Serious answer... these are ships bought as part of the NATO posture... which is to say, to participate in operations dictated by the US strategic posture.

Throw in that part of the US establishment are always whinging about the Europeans not paying their own way over heavy weaponry in NATO. (Of course other parts run around sabotaging EU co-ordination around heavy weapons... go figure...)

Do they make sense outside of that posture?

Not really, as there seems little reason to invade anywhere. But... equally if you did suddenly need to invade a Falkland Island or an Iraq... it takes a long time to build a new attack carrier. So from a certain point of view I wouldn't say that an EU military force shouldn't have at least one amphibious assault task force. After all they can do other jobs in the meantime and they don't cost as much as a world-wide base network...

Should the EU eschew offensive weaponry (like amphibious assault groups) altogether? I think that's a hard case to make at this time.

1. What is the show?

2. Do we get it in the US?  PBS?  Anywhere?

Spain wants a do over for the 1588 Armada. They're planning it for 2023 to coincide with the 425 anniversary of the first attempt. By then Scotland will be an independent country and England is scrambling to play defense. This is why McCain refuses to meet with Zapatero.

Any day now I expect to read reports about English piracy and restoration of the Scottish throne.

Peacemaking as described in the Wikipedia? (not necessarily an authoritative source, of course)

Peacemaking is a form of conflict resolution which focuses on establishing equal power relationships that will be robust enough to forestall future conflict, and establishing some means of agreeing on ethical decisions within a community that has previously had conflict. When applied in criminal justice matters it is usually called transformative justice. When applied to matters that do not disrupt the community as a whole, it may be called mindful mediation.

The term peacemaking however is reserved for large, systemic, often factional conflicts in which no member of the community can avoid involvement, and in which no faction or segment can claim to be completely innocent of the problems. For instance, a post-genocide situation, or extreme oppression such as apartheid.

Its not clear to me why an amphibious assault vessel is required for that, or for humanitarian and rescue tasks, nor for peacekeeping tasks. The role that the vessel is designed to perform is close support for an amphibious landing under fire.

And the same with a heavy carrier ... the Force Review distinction between the existing light carriers and the heavy carrier is that the light carriers were not entirely satisfactory when engaged in offensive operations.


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

With Aircraft carriers? I don't see it.

In fact Latin America has finally become independent and organised itself without Spanish or USian interference during the Bush years.

A vivid image of what should exist acts as a surrogate for reality. Pursuit of the image then prevents pursuit of the reality -- John K. Galbraith

Santander (AFAIK) in Spain, and Belfast and the northest in the UK. (again AFAIK.)

And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg

The UK and Spain want international influence. No one important cares about your opinion if you can't project power.

Certainly "everybody important" is likely to discount the value of soft power. But that is, I would say, the Important People's problem, not ours. When Egypt starts making noises about joining the EU (and, not to put too fine a point upon it, thus giving the Union complete control of the access ways to the Mediterranean), maybe they'll realise the error of their ways...

Big ships are very vulnerable to small fast craft. And pirates are dealt with by destroying their base of operations, something for which you need - that's right - amphibious assault assets.

The problem is that destroying a fishing village pirate base here and there isn't a permanent solution any more than destroying individual pirates. Political stability and a functioning government in the country they're operating out of is the permanent solution. And somehow I don't see an amphibious assault task force running in and out of - say - Somali territory promoting stability in the area.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

As with JakeS point in the parent diary:

Escort carriers can still do a lot of mischief, and frankly I don't see a role for them in defending our own territorial waters. I can't see a reason that we shouldn't be able to protect our territorial waters with land-based aircraft and light ASW squadrons.

Its not that light carriers cannot do a lot of mischief, but that the difference between wanting light and heavy carriers is precisely being dissatisfied with how much mischief can be accomplished with light carriers.

Similarly, its not the landing platform docks ... especially if supported by light carriers or helicopter carriers ... cannot get into mischief, but it looked to me like the chief reason for wanting an amphibious assault vessel instead is in order to be prepared to cause mischief.

But I'd been thinking of escort duties more in blue water terms ... the Horn of Africa, the Straits of Malacca ... I hadn't thought about the appeal of being able to be a fast missile boat carrier, in place of the landing craft they are designed for.

Nobody's talked me down yet on why y'all need heavy carriers (or why we need so many, but I take the insanity of the Pentagon-driven US foreign policy as a given).


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

Since Spanish Soil in Africa is under threat of Invasions that can be seen off by a handful of commandos landed by an inflatable boat dropped off by a fast patrol boat?

Indeed, given the number of tiny African enclaves that Spain claims sovereignty over, the "all the eggs in one basket" approach makes even less sense. A swarm of missile boats with the ability to drop off commando teams would be a far more effective way of maintaining control of a half dozen enclaves on the edges of Morocco.


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.