the top. But it's a steep walk, and besides, railways (in this case imported from Switzerland) could do almost anything - in the case, literally climb mountains. And thus was born the SMR.<br />
<br />
It is steep.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-tTEcsnz5aF8/Txn-bFpnbLI/AAAAAAAABTI/8ng6HfVcOgk/s1600/Snowdon_Mountain_Railway_steep_descent.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="328" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-tTEcsnz5aF8/Txn-bFpnbLI/AAAAAAAABTI/8ng6HfVcOgk/s400/Snowdon_Mountain_Railway_steep_descent.jpg" width="400" /> </a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
(The lake at the top of the picture is the bottom of the railway.)</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
And since the opening, little steam engines (and in more recent years, some diesels) have pushed one or two coaches up the mountain. And continue to do so....</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-hXqmB9pZpyw/Txn_coWgeoI/AAAAAAAABTQ/1SZOIhor7ms/s1600/snowdon-mountain-railway.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-hXqmB9pZpyw/Txn_coWgeoI/AAAAAAAABTQ/1SZOIhor7ms/s320/snowdon-mountain-railway.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Bravo!</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
But the walk is also lovely, and if you come up the other side of the mountain, you can see this:</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-sMC3u9fAKno/Txn_obZdPbI/AAAAAAAABTY/LWzU5JClwas/s1600/snowdon.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="212" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-sMC3u9fAKno/Txn_obZdPbI/AAAAAAAABTY/LWzU5JClwas/s320/snowdon.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
(And then you get to see steam trains at the top, and have a nice lunch in the new cafe on top too. Bonus!)</div>Toby's Random Musingshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01756931810010547397noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6616317943157226695.post-24915057584654380032012-01-18T00:23:00.001+00:002012-01-18T00:24:10.382+00:00Torture is Wrong<div style="text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/--NyrlvjORPQ/TxYNng7JgQI/AAAAAAAABS4/0EY4D7t1NSY/s1600/Abu-Qatada-007.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="192" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/--NyrlvjORPQ/TxYNng7JgQI/AAAAAAAABS4/0EY4D7t1NSY/s320/Abu-Qatada-007.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
(Enough to give God a bad name)</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
Briefly, Omar Othman, known as Abu Qatada, has a long track record for advocating the use of reasonably indiscriminate violence in support of political Islam. Terrorism, in other words. Today the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/17/abu-qatada-deportation-blocked-european">ruled that the UK couldn't extradite him to Jordan</a>. But this is not the "liberal courts are coddling terrorists" mantra beloved of the Daily Mail and the other bits of the right wing press.<br />
<br />
Rather, the Court seems to have ruled on the narrow issue that the Jordanian prosecution of Mr. Othman was likely to be based on evidence extracted under torture, therefore violating the right to a fair trial. Rightly so. But the ECtHR also accepted that the UK could rely on the diplomatic assurances provided by Jordan that it wouldn't torture Mr. Othman, and therefore in future the UK could do so again to States with questionable human rights record.<br />
<br />
We shall see. All very interesting, and I expect Mr. Othman to face trial at some point. But after waiting for nearly a decade, it could be a while.Toby's Random Musingshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01756931810010547397noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6616317943157226695.post-55541010259149271182012-01-11T18:19:00.001+00:002012-01-11T18:20:35.799+00:00Labour Does Defence Cuts(ish): Part One<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-P82_B5rSc90/Twaqgb7UA1I/AAAAAAAABRc/7laVSF8EJr8/s1600/Slide1.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="110" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-P82_B5rSc90/Twaqgb7UA1I/AAAAAAAABRc/7laVSF8EJr8/s400/Slide1.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
(MoD Men: Robertson (891), Hoon (2034), Reid (364), Browne (882), Hutton (245), Ainsworth(340)*)</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Under
normal circumstances, political U-turns are mocked by political
opponents and denied by the U-turnee. Occasionally, U-turns are
emblematic of a new leaf - classically, <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/1994/oct/05/labour.uk">Labour's repudiation of Clause IV</a> under Blair in 1994 - and last week we saw something unusual; a <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/wintour-and-watt/2012/jan/05/jimmurphy-defence">Labour shadow Minister in favour of spending cuts</a>, and in particular, defence cuts. Step forward, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Murphy">Jim Murphy MP</a>.<br />
<br />
I'll
deal with the specifics of the proposed Labour cuts in a future post -
suffice to say, they are a long way from both a mea culpa for the damage
of the unfunded promises of the Labour 1997-2010 years, but they are a
start for Labour to make a credible economic policy.<br />
<br />
But
in reviewing Labour's record, I thought it would be fun to look at how
long Labour's Secretaries of State for Defence were actually in office,
and compare that with their Tory predecessors under Margaret Thatcher
and John Major - ie, back to 1979. The point is that there is such a
steep learning curve as a Secretary of State - especially for those with little or no background
in defence - that the first six months or so Ministers will be learning
as much as doing, with being really effective from about six months in.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-jnh_usHEXrU/Tw3NTJxDElI/AAAAAAAABSU/8ejKtLob5U8/s1600/Slide1.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="255" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-jnh_usHEXrU/Tw3NTJxDElI/AAAAAAAABSU/8ejKtLob5U8/s400/Slide1.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
So how did they do?<br />
<br />
Two
things are striking: first, Geoff Hoon's five-and-a-half years in
office was remarkably - and abnormally - long. It wasn't a complete
triumph, as Hoon presided over the mini Defence Review known as the "New
Chapter" to the 1998 SDSR post the terrorist attacks of 9/11 - and then
allowed the UK's forces to become completely over-stretched in Iraq and
Afghanistan, whilst presiding over the disastrous procurement
performance that would come to dominate the MoD's budget (and with it,
everything else.)<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-hbiqHm1HpCc/Tw3QACifj9I/AAAAAAAABSk/L8S0076efOg/s1600/Slide2.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="287" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-hbiqHm1HpCc/Tw3QACifj9I/AAAAAAAABSk/L8S0076efOg/s400/Slide2.jpg" width="400" /></a> </div>
Second,
once you take Hoon out of the equation, Labour Defence Secretaries
served for an average of 65 weeks - suggesting that they may have had
about six months cognizant of the issues to drive the change required.
(John Reid is probably the honourable exception as he had a good defence
background in opposition, but he was still in post for only a year,
meaning that he wasn't about long enough to deliver change.) Worse, as
the budgets reached breaking point under Gordon Brown's premiership, he
was keeping his Defence Secretaries in place for about half the
historical average - as well in Bob Ainsworth having picked a singularly
unimpressive Secretary of State. More damningly, as Ainsworth was the only one who was promoted from inside MoD, he should have had the best handle on the Departmental challenges, but he was probably the poorest of the lot.<br />
<br />
So what does this mean? Possibly not much, but it does point to
the comparative lack of importance and oversight that the two Labour
governments gave to ministerial stability after George Robertson got
sent off to run NATO. And that lack of consistent leadership from the
top bears much of the responsibility for the mess that MoD was in by the
2010 Election.<br />
<br />
*Number of days in office. </div>Toby's Random Musingshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01756931810010547397noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6616317943157226695.post-91468406688352154582012-01-07T00:14:00.000+00:002012-01-08T00:12:58.072+00:00South African Mancunian retired to Gwynedd<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-23-0eEysCoM/Twd32wJ_YpI/AAAAAAAABRk/Us0ZukUyXwI/s1600/143_BWH1-1-12Porthmadog.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="300" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-23-0eEysCoM/Twd32wJ_YpI/AAAAAAAABRk/Us0ZukUyXwI/s400/143_BWH1-1-12Porthmadog.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
(Rain in Wales? Maybe occasionally.)</div>
<br />
Here at SRM HQ there is a soft spot for steam trains, hence the "<a href="http://slightly-random-musings.blogspot.com/search/label/occasional%20steam%20train">Occasional Steam Train</a>" series.<br />
<br />
Today - in honour of Mr. Joe Fuller's birthday, we look at some of the most powerful 2ft gauge steam engines ever built - the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAR_NGG_16_Class">South African NGG16</a> Garratts. A <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garratt">Garratt</a> is a type of steam engine in which a larger-than-otherwise-possible boiler is carried on a paid of articulated power units, to make a smooth-riding and extremely powerful locomotive for its size. Though there were some standard gauge examples in the UK, including <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LMS_Garratt">33 on the LMS</a> and the LNER's unique <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LNER_Class_U1">U1</a>, Britain's most powerful steam locomotive, Garratts were synonymous with 3' 6" (Cape Gauge) systems in southern Africa, (though they also appeared in Australia, too), where despite being "narrow guage" were often larger than contemporary British practice on standard gauge.<br />
<br />
But what concerns us here is 2' gauge super-power. Weighing in at around 60 tons and delivering over 21,000lb tractive effort, the NGG16s, behemoths of the narrow gauge, are more than twice the 24t weight of the iconic <a href="http://www.festrail.co.uk/main.shtml">Ffestiniog Railway</a><a href="http://www.festipedia.org.uk/wiki/Double_Fairlie"> Double Fairlies</a> like Livingston Thompson which produced less than 9,000lb tractive effort.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-JXp3fJpkKxk/Twd67DVK9aI/AAAAAAAABRs/JrOj8Q8vTUc/s1600/LT.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-JXp3fJpkKxk/Twd67DVK9aI/AAAAAAAABRs/JrOj8Q8vTUc/s320/LT.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
(Not a Garratt - a Double Fairlie)</div>
<br />
And after retirement from South Africa, some of these Manchester built
Beyer-Peacock Garratts (known worldwide as Beyer-Garratts) were
repatriated as the ideal power for the rebuilt Welsh Highland.<br />
<br />
Why are these Garratts so important? Well partly due to their size, they provide the capability to run profitable trains over the fabulous <a href="http://www.festrail.co.uk/main.shtml">Welsh Highland Railway</a>, something that the original line torn up in the 1940s never achieved. The WHR features<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowdon"></a> a 1-in-40 ascent from the lovely village of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beddgelert">Beddgelert</a> to the base of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowdon">Snowdon</a> and then across farmland to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caernarvon_castle">Caernarfon Castle</a>. It also runs through the breathtaking <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberglaslyn_Pass">Aberglaslyn Pass</a>, below:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/gGrZvjN3RNw?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />
Interestingly, one of those on the WHR is number 143, the last Beyer-Garratt produced, so in sharing the line with the first, <a href="http://www.festipedia.org.uk/wiki/K1">K1</a>, Wales now has the Alpha and Omega of these characterful engines that did so much to open up narrow gauge lines across the British Commonwealth in the first half of the 20th century.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-1YKSN-m_jBc/TwjfWDKQFqI/AAAAAAAABSE/8dPVDO63f8g/s1600/WHR_Garratt_143.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="187" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-1YKSN-m_jBc/TwjfWDKQFqI/AAAAAAAABSE/8dPVDO63f8g/s320/WHR_Garratt_143.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
(Last Beyer-Garratt ever... No 143 at Rydd Ddu)</div>
<br />
So let's celebrate these returnees, and hope that they will continue to trundle visitors through the Snowdonia National Park for generations to come. Bravo!<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-mzu6aaT84aQ/TweNwfPlhII/AAAAAAAABR8/egVTvtjaD1E/s1600/SAR_NGG_16_Class_Garratt_at_Rhyd_Ddu.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="215" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-mzu6aaT84aQ/TweNwfPlhII/AAAAAAAABR8/egVTvtjaD1E/s320/SAR_NGG_16_Class_Garratt_at_Rhyd_Ddu.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
(Number 87, one of the Belgian-built engines at Rydd Ddu - pronounced Writh-Dee, more or less.) </div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
Happy Birthday Joe! <br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>Toby's Random Musingshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01756931810010547397noreply@blogger.com0Beddgelert, Gwynedd LL55, UK53.012792 -4.10148153.003239 -4.1212219999999995 53.022344999999994 -4.08174tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6616317943157226695.post-77016573825128859362012-01-06T00:36:00.000+00:002012-01-06T07:32:59.743+00:00Pointless Posturing Update<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-HbJfsc0ZFeA/TwY_mTZ7TtI/AAAAAAAABRM/J875IxCO0Dk/s1600/cvn74_johncstennis_stern.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="307" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-HbJfsc0ZFeA/TwY_mTZ7TtI/AAAAAAAABRM/J875IxCO0Dk/s400/cvn74_johncstennis_stern.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
(Roosevelt said something about <a href="http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/speak-softly-and-carry-a-big-stick.html">walking softly and carrying a big stick</a>. Indeed. Old, but <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0092099/">gotta love F-14s</a>) </div>
<br />
The pointless posturing of our title is by the <a href="http://slightly-random-musings.blogspot.com/2011/12/umm-not-1st-of-april-yet.html">Iranian regime</a>. So it seems the Iranians backed down, and then having backed down, told the <a href="http://www.navy.mil/">US Navy</a> that it couldn't operate it's aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf (or, if you want to annoy the Iranians, the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Gulf_naming_dispute">Arabian Gulf</a> - isn't language funny.) <br />
<br />
The US Navy gave Iran <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-03/iran-warns-u-s-on-sending-carrier-back-to-gulf.html">a stern ignoring</a>. Quelle surprise.<br />
<br />
And
it will carry on until the Iranians need another external mini-crisis
for internal political pressures. At least President Obama doesn't have
to (<a href="http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/03/will-rick-santorums-vow-to-bomb-iran-help-or-hurt-him-in-iowa/">although the GOP do</a>, it seems). <br />
<br />
Good going USN.Toby's Random Musingshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01756931810010547397noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6616317943157226695.post-33728648297943031042012-01-04T06:41:00.001+00:002012-01-04T06:42:15.115+00:00As ever, read the instruction manual....When they built this:<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-7wF4clQpPdQ/TwOkPoePtmI/AAAAAAAABQo/r0Aut6clLgI/s1600/first_ssbn_hms_resolution_arrives_faslane_1967.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-7wF4clQpPdQ/TwOkPoePtmI/AAAAAAAABQo/r0Aut6clLgI/s1600/first_ssbn_hms_resolution_arrives_faslane_1967.jpg" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
(HMS Resolution, the UK's first SSBN arriving at Faslane in 1967 for the first time)</div>
<br />
The good people involved wrote a book "The Nassau Connection" explaining how they did it - or at least how they managed the project.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-4Wz_V-B5b5M/TwPz-xPZYTI/AAAAAAAABRA/8O6OipeBLjQ/s1600/51bHLDNKasL._SL500_.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-4Wz_V-B5b5M/TwPz-xPZYTI/AAAAAAAABRA/8O6OipeBLjQ/s400/51bHLDNKasL._SL500_.jpg" width="253" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
(A short book. Sadly out of print.) </div>
<br />
It's a short book, at just over 100 pages in a sparse civil service style, and is very interesting. So if you want to build something to replace this:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-vc2xVVRhDHQ/TwPxviT7eLI/AAAAAAAABQ0/zJXAnKya-Z8/s1600/HMS_Vanguard_April_1994.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="146" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-vc2xVVRhDHQ/TwPxviT7eLI/AAAAAAAABQ0/zJXAnKya-Z8/s400/HMS_Vanguard_April_1994.jpg" width="400" /> </a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
(HMS Vanguard, the first of Trident submarines arrives in 1994)</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
You'd do well to read this most interesting little book. Equally, if you think this is a silly idea (or even a very silly idea) then there's plenty of food for thought in this book, too. I'll post a fuller review shortly.</div>
<br />Toby's Random Musingshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01756931810010547397noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6616317943157226695.post-43614107191447846342012-01-02T17:33:00.000+00:002012-01-02T17:33:37.728+00:00It's Morning in Arabia<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/EU-IBF8nwSY?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
(The Gold Standard for political advertising, dammit. No wonder <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_presidential_election">Mondale/Ferraro</a> got stuffed.)</div>
<br />
(Without apologies to the Gipper.)<br />
<br />
Firstly, Happy 2012!<br />
<br />
It's hard to believe that less than 12 months ago, I posted a tongue-in-cheek piece about <a href="http://slightly-random-musings.blogspot.com/2011/01/im-in-charge-let-there-be-billboards.html">autocrats' egomania</a> after the thunderclap of Tunisia's <a href="http://slightly-random-musings.blogspot.com/2011/01/you-say-you-want-revolution-well-you.html">Jasmine Revolution</a>. Yet less than a year on, <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/31/syria-opposition-plan-democratic-future?INTCMP=SRCH">brave people are protesting (and dying) in Syria</a>, <a href="http://slightly-random-musings.blogspot.com/2011/10/three-and-half-down.html">three dictators have gone</a>, with Tunisia, Libya Egypt and <a href="http://www.chathamhouse.org/events/view/179745">Yemen</a> all standing at the dawn of a new and vibrant cacophony of politics and social change, with only Bahrain's regime looking like it has successfully suppressed popular anger. But it is unlikely to end here, as the siren calls of fresh air continue to echo around the Arab world, with unpredictable, but likely positive long-term effects. And crucially, an acceptance in the West that we can't reverse this tide even if we wanted to, so it's much better to be on the right side of history rather than having history's wave crash over you. <br />
<br />
Just before Christmas, Chatham House published a really interesting paper on <a href="http://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/public/Research/Energy,%20Environment%20and%20Development/1211pr_lahn_stevens.pdf">Saudi Arabia's medium term economic and fiscal position </a>which is fascinating (and for Saudis facing a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Saudi_Arabia#Age_structure">demographic explosion</a>, terrifying). Accountability is going to be key in making the choices that such a fiscal transition will require, so pressure for change will only increase. Interesting times ahead!<br />
<br />
<br />Toby's Random Musingshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01756931810010547397noreply@blogger.com0