SEA POWER SIR, — At first sight there might appear to be
no very close connection between the White Paper on Defence and the recent Russian statement on guided missiles. Yet the very fact that there is so apparently little connection is the real danger. One of the chief criticisms of the White Paper at the time it was pub- lished was its vagueness; and it dismissed intercon- tinental missiles (except as a research project) in one short paragraph.
Unfortunately the White Paper on Defence laid down policy at least till 1960—or longer, if the present government remains in power. If the Russian announcement can be believed—and there is no evi- dence that it is not accurate, though the missile in question may take some years to bring into full production—it means that the life of the large manned bomber is far shorter than formerly sup- posed. This has already been appreciated by the defence correspondents in several national news- papers; but when the full realisation dawns it will not be a pleasant one. The emphasis on the manned bomber in the White Paper means either that our own intercontinental ballistic missile is a long way from fruition or that the Russian development of such a weapon has been hopelessly underestimated. In either case some quick rethinking on the whole subject of defence is urgently required. .
There appears to be no answer to the long-range guided missile—at least at the moment—except miti- gation of damage by dispersal of targets; and the manned bomber is a poor weapon of retaliation. The only effective answer, until we have such long-range missiles ourselves, seems to be the often derided sea power. True, a task force is vulnerable, but not nearly so vulnerable as a fixed target. Its carriers, by lessen- ing the distance required for its aircraft to cover in order to reach the target, would be able to operate less costly aircraft than the huge 'V' bombers. Furthermore the sea has no landmarks and with several such task forces in various parts of the world* it would be no easy task to find and destroy them all. Such task forces would provide an answer to the threat of the missile-carrying submarine, a threat the White Paper does not even mention.
No one has yet considered, so far as is known, how we would meet a flare-up in the Middle East involv- ing our oilfields. The impression is that the Sandys policy will perhaps allow us to meet similar situations to that in Oman but nothing more. Government policy at present seems decidedly like saying that there are only two crimes we can punish : murder and pickpocketing, for there will be no other crimes. But the obvious answer to the problem is mobility. Aircraft may provide this up to a point; but it is always possible our forces might be required to operate in areas with few and inadequate airfields. Furthermore aircraft require fuel, ammunition and stores in large quantities if the operation is on a reasonably large scale. Here again the answer may well be ship-borne aircraft. Not only can their bases be moved as required but also those bases and the ships with them can provide the transports for mov- ing ground troops should this be necessary.
A well-balanced fleet or squadron with its own support ships has certain tremendous advantages over the shore-based force in any form of war. Apart from their mobility they are far less subject to the restric- tions imposed by local politics. The hostility of the local population, the sudden abrogation of defence treaties, or enemy espionage and sabotage may quickly put a shore base out of action.
. However agonising it may be, a complete re- appraisal of our defence policy is required urgently. Defence cuts may be a delightful way out of financial difficulties but the time has long passed when tamper- ing with the nation's defence for political reasons can be tolerated. Cutting down the chronic wastage of public funds in the armed forces is one thing, hap- hazard backing without thought of the consequences or full realisation of the issues involved is something totally different.
Admiral A. Burke, US Chief of Naval Operations, summed up the use of sea power today in a speech earlier this year in London : 'Through proper use of the oceans the Free World can continue to confront the modern-day totalitarian with over- whelming force, overwhelming resources, better manpower and better scientific and industrial talent. The oceans . . . are the key to many of our future security problems, at a price we can afford to pay.' —Yours faithfully,
London
DESMOND WElTERN
Previous page
