Navy 'Too Weak' For Big Role In Korea Blockade (UK)

The Telegraph (UK) ^ | 10-16-2006 | Thomas Harding - Damien McElroy - Richard Spencer

[blam]

Navy 'too weak' for big role in Korea blockade

By Thomas Harding, Damien McElroy in Washington and Richard Spencer in Beijing
(Filed: 16/10/2006)

Plans to impose a blockade of North Korea to prevent the regime acquiring nuclear weapons were thrown in disarray last night.

China said it would oppose attempts to inspect suspect vessels and Royal Navy commanders said Britain was unable to make a significant military commitment to the proposed United Nations naval task force.

The United States is leading attempts to put together a force that would prevent suspect cargoes from entering the Marxist dictatorship and stop North Korea exporting weapons of mass destruction technology to rogue regimes such as Iran and terrorist groups.

Attempts to assemble the force began in earnest yesterday after the UN Security Council unanimously passed a resolution late on Saturday imposing tough arms and financial sanctions against Pyongyang following its claim that it had test-fired a nuclear warhead last week.

The UN resolution prompted an angry response from North Korea, which said it would regard the imposition of sanctions as an act of war and described the resolution itself as "gangster-like".

China, which voted in favour of the resolution at the Security Council, immediately cast doubt over the effectiveness of the proposed naval force when government officials said they did not approve of the inspections regime and would not take part.

Amended rules of engagement have been drawn up for the US 7th fleet, which is based in North Asia, and Pentagon officials said yesterday that they could count on support from the vessels of 15 "core" members of the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI), which was set up in 2003 to prevent North Korea acquiring weapons of mass destruction technology, and includes Britain, Australia, Japan, and Singapore.

Condoleezza Rice, the US Secretary of State, will this week begin an intensive round of shuttle diplomacy, visiting China, South Korea, Japan and Russia in an attempt to shore up support for the UN resolution.

But senior Royal Navy officers last night cast serious doubt over Britain's ability to make a significant naval contribution to the proposed UN force, claiming that drastic cuts in government spending on the navy over the past decade had severely reduced their ability to participate in major foreign operations.

"I am staggered that the Government is trying to make this commitment when it knows what our Armed Forces are going through," a senior Royal Navy officer last night told The Daily Telegraph.

"But it knows that to keep our presence on the Security Council Britain needs to demonstrate what we can do."

Defence experts predicted that the most the Royal Navy could contribute was a single frigate, a Royal Fleet auxiliary support vessel and a Trafalgar class hunter killer submarine.

But senior navy officers expressed deep concern about their ability to defend their ships against a hostile missile or fighter threat after a decision was enforced six months ago to scrap the Sea Harrier fighter.

As a result of government cutbacks any British ships deployed to the South China Sea to enforce the UN resolution would depend on the American or French navies to provide "beyond visual range" air defence with their aircraft carriers.

The Navy has been cut by almost a third since Labour came into power, and the admission by Royal Navy commanders that they were struggling to find suitable ships to deploy to the UN force will raise further questions about the Labour government's handling of the armed forces' budget. Britain's military commitments to Iraq and North Korea have exposed glaring deficiencies in resources and equipment.

The approval of the Security Council resolution bolsters the right of US naval commanders to stop and search suspect vessels. North Korean trade will now be liable to constant scrutiny.

The nerve-centre of the non-proliferation web around the Korean peninsula is the USS Kitty Hawk, a nuclear powered aircraft carrier that commands a fleet of 60 ships and 350 aircraft.

China has repeatedly promised to tighten restrictions on North Korean shipments but any crackdown has so far been limited. A Chinese vessel carrying North Korean radar was intercepted in the Mediterranean last month.

Security experts also fear that increased US air and sea activity around China will raise the risk of a clash with the 600-ship strong People's Liberation Army Navy.

[unspun]

Britannia's water broke?

[Thud]

Who said anything about calling it a blockade?

[denydenydeny]

Rule Britannia,
Britannia Rules Some of the Waves....

[Dog Gone]

I think when you lay mines outside a nation's harbors, that's a blockade. Am I missing something?

[Wolverine]

Thanks. I'm a VICTIM of a fast read. LOL

[COEXERJ145]

North Korea has a massive army. That is where almost all of their food, fuel, and money goes to.

[an amused spectator]

I've become very leery of news stories that are almost completely crafted around an anonymous source.

You and me both, brother.

Thanks for the heads-up. So they're trying to take the Royal Navy out of the equation with a few strategically placed "news" stories [aka the fevered fictions of the fearlessy facetious fourth-estaters]?

[Thud]

Same as a police action not being a war. Diplomacy is the art of lying for your country.

[Thud]

If saying something makes it true, I say:
You will give me all your money.

And the Chinese army reinforcements sent to Manchuria are only bank guards because they keep starving North Korean soldiers from crossing the Yalu, with weapons they've taken off base, to rob Manchurian banks so they can buy food.

What you call an army is three foodless days away from mutiny.

[dk/coro]

Regrettably, the United States Navy has let its mining capability falter to the point of virtual extinction.

Strategically, this is NOT a credible option -- even were the international diplomatic environment conducive to it.

Fini this drill.

[Jeff Head]

the USS Kitty Hawk, a nuclear powered aircraft carrier

Idiots at the telegraph can't even get the most basic facts straight. The Kitty Hawk in NOT nuclear powered.

My guess is, that despite the cuts, the Royal Navy will find a way to take an active and effective part. They tried to count them out in the Faklands and they proved that wrong...they will prove this wrong as well.

[Thud]

What do you mean, WE, white man?

Look at my No. 17. We don't have the only navy in the world.

By the way, what happened on December 7, 1941? Might that country have a navy?

[Dog Gone]

True, but we're several developments, I think, from mining the harbors.

We have international support at present, grudging perhaps, to inspect all cargo ships for contraband. Sinking vessels simply for entering or leaving NK ports isn't in that mandate.

[Strategerist]

We have air and submarine laid mines.

[Thud]

I agree that talking is all that is going on. It probably will be the only thing which happens. NK will go down in 12-18 months if we keep the economic pressure on. Faster would require either military action of some sort or closure of the Chinese border.

[oyez]

I would think the United Kingdom learned in 1941 that is was folly to go screwing around in Asian water without air-cover. With out the Harrier or other interceptor A/C ther Royal Navy is worthless on the sea frontier. The Falkland's War proved this. To this observer, Britain seems to be happy with a part time Navy.

[jiggyboy]

"Not a bit of it, I say! Ready for service!"

[Eaker]

North Korea has a massive army.

Please update us as to numbers and effectiveness.

Please be specific with cites as numbers pulled from one's arse are of no help.

Thanks,

[GonzoGOP]

"Navy taskforce will be forced to rely on France and America

So in other words, blam, we're on our own."

No if the French are involved we are much worse off than if we were alone. If the French are involved how much do you want to bet that any arms shipments to Iran will happen to exit through an area controlled by French warships. Probably right after a large deposit in Chirac's bank account from an unknown Middle East source.

If there is a Quarantine Line like there was in Cuba then its going to be the South Koreans for inshore work, whatever the USN can scrape together in the Pacific and Nihon Kaigun. That should be more than enough considering the pitiful state of the North Korean Navy. Even if China decides to risk all out nuclear war with the US and break the line by force, their navy would be swept from the seas by Japanese land based air and US Carrier aircraft. Given the quality and training of the Peoples Liberation Army Air Force, the close proximity of Japan's phenomenal airfields and swarms of F15 and J2 fighters we have the home field advantage despite being off the enemies coast.

While having the Royal Navy and Royal Australian Navy would be great, especially due to the fact that the RN is probably the best trained fleet in the world, we don't need them. So far as the French are concerned we not only don't need them, we don't want them closer to Korea than the Bay of Biscay.

[Thud]

Congratulations! You today's WINNER of the Unclear On The Concept award!

If an army's conscript enlisted can so frequently take their personal weapons off base to rob banks in ANOTHER COUNTRY that the other country has to send 75,000 - 100,000 more troops to the border to stop them, i.e., the conscript enlisted do not fear disciplinary action, what does that say about the effectiveness of that army?