Shipbuilding

Posted on April 22, 2006 by Alex Harrowell

The European Union will soon have the world’s second-biggest amphibious warfare fleet. As well as the Royal Navy’s two LPDs (Landing Platform Dock – what the RN used to call an “assault ship”, basically a ship with a large dock in the stern, a shitload of radio gear, a heli deck, and space for several hundred soldiers and a gaggle of landing craft) Albion and Bulwark and one LHA (a helicopter carrier) Ocean, France has one LHA, and is building two more of the Mistral class, Spain has two LPDs and is building a large LHA, Portugal is building one LPD, Italy is building three LPDs, and Holland has a big (18,000 ton) LPD. That adds up to a fleet of 14 amphibious warfare ships of various kinds, not counting the UK’s four auxiliary dock transports that are a-building. By comparison, the biggest fleet is the US Navy’s, which has 10 LHAs and 12 LPDs organised in several amphibious warfare groups, usually of one LHA and two LPDs and a regiment of Marines.

Rob “Lawyers, Guns and Money” was discussing this in terms of the pre-1914 battleship race and the curious way countries with no need of battleships, indeed who could not maintain a meaningful fleet, were desperate to have just one ship. I replied that you had to look at the whole, and that he was right to think it might be about taking part in multinational operations. Just not necessarily the same ones…

In essence, these ships are the fruit of the late-90s efforts to lessen EU dependence on US assets in defence, and specifically the Nice Treaty’s goal of a EU Rapid Reaction Force similar to the NATO Allied Rapid Reaction Corps but without the Americans. One might think nothing had come of this except for a new HQ in the Brussels ‘burbs, what with the change of emphasis from the 60,000 man EURRF to small scale battle groups (essentially a way of fulfilling the letter of the plan without more money). But the ships are a-building…

New Year’s Resolution

Posted on January 7, 2006 by Alex Harrowell

Some people start the year by resolving to give something up. Sweden’s new year’s resolution, it seems, is to give up oil by 2020.

Breaking dependence on oil brings many opportunities for strengthened competitiveness, technological development and progress. The aim is to break dependence on fossil fuels by 2020. By then no home will need oil for heating. By then no motorist will be obliged to use petrol as the sole option available. By then there will always be better alternatives to oil.

They’re not the only ones. Jacques Chirac’s New Year message included the promise that SNCF and the Paris public transport system would not use a drop of oil in 20 years’ time.

Obviously the French view of this is primarily nuclear. The Swedes, though, seem keener on efficiency’n'renewables; apparently they have increased renewable power production by 4.5 terawatt-hours since 2002 with a target of 15TWh more by 2016. It might be worth pointing out something which got very little blog attention when it appeared last year – the UK wind industry’s capacity is now doubling every other year, which makes the UK government’s targets look anaemic. (10% of electricity generation).

After all, there are 986TWh of wind out there in the UK offshore economic zone. At a capacity factor of 30%, that ought to be enough to do the whole electricity supply (321TWh) – without getting started on the onshore sites.

Atlanticism Goes Only So Far

Posted on January 7, 2006 by Alex Harrowell

Der Standard is reporting that German Chancellor Angela Merkel has said that “an institution like Guantanamo cannot, and cannot be allowed to, exist for any length of time” and promised to take the matter up with George W. Bush. Those people who expected less criticism from Germany of the War On Terror are clearly about to be disappointed.

It’s a tough move from Merkel, who has been impressively successful in building authority in foreign affairs despite the frankly bizarre position of her government, hanging by a thread from Franz Müntefering’s ego.

An Al-Qaeda Blunder?

Posted on September 3, 2005 by Edward Hugh

We are so used to reading analysts reports of how intelligently Al-qaeda avails itself of the news media to advance its cause that perhaps we are becoming numb to some underlying realities. Maybe a big part of the supposed Al-qaeda success comes from shooting-yourself-in-the-foot blunders from people on our own side (obviously those responsible for the ‘disinformation’ in the Jean Charles de Menezes case immediately spring to mind here), and the Al-qaeda in-house material may in fact damage more than assist their cause (I somehow doubt that video-grabs of people getting beheaded, or having their throat slit as was the case with poor Daniel Pearl, are exactly vote winners for them). And this latest example may be a classic case. By releasing the video showing Mohammed Sidique Khan explaining his reasoning (or lack of it) they have in one foul swoop killed-off all the crazy conspiracy theories (like the ones that put it all down to Blair and British security), settled the issue (yes, they were suicide bombers) and forced the UK muslim community to come out of denial (where they were still in it) and face up to what is actually going on in their midst. Well good for them!

One Important Detail

Posted on August 25, 2005 by Edward Hugh

Back briefly to the July 7th London bombings. Many details still remain to be clarified, but bit-by-bit things are falling into place. The Chemist, for example, turns out to have been wrongly suspected. On the other hand, the suicide issue may well be finally receiving confirmation. The Guardian is running a story which suggests the bombers detonated the bombs themselves by pressing a device similar to a button, and did not use mobile phones as one senior New York police officer suggested. In fact there was quite a flurry of material at the time trying to tell us they were dupes more than fanatics. The Guardian say they have this on confirmation from several separate senior police and counter-terrorism sources, and they do repeat themselves on this, so while nothing here is guaranteed fact it seems they are aware of the disinformation charge and the role of the press in spreading this, and do seem to be trying to say ‘hey guys, this one is for real’. Anyway, judge for yourself.

The Jean Charles de Menezes Case

Posted on August 17, 2005 by Edward Hugh

Hi everyone. Yes, it is true: I am back from vacation, and I have been stalking the comments section for a few days now, but I am trying very hard *not* to post regularly since I still have some outstanding work I want to finish before I get too sucked in. On the other hand some things are very hard to just let pass.

The case of poor Jean Charles de Menezes for a start. At the time of his death I defended the police action on this blog (incidentally, a lot of the comments at the time may well still be relevant to this post). At least, lets be clear, I defended the right of the police to act as they did to defend public life when there are reasonable grounds to assume that there is a real and present danger. I still hold that view.

However the FT today is running a version of events which is slightly different from the one we were offered, and formed our judgements with, in the immediate aftermath. In particular the FT suggests:

1/ Jean Charles de Menezes was in fact killed by guns fired by two police officers, not one as originally stated.

2/ Documents and photographs presented to the investigation by the Independent Police Complaints Commission and leaked to ITV News suggested that Mr de Menezes was not carrying any bags, and was wearing only a denim jacket.

3/ ITV News also said the evidence to the IPCC said the CCTV cameras at Stockwell station were working and showed Mr de Menezes as behaving normally, and did not vault the barriers

4/ He was was in fact mistaken for Hamdi Issac, one of the men suspected of carrying out the failed attacks in London the previous day. If this was the case it is hard to see why more effort wasn’t made before he boarded the train to take him alive.

Of course all of this still has to be confirmed, but my initial response is: disturbing. It is extremely important for the effective conduct of the UK anti terrorism policy that we all have the highest possible confidence in the veracity and efficacy of the police services. It is important the inquiry be painstaking and rigourous. This is a clear case if ever there was one that justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done. I suggest that in the light of all the above the scope of the inquiry now needs to be extended to include an evaluation of how the police communicate sensitive and delicate information to the general public in difficult circumstances. What we don’t need is spin, or a drip feed.

Update: This situation, especially with the images now appearing is terribly moving and most distressing. AP have an up to date summary, and the Times have published – without comment – the full text of a statement from the de Menezes family lawyers, I think I can fully understand why.

More On Abu Hafs Al Masri

Posted on July 23, 2005 by Edward Hugh

The Italian Defense Minister Antonio Martino has just stated that he considers threats against Italy by the Islamic militant group Abu Hafs Al Masri Brigade to be credible.

OBL expert and former US government adviser Michael Scheur also takes them seriously (and confirms the el mundo story indirectly):

“On the tactical and strategic levels, the London attacks were quintessentially al-Qaeda operations. At the tactical level, the attacks were preceded by the usual al-Qaeda warning that an operation in Europe was near. On 29 May 2005, the AHMB’s “European General” posted a statement on the Internet that foreshadowed the events of 7 July. In part, the statement said:

“We direct a message to America and all its allies around the world that the desecration of the Holy Qur’an will not go by without a response. In fact, the retaliation will come soon in the near future, God willing.”

All this, of course, if confirmed would bring us back to the Madrid bombings, and the Van Gogh killing in the Netherlands.

Iraq, or Kashmir?

Posted on July 23, 2005 by Edward Hugh

I have already indicated that I consider attemps to deny all Iraq war connection to recent events in London pretty much stupid. I wonder how many people in the UK beyond Tony Blair and Jack Straw actually believe the contrary to be the case (assuming for the moment that even they themselves believe it, rather than believing it to be a political necessity to say it). (See this post, and this one). I’m happy to accept the Joint Terrorist Analysis Center June document view that:

?Events in Iraq are continuing to act as motivation and a focus of a range of terrorist related activity in the U.K.?

But clearly the main issue is that there is no ‘one cause’ to be found here. If we want to get to grips with this, we need an explanatory model that has a number of levels, and which bases itself on multiple causality. Within that model, the situation in Kashmir would undoubtedly figure.
Continue reading →

Live Blogging in London

Posted on July 22, 2005 by Edward Hugh

Robin Grant continues to do some great up to the minute live blogging over at perfect.co.uk. He has the just released CCTV photos of the 4 most recent suspects (and suggests that the man shot dead this morning may not have been one of them). Speaking of photos, I have posted on my own blog this from the Times this morning, which, if you’ll pardon my English, really takes the biscuit. And while you’re in the mood for reading, Nosemonkey and Tim Worstall are on it too.

Abu Hafs al Masri Brigade Claim Attack