ON THE DEFENSIVE
The Commons' wrangle on the respective merits of British and American night fighters was futile because it was irrele- vant. We are not going to defend Britain against bombers from the West. The only comparison that matters is between our night fighters and the Russian bombers : and the information that is available suggests that interceptions, even in the best of conditions, would be negligible. In any case, the real danger lies less from bombers than from guided missiles, against which night fighters are useless. Can anybody seriously believe that now, a decade after the V2 began to work its carnage in London, the Russians have not evolved a V22, capable of far greater destruction from a far greater distance? Against such weapons there is at present no defence, except in the capacity —and the determination—of the West to strike back even harder. To boast about fighter performances in the 600-mph region, therefore, is to invite ridicule. Still more foolish was the press release on the subject of the invulnerability of the aircraft carrier Ark Royal to atomic radiation. It sounds im- pressive that the ship should be made gamma-ray-proof, and that it should be able to steer its way out of the radiation danger area by remote control. In view of the serious doubts whether aircraft carriers would ever be of use in a nuclear war the public would prefer to know more about the Ark Royal's potential in conventional warfare. In the years since' the war not one single type of aircraft has been found suitable for carrier Operations, and although great things are promised of the newest types coming into service, hope deferred has made the public sick of promises, and anxious for performance. Carriers, it should be hardly necessary to point out, are an expensive luxury if their aircraft are not good. But if a prize were to be awarded for the week's most absurd statement on defence it would have to go (as such prizes usually do) to the First Lord of the Admiralty. Mr. Thomas boasted about the revolutionary changes to be made in the Navy by guided- missile ships. Excited by this new light on naval development, reporters asked the Admiralty for details—only to be told that the Navy has no guided-missile ships; that none is being built; and that none is going to be built in the coming year. It came as a positive relief when the Army Estimates were presented sensibly and unostentatiously by Mr. Head: the War Office, at least, seems to have learned to cut its coat according to its cloth.
Previous page
