It's too late anyway...

It presumes that we need a navy at all.

There will be those who use examples like this to say we need such a defence force when arguably there is little reason to expect one, two or more ships to get to the so called invasion in time.

I can see an argument for ships to be deployed around the world for specific conventional warfare or as mobile airstrips but not otherwise. After all the fastest response to a seaborne terrorist attack is likely to be airborne with perhaps enough firepower to do the job.

Successive governments have forgotten that, Channel Tunnel notwithstanding, we are still an island.

No matter how stable the world appears that could change in 24 hours.

We must, absolutely must, be able to enforce free passage on the high seas.

Ex-Air Force or not, I have no illusions about the importance of the Andrew to the nation's security and well being.

When there is a need to save money, hard choices often have to be made.

When were we last invaded? There you are then! Easy peasy.

I understand we are still likely to go ahead with a Polaris replacement at enormous cost. The lack of a credible conventional force as a first line of defence means it's deployment gets ever more likely as the only choice in a hostile situation.

Sorry Woolwell, I meant Trident where I said Polaris and followed recent comments from the new defence minister who is in favour of a replacement.

My point on the Trident replacement being that the more we run down conventional forces to afford this, the closer the nuclear option becomes.

The easy peasy comment was tongue in cheek.