In my last editorial column I wrote about the return to conventional warfare and away from defence through the threat of mutual annihilation attendant with the multi-lateral deployment of nuclear weapons. In fact, the UK nuclear deterrent is not widely known to consist only of the Trident program onboard Submarines. It is against this backdrop that the recent, uncollegiate, decision of the UK government without full consultation with its Parliament that the Trident program funds were assured for our lifetimes at least. Without such assurances, preparations would not have been possible to maintain our only form of nuclear arsenal and therefore put our presence as a full-time member of the UN Security Council under unwelcome scrutiny. The influence of the United Kingdom in the world, beginning with our presence on the UN Security Council is an extension of privileges loaned to us by the United States along with their Nuclear Warheads on UK Submarines. It is a similar situation with Israel without their occupying a full-time seat at the Council. Instead, Israel was awarded a temporary presence so as not to offend certain countries, although that status has been rendered permanent through subsequent motions.

The nuclear world is therefore set, my concerns return back continuously to conventional warfare. its misleading of governments recent talk about shock and awe tactics – this is a marketing slogan – its an older product with which we are actually all familiar. Donald Rumsfeld’s use of the term shock and awe is little more than a rebranding of Blitzkrieg, in the UK we have referred to this in recent years as ‘Rapid Reaction’ Indeed, the keys to the technological requirements lie within the use of this term: Rapid Deployment of air assault or land based campaigns which require air supremacy at least locally to provide cover. Rumsfeld’s greatest accolade was the use of smaller invasion forces. His military planners knew what Hitler did, the logistical difficulties of maintaining the spearhead of a Blitzkrieg attack is the most critical point. UK National Press, especially the BBC, have reported frequently that Gulf War 1 was halted short of Baghdad on account of a premonition of the cultural conflicts that would arise from a national liberation of Iraq. Actually we ran out of petrol in 1991. UK Challenger tanks like their American counterpart (M1 Abrams) are not Blitzkrieg machines. Ironically, the over-specification of armour and artillery on mobile vehicles over the last 70 years have cost us; an embattled first world-war, the fall of France in the second world war and the assault of Baghdad in Gulf War 1. One German General wrote in the 1930’s that the greatest achievement of the German Army was the decision of the UK Army to continue investment in the cavalry rather than develop a mechanised division at that time as the Germans did, ditto the jet engine.

The moral of this story; for Conventional warfare today; read Blitzkrieg and for Blitzkrieg: Read fast and light infantry, tank plus effective air cover. In Gulf War 1 we ran out of fuel outside Baghdad just like Hitler did outside Moscow. Napoleon caught the same cold earlier when the shiny bright tin buttons on his soldiers coats snapped clean off in the freezing Winters of his Eastern Campaign. We must learn the lessons of previous campaigns and innovate solutions to gain an advantage. Today that means; utilise hybrid engine technology to extend the range and efficiency of tanks, infantry transporters, and compromise on the size of artillery for the speed of vehicle. If we are going to return to Blitzkrieg even as aggressors, lets just call it that and learn the lessons of the tactic and allow the lessons to drive the technological development we will need. Incredibly in the 1930s we chose instead to maintain a huge Cavalry while the Germans forged ahead with tank development and fighter planes; by the start of the WWII they outnumbered us 10 to 1 in the fight for France at the same time Poland’s cavalry were merely swept aside by the Panzer divisions. If we choose again to maintain fighting equipment and not change then we may face more situations like Gulf War 1 – the cost of invading Iraq twice was 500bn dollars – just for the US Government.
Best Regards,