04 September 2012
Nick Harvey has mislead the general public on a number of occasions on matters of defence due to his incompetence and lack of military knowledge.
When talking to the BBC on 3rd August 2010 about the defence of the Falklands he couldn't even get the year of the conflict correct and repeated 1981 four times. This was the last all British conflict where over 255 of our service personnel lost their lives and he couldn't even get that right.
The following are just two more examples of his incompetence.
"We haven't had planes take off from an aircraft carrier since 2003"
Harrier GR9's of the Royal Naval Strike Wing operated from HMS Illustrious and HMS Ark Royal as recently as 2009/10.
This was from a minister directly involved in the scrapping of the Ark Royal and Harrier.
He spoke of "basing rights" and "over flying rights" as an option to a Strike Carrier Force to retake the Falklands. From where one might ask?
The nearest airfield available would be Ascension Island (3900 miles) well beyond the effective operational range of either Typhoon or Tornado. (Cape Town is 3937 miles from the Falklands). The RAF would be incapable of providing a Combat Air Patrol (CAP) over the Falklands even with the entire air to air refuelling assets of the RAF at their disposal.
No South American country would give us "basing or over flying rights" in any future dispute with Argentina over the Falklands.
"The man who looks ten years out and says he knows what the strategic situation will look like is, frankly, the Court Jester"
General Sir Richard Dannatt
12 June 2008
If this is an example of "excellence in the job" then God help us all.
Farewell Nick Harvey, Farewell "The Court Jester"
Jack - Portsmoth.
05 September 2012
Won't make any difference the LD influence on defence was practically zero. The catastrophic SDSR is a Tory document, the culprits are Cameron, Osborne and Hammond and they are all staying in their current roles.
Graham - High Wycombe
05 September 2012
I am moved to comment, as a result of reading once again about the stubborn and stuck perceptions that dictate how we think of Trident and the future. I find myself with some insights about the "whole nature of nuclear power", insights which need far more consideration that I can give them on my own.
I'll kick off my comments by saying that while we have an excellent knowledge of the physics of the atom, we are dismally ignorant and dismissive of the meta-physics of this smaller world that is somehow inside of where and who we are. We have a single-minded knowledge of a subject that needs and deserves to be seen with both sides of our "dual-processor" brain.
In order to introduce this idea of the "meta-physics" of the atom, I would mention that I worked in Canada as a geologist and was employed for a while in a search for uranium. That work introduced me to the physics of the atom. I was intrigued by the confident statement of nuclear physics, how "Four interactive Forces" are sufficient to explain all the behaviour of the particles. This fundamental insight provides the basis for much of the development of our nuclear technologies.
Meanwhile, I was newly married and busy with my wife in looking after our young children. I was glad to be a father and husband, and while reflecting on our family and its' general well-being and our relationships with each other, the realisation dawned on me that those same four forces were equally present in our family life, and could be seen (or felt) to be responsible for all our social processes and behaviour.
The 'Four interactive Forces' are studied by physics from the 'outside', for their objective nature. We can equally well known and feel them from the 'inside', for their subjective effect, as we experience them working within ourselves.
Once we gain some confidence in the observation that the same kinds of energy are in the atom as are in our family lives, the whole subject of nuclear power becomes much more transparent and accessible: and perhaps yet more challenging as it becomes necessary to recognise our personal nature in universal phenomena. But this is the only way we can hope to make inroads into the formidable nuclear issues that now loom over the future. Staying aloof and superior keeps us powerless.
The meeting place for a knowledge of the physics and the metaphysics of the atom is within the concept "discovered" by quantum theorists, of this being an "holographic Universe". The 'holographic principle', on closer examination, is the same universal principle known to the civilisations of ancient Egypt by the simple phrase: "As above, so below".
I have developed a web site
I'm merely touching on the high spots of a perception of the universal nature of our nuclear work: which also illuminates the universal nature of us humans, us Humanity. None of this is visible if we only attend to the physics of the atom. Our faith in the purely scientific understanding is our Achilles Heel. The reluctance and shyness of the nuclear industry and the military and the political groups to look outside of the physical frame keeps us stuck in an old place, with little room to manoeuvre.
Nuclear Power is not going to go away. We can not stay where we are. Nor can we forego our nuclear knowledge. There is no going back. The only way out then, is to go in deeper. Get to know the universal nature of the atom. Get more comfortable with our own universal nature. If we can do this, then we are back once again on a promising and creative path.
Okay. Good wishes.
Ian Turnbull - Findhorn, Scotland