How
do you keep the 'Blue
Peace' sustainably, to stave off world war three? Naval
Blue growth,
equates to 'Blue Peace,' the military
equivalent of sustainable navies in a circular
economy. Though, no navy in the world is actively pursuing
sustainable peace keeping. In the main, this is so as not to upset cozy
relationships and allowable procurement
fraud. Yes, believe it or not, the
defence industry appears to have negotiated a percentage for bungs and
bribes, as allowable expenses. Such that a conference exists on the subject! There
will always be dictators, more prevalent in socialist countries, where
ruthless contenders are literally handed the keys to the palace, if they are
prepared to crush all remnants of lawful opposition, including beatings and
murders. This situation occurred
in Nazi Germany when Adolf Hitler and his thugs seized the opportunity, and
in more recent times in: China, North Korea and Russia. COLD
WAR Socialist,
or communist based administrations are on a war footing almost all of the
time. Donald Trump is at least right about one thing, and that is Europe not
spending enough in percentage terms on defence. Not just mundane every day
incremental replenishment, but also on R&D. In forsaking continuous
development, democracies are effectively handing over the lead, hence, what
appears to be creating an opening for them, to try for the crown: global
domination. This is no longer a 'Capitalist War' as China was fond of
saying, since China and Russia now have as many billionaires as India and
the US. Meaning that the Red states have a foot in each camp, as China
realised the way to weaken their democratic enemies, was to infiltrate their
ranks, with cheap imports and loans. Each
nation should pass laws to outlaw the ownership of infrastructure of
national importance, by foreign powers. Winning
wars is a strategic logistics problem, like playing chess. You need to
position your players, to defuse the Queen and capture the King. It's a good
idea to look at the planet in those terms. How do you watch/defend your
borders, and/or keep a weather eye on air and sea activities 24/7 to be able
to detect and neutralize threats - or any build up of threats. It's just one
long, continuous, game of chess, where you cannot afford to blink. NON
AGGRESSIVE PEACEKEEPING Expansionism,
does not involve Africa, Australia, Europe, India, the Middle East, North or
South America. It is a peculiarity of former communist dictators: China,
North-Korea and Russia. An ongoing and long term agenda to usurp democratic
freedoms coveted by Red Flag waving states; Wolves in Sheep's clothing. Traditional naval defense relies heavily on expensive, high-maintenance platforms like aircraft carriers and submarines. These assets face increasing vulnerability from evolving threats like long-range missiles and drone swarms.
Potentially rendering them obsolete. NAVAL
MATTERS Do
we really need nuclear powered aircraft carriers and submarines? Many of
which have misfired recently. Do they represent good value for money? The
same question is raging about tanks and infantry. Do we need conventional heavily
armoured tanks? Studies say not. Leaving us with the pomp and ceremony
associated with the giant grey floating behemoths and white uniforms on
deck. Those same symbols of power could represent an irresistible target,
such as Japan's Yamato and Germany's Bismarck
super battleships in World
War Two. Very
large investments in time and money, appear to come crashing down in real
regional wars. To wit the number of Russian tanks biting the dust from drone
attacks in Ukraine. At
present, naval interpretations of 'Blue Growth' may be focused on maritime military dominance, presumably
aimed at increasing the number of destroyers, submarines
and aircraft
carriers, as the main players in any conflict - at time of writing.
If that is as it appears, the main players will be the superpowers: US,
Russia and China, with India joining in the arms race to protect their assets. How
then might one approach
the subject of 'Blue Growth,' from a beleaguered Ministry of Defence (MOD)
sustaining the peace perspective, and still retain 'Blue Growth'
sustainability at the core, bearing in mind that nuclear weapons are in
any event deemed to be illegal
(and unsustainable) under United Nations declarations, and that
conventional diesel-oil
heavy bunker fuels are to be phased out to comply with the
International Maritime
Organization's (IMOs) new clean air rules?
RECONCILING BLUE GROWTH WITH MARITIME SECURITY: A SUSTAINABLE APPROACH
The concept of "Blue Growth" has traditionally focused on promoting
economic prosperity through sustainable practices in the maritime
domain. However, some interpretations emphasize military dominance,
particularly for superpowers like the US, Russia, China, and India.
Here we explore how the Ministry of Defence (MOD) can approach Blue
Growth from a perspective that sustains peace, prioritizes environmental
sustainability, and adheres to international regulations. Sustainable
security is not a contradiction, but rather a necessity. By embracing
a "Blue Growth" approach, Ministries of Defence can maintain a strong
and capable navy while contributing to a clean and healthy ocean.
Through international collaboration and innovation, the MOD can ensure a
secure and sustainable future for our oceans and our planet.
By adopting a "Blue Peace" approach, the MOD
can ensure a strong navy while contributing to a healthy and
sustainable ocean. This requires a shift in focus from sheer military
might to a holistic approach that considers environmental security
alongside traditional defense concerns. This approach fosters long-term
stability and promotes a secure future for all nations. The only way to defeat
such paradigm shift in maritime security, being to engage is a Cyber War.
Thus cyber warfare, and parrying hackers, even infecting their computers,
becomes of major importance. Where China has already managed to infiltrate
US systems.
SHIFTING THE FOCUS FROM DOMINANCE TO COOPERATION
The traditional focus on naval might in Blue Growth can be reframed
towards cooperative security. This approach emphasizes collective
efforts to address shared maritime threats like piracy, terrorism, and
illegal
fishing. Collaborative exercises, information sharing, and
capacity building for regional countries fosters trust and reduces the
need for unilateral force projection.
SUSTAINABLE TECHNOLOGIES FOR A SECURE FUTURE
Military fleets heavily rely on
fossil
fuels, contributing to pollution and
climate
change. The IMO's clean air regulations necessitate a shift towards sustainable marine fuels like biofuels,
hydrogen, and
electric
propulsion for both military and civilian vessels. Investing in
research and development of these technologies not only benefits the
environment, but also fosters innovation within the domestic blue
economy.
BLUE GROWTH OPPORTUNITIES IN MARITIME SECURITY
The MOD'S of each nations can champion Blue Growth initiatives that
enhance maritime security in a sustainable way. This could include:
- Oceanographic research: Collecting data on currents, weather
patterns, and marine resources for enhanced situational awareness and
disaster preparedness.
- Marine protected areas (MPAs): Collaborative efforts to establish
and enforce MPAs can protect critical marine ecosystems crucial for
healthy fisheries and coastal resilience.
- Sustainable aquaculture:
Supporting the development of sustainable aquaculture practices can
provide alternative food sources, reducing reliance on over-exploited
wild fish
stocks.
- Renewable energy from the sea: Integrating wave, tidal, and offshore
wind energy
into military bases fosters energy independence and reduces reliance on
fossil
fuels.
INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATION IS THE CORNERSTONE OF PEACE
Sustainable Blue Growth in the context of maritime security relies
heavily on international cooperation. Collaborative research and
development of clean technologies, shared enforcement of regulations,
and joint efforts to combat transnational crime all contribute to a more
stable and sustainable maritime environment.
By adopting a cooperative and environmentally conscious approach,
the MOD can reconcile Blue Growth with maritime security. Prioritizing
sustainable technologies, fostering innovation, and collaborating with
international partners can create a more secure and healthy maritime
domain for the future. This approach strengthens national security while
also contributing to a thriving and sustainable
blue
economy.
AUTONOMOUS
DRONES (ASVs) AS PERSISTENT SURVEILLANCE TO COUNTER AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOUR The
current geopolitical climate presents as a complex situation. Here we
consider how autonomous surface vessels (ASVs) designed for deterrence
by peaceful nations could potentially counter aggressive behavior:
1. Increased Monitoring and Presence:
ASVs can patrol vast areas autonomously, providing persistent
surveillance in international waters or contested zones. This can deter
aggressive actions by increasing the likelihood of detection and
exposure.
Large numbers of unmanned vessels could be deployed at a lower cost
compared to manned warships, creating a more robust deterrent presence.
2. De-escalation and Non-lethal Measures:
ASVs can be programmed to follow and harass aggressive vessels with
non-lethal tactics like high-powered spotlights, loudspeakers with
recorded warnings, or creating physical barriers to movement.
This allows for a measured response without resorting to immediate
use of force.
3. Information Gathering and Communication:
ASVs can gather real-time data on suspicious activities, including
vessel movements and potential weapon deployments. This information can
be relayed to manned forces for informed decision-making. ASVs can also act as communication relays, facilitating dialogue and de-escalation efforts between conflicting parties.
4. Cooperative Defense Networks:
A network of ASVs from peaceful nations, working as alliances, such as NATO,
could be established to monitor critical shipping lanes and
strategic chokepoints.
Collaborative efforts along these lines will strengthens deterrence
and discourages aggression against international trade routes.
Such as that being experiences at present in the
Red
Sea. LIMITATION
CONSIDERATIONS Relying solely on autonomous
systems for critical decisions is risky. Human oversight and
intervention capabilities should be built-in to prevent miscalculations. Likewise,
threats from military hackers needs to be addressed where ASVs are
potentially vulnerable to hacking and manipulation. Robust
cybersecurity measures are essential to ensure they don't become weapons
themselves. The
development and deployment of autonomous weapons systems are subject to
ongoing discussions and potential limitations under international law.
Though, the US has already deployed such a warship. Meaning that all
we are
looking at is COLREGs
compliance, such as "eyes on board." Overall,
ASVs offer a potential tool for peaceful nations to deter aggression
without escalating tensions. However, their effectiveness relies on
responsible development, clear communication of intent, and strong
international cooperation. Here
we
emphasize the importance of clear communication of purpose behind
deploying ASVs – purely for defensive and de-escalatory purposes. There
is also the potential role of ASVs in humanitarian missions like search
and rescue or disaster relief operations. SUSTAINABLE
NAVAL OPERATIONS FOR PEACEKEEPING Navies
of the world should strive to temper their game plan in compliance with 21st
Century sustainable peacekeeping, as a highly prized pinnacle, against the
background of IMO
clean air legislation, and United Nations' targets. Such attainment being
social, moral and spiritual guidance to other nations in terms of world
leadership. In itself a stabilizing attribute to be admired and emulated. The Cleaner Ocean
Foundation, is not concerned with the militaristic interpretation of 'blue-growth,'
but shares it's thoughts, only to encourage Admirals and Sea-Lords to think outside the box. COF's
focus is on sustainable waterborne transportation, ocean pollution, scientific exploration and conservation issues.
Keeping their fingers crossed, as to eventual world peace, with food security.
Where some nations are pursuing varying degrees of
aggressive economic and geographical expansion, including straying into another
nations
economic fishing zones.
CYBER 'PEARL HARBOUR':
MODERNIZING NAVAL OPERATIONS
In an era of rapidly evolving threats and constrained defense budgets,
not least of which is the shortage of conscripts as cannon-fodder, it is imperative to explore innovative solutions that enhance naval capabilities while optimizing costs. Enter the Autonomous Surface Vehicle (ASV), a game-changing force multiplier that promises to revolutionize maritime operations.
The following presents a compelling case for integrating ASVs into naval fleets, emphasizing their versatility, cost-effectiveness, and strategic advantages.
First proposed some 10 years ago, no NATO
member has budged, giving clear signals to their adversaries, to keep
building conventional weapons. The first sign of movement came from Ukraine,
experimenting with modified off the shelf drones to attack Russian tanks and
munitions dumps. THE ASV ADVANTAGE
Cost-Effectiveness: ASVs are significantly more affordable than their manned counterparts. Their construction, maintenance, and operational costs are a fraction of those associated with aircraft carriers and submarines.
By deploying ASVs, naval forces can allocate precious resources elsewhere, investing in critical areas like cybersecurity, training, and infrastructure.
Versatility: ASVs can perform a wide range of missions:
- Surveillance and Reconnaissance: ASVs equipped with advanced sensors provide persistent surveillance over vast oceanic expanses.
- Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW): ASVs can hunt down and neutralize enemy submarines, reducing reliance on expensive nuclear subs.
- Mine Countermeasures: ASVs detect and neutralize underwater mines, safeguarding shipping lanes and harbors.
- Logistics Support: ASVs transport supplies, reducing strain on manned vessels.
- Reduced Risk: ASVs operate autonomously, eliminating the need for crew onboard. No lives are at stake during dangerous missions. Their modular design allows for rapid adaptation to changing threats without risking human lives.
THE
'SEA-NET' CONCEPT
Networked ASVs: Imagine a virtual “Sea-Net” — a tightly woven web of ASVs patrolling
hotspot maritime zones. These interconnected platforms share intelligence, collaborate, and adapt dynamically.
Skilled human admirals and commanders would oversee the network, making strategic decisions based on real-time
data and digital intelligence gathering. (Not to be confused with the ocean
filtration dustcart control system, this is just a convenient handle)
Neutralizing Threats: ASVs swarm hostile targets, overwhelming them with sheer numbers and precision.
Conventional missile launches struggle against multiple adversaries that fire back. ASVs, acting as a unified force, disrupt enemy operations.
UNMANNED VERTICAL
TAKE OFF & LANDING
(VTOL) FIGHTER INTEGRATION
Enhancing ASV Capabilities: Each ASV might carry Vertical Takeoff and Landing
fighter aircraft - compact, agile drones capable of air-to-air combat and ground support. Imagine a squadron of VTOL fighters launching from ASVs, extending the reach of naval air
power to eliminate the need for an offshore aircraft
carrier. The concept of aerial dogfights, ala world war two, the glorious
days of WWII fighter aces, US Top Gun academy reduced in value, the moment
SAM and other missiles came into being.
The Drone Swarm Fleet: Ten ASVs working together form a drone swarm fleet. Each ASV carries two VTOL fighters. These swarms can saturate enemy defenses, strike high-value targets, and maintain air superiority.
The seas have always been a theater of power, where nations project influence, protect their interests, and maintain peace. However, traditional naval
assets - such as aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines - come with hefty price tags and operational limitations. The ASV, a fusion of cutting-edge technology and strategic vision, offers an alternative path toward maritime dominance.
We feel sure both Joe Biden and Donald Trump would approve. A homeport win
for either candidate in the forthcoming 2024 presidential elections. NO
SHORTAGE OF MANPOWER OR LOSS OF HUMAN LIVES In
amongst all the advantages listed above, no nation need send conscripted
soldiers, sailors or pilots to their deaths. Operational costs are also
reduced where there is no need to provide food and water,
waste disposal
facilities, clothing, bunks, salaries, funerals or pensions. World War II witnessed immense naval casualties due to battles,
torpedoes, and sinking
ships, broken down into Naval and Merchant Seamen:
Naval Personnel: Allies: Around 70,000 Allied naval personnel are estimated to have been killed in action [Source: Britannica - World War II (1939-1945)]
Merchant Seamen: Some 36,749 British merchant seamen were lost to enemy action. Considering just the provided figures, at least 106,749 personnel (70,000 Allied Naval + 36,749 British Merchant Seamen) perished at
sea in six years, at the rate of 17,791 men per year. A couple of thousand
more that Ukraine has lost fighting Russia per year (2022-2023). Obviously, this does not include Japanese, Russian or Italian
sailors in WW2. Sustainable
warfare without drones and robots, equals the birth rate of the nations
fighting, and the ability to produce ammunitions from factories, to keep
their soldiers supplied. Assuming that farming can keep them fed. Otherwise,
allow your troops to eat enemy soldiers. Allegedly, Japan
did that it WWII. With prisoners also feasting
on each other. That
is why there should be arms limitations, coupled to sanctions, for all those
naughty dictators following the Adolf Hitler handbook of war. But then, as
we all know - it did not end well for Der Fuehrer. Chinese
armaments policy is very far from UN friendly. Meaning only one thing!!!
Nobody build weapons of war and bunkers at that rate, unless they intend
using them. What
bunkers will Putin and Jinping end up in? WORLD
WAR THREE? Since Russia invaded Ukraine, commentators have openly worried that the escalating conflict may trigger
World War III. In mid-March, Ukrainian President
Volodymyr Zelensky told NBC News that a third world war
“may have already started.” Ukraine’s former prime minister, Oleksiy Honcharuck, went further, declaring that
“World War Three … has already begun.” Western journalists have followed suit, with Bret Stephens responding to Russia’s invasion by writing: “This is How World War III begins” and the British press wondering whether
“World War 3 [is] now a reality in Europe?” Great power conflicts defined the 20th century: Two world wars claimed tens of millions of lives, and the Cold War that followed shaped everything from geopolitics to sports. But at the start of the 21st century, the ever-present fear of World War III seemed to be in our historic rearview mirror.
Russian land grabs in Ukraine and constant flights of bombers decorated with red stars probing Europe’s borders have put NATO at its highest levels of alert since the mid 1980s. In the
Pacific, the U.S. and a newly powerful and assertive China are engaged in a massive arms race. China built more warships, warplanes nuclear
bomb shelters than any other nation during the last several years, while the Pentagon
announced a strategy to “offset” it with a new generation of high-tech weapons. Indeed, it’s likely China’s alleged
hack of federal records at the Office of Personnel Management was not about cyber crime, but a classic case of what is known as “preparing the battlefield,” gaining access to government databases and personal records just in case.
The worry is that the brewing 21st century Cold War with China and its junior partner, Russia, could at some point turn hot.
“A U.S.-China war is inevitable” warned the Communist Party’s official People’s Daily newspaper after recent military face-offs over rights of passage and artificial islands built in disputed territory. This may be a bit of posturing both for U.S. policymakers and a highly nationalist domestic audience: A poll by the Perth U.S.-Asia center found that 74% of Chinese think their military would win in a war with the U.S. But it points to how the global context is changing.
World War Three could slow burn and erupt as a reordering of the global system in the late 2020s, the period at which China’s military build up is on pace to match the U.S.
Arguably, lighting of the fuse to WWIII was when Russia annexed Crimea,
which fizzed into realization with the invasion of Ukraine. Sparks from
those actions caused Norway and Sweden to join NATO, with Ukraine hot on
their heels. Notably, Putin waited for Covid19 to put a strain on European
economies, lending credibility to the notion a virus was weaponized in
Chinese laboratories to assist Russia. Another form of chemical warfare,
perhaps.
A great power conflict would be quite different from the small wars of today that the U.S. has grow accustomed to and, in turn, others think reveal a new American weakness. Unlike the Taliban or even Saddam’s Iraq, great powers can fight across all the domains; the last time the U.S. fought a peer in the air or at sea was in 1945. But a 21st century fight would also see battles for control of two new domains.
The lifeblood of military communications and control now runs through space, meaning we’d see humankind’s first battles for the heavens. Similarly, we’d learn “cyber warfare” is far more than stealing Social Security Numbers or e-mail from gossipy Hollywood executives, but the takedown of the modern military nervous system and Stuxnet-style digital weapons. Worrisome for the U.S. is that
in 2015, the Pentagon’s weapons tester found nearly every single major weapons program had “significant vulnerabilities” to cyber attack. [Stuxnet is a powerful computer worm designed to disable a key part of the Iranian nuclear program. Targeted at an air-gapped facility, it unexpectedly spread to outside computer systems, raising a number of questions about its purpose.
Stuxnet exploited multiple previously unknown Windows zero days. That description should probably make it clear that Stuxnet was a part of a high-level sabotage operation, waged by nation-states against their adversaries.
It’s now widely accepted that Stuxnet was created by the intelligence agencies of the United States and Israel. Stuxnet was first identified by the infosec community in 2010, but development on it probably began in 2005. The U.S. and Israeli governments intended Stuxnet as a tool to derail, or at least delay, the Iranian program to develop nuclear weapons. The
Bush and
Obama administrations believed that if Iran were on the verge of developing atomic weapons, Israel would launch airstrikes against Iranian nuclear facilities in a move that could have set off a regional war.]
A total mindshift is required for this new reality. In every fight since 1945, U.S. forces have been a generation ahead in technology, having uniquely capable weapons like nuclear-powered aircraft carriers. It has not always translated to decisive victories, but it has been an edge every other nation wants. Yet U.S. forces can’t count on that “overmatch” in the future. These platforms are not just vulnerable to new classes of weapons like long-range missiles, but China, for example, overtook the EU in R&D spending in 2014, with new projects ranging from the world’s fastest supercomputers to three different long-range drone-strike programs. And now off-the-shelf technologies can be bought to rival even the most advanced tools in the U.S. arsenal. The winner of a robotics test, for instance, was not a U.S. defense contractor but a group of South Korea student engineers.
The historic trading patterns between great powers before each of the last world wars and the risky actions and heated rhetoric out of Moscow and Beijing over the last year demonstrate it is no longer useful to avoid talking about the great power rivalries of the 21st century and the dangers of them getting out of control. We need to acknowledge the real trends in motion and the real risks that loom, so that we can take mutual steps to avoid the mistakes that could create such an epic fail of deterrence and diplomacy. That way we can keep the next world war where it belongs, in the realm of fiction. 
DAILY EXPRESS 11 MARCH 2024 - £286 BILLION NUCLEAR SUBMARINE DEAL THAT'S ONE OF BRITAIN'S BIGGEST ON
BRINK OF COLLAPSE
The nuclear submarine AUKUS security pact faces an uncertain future, casting shadows over British defence plans with Australia and the US.
The £286 billion nuclear submarine deal under one of Britain's biggest security pacts appears to be teetering on the brink of collapse, raising serious concerns about Australian, British and US defence plans.
The deal has faced scrutiny from defence experts, leading to warnings that it might not come to fruition.
Hugh White, an emeritus professor of strategic studies at the Australian National University and a former defence adviser, expressed scepticism about the effectiveness of the plan.
In an interview with ABC RN's Global Roaming, Professor White said: "I think the chance of the plan unfolding effectively is extremely low." He criticised the reliance on nuclear-powered submarines, citing their exorbitant cost and technical complexities.
The AUKUS security partnership, announced on September 15, 2021, between Australia, the UK, and the US, aimed to replace Australia's previous £70 billion deal with France for conventional-powered submarines.
Hugh White, an emeritus professor of strategic studies at the Australian National University and a former defence adviser, expressed scepticism about the effectiveness of the plan. The pillars of AUKUS included the acquisition of nuclear-powered submarines and the sharing of advanced technologies like quantum computing and
artificial
intelligence.
Professor White outlined two main concerns regarding AUKUS. Firstly, he questioned the necessity of nuclear-powered submarines, underscoring their higher costs and operational difficulties. Secondly, he expressed doubt about Australia receiving the
submarines, highlighting reliance on future decisions from the US and UK governments and formidable technical challenges.
Allan Behm, the director of the international and security affairs program at the Australia Institute, echoed doubts about the feasibility of the deal.
He raised concerns about Australia's lack of experience in maintaining nuclear-powered submarines and the potential strain on resources required for the complex endeavour.
The strategic importance of AUKUS in deterring China has also been stressed by Australian leaders, but Professor White warned of pitfalls. He suggested that AUKUS could entangle Australia in a conflict between the US and China, questioning the wisdom of committing to a war for submarines that may not be necessary.
Moreover, the estimated cost of the submarine program, reaching up to £286 billion over the next 30 years, has drawn significant criticism. Behm argued that concentrating such a substantial portion of the defence budget on this project could lead to constrained capabilities in other crucial areas.
|
