Latest / UK Column Radio / Military Matters: Episode 5 | Military Matters

Transcript

Military Matters: Episode 5 | Military Matters · UK Column Radio

0:24
Speaker 2: Charles.
0:25
Speaker 1: Hello, Hello Brian, Welcome to another Military Matters and you've
0:31
Speaker 1: just come straight out the studio for the news. Let's
0:34
Speaker 1: tell the audience as it is. So it's a tough
0:37
Speaker 1: day today.
0:38
Speaker 2: It is. But I think it's good for the it's
0:39
Speaker 2: good for the brain, the sort of mental agility. But
0:42
Speaker 2: also it's good because it reminds one that all of
0:47
Speaker 2: what we're dealing with and what we talk about in
0:48
Speaker 2: Military Matters is connected to everything else in some way.
0:52
Speaker 2: I mean, we were just talking about that, you know,
0:53
Speaker 2: particularly the the the flavor of the Wednesday news program
0:56
Speaker 2: has become quite iran centric of late necessary so but
1:01
Speaker 2: not not exclusively. And yet anything else you can in
1:06
Speaker 2: a way relate back to the sort of things that
1:07
Speaker 2: we've been talking about over the previous few episodes.
1:10
Speaker 1: I think, yeah, this is very true, isn't it. We
1:13
Speaker 1: can talk about military and defense policy and things, and
1:18
Speaker 1: that can be it's factual, but it's dry, it's on paper.
1:23
Speaker 1: And then in the background, particularly the news today we've
1:28
Speaker 1: got the terrible events in the Middle East. And you
1:30
Speaker 1: were saying because I wasn't able to watch today's news,
1:34
Speaker 1: but Vanessa is there. Can hear the sound of explosions
1:39
Speaker 1: in the background and people are dying on the ground.
1:42
Speaker 1: So that's how real it is.
1:43
Speaker 2: It is. It is real, and I feel very strongly
1:48
Speaker 2: that we that we make the point that the you know,
1:51
Speaker 2: I'm absolutely stopping short of saying we, but that the
1:53
Speaker 2: United Kingdom is complicit and that is a disgrace. And
1:58
Speaker 2: just for the record, I think we should you know
1:59
Speaker 2: today recording today on the eighth, Wednesday, the eighth of April,
2:04
Speaker 2: because I think, you know, it's worth making that point
2:08
Speaker 2: we did last time, because of course, the last time
2:10
Speaker 2: we spoke was only just after it was a couple
2:12
Speaker 2: of days after the most recent runs of hostilities conducted
2:17
Speaker 2: by the Americans in the Israelis had started in Iran.
2:21
Speaker 2: And I think in actual fact we are are surmising
2:27
Speaker 2: and predicting was relatively accurate in fact about what we
2:32
Speaker 2: saw might happen, and and in particular the you know,
2:37
Speaker 2: are we going to be drawn into the wider war
2:41
Speaker 2: and that kind of thing, And even if in a
2:46
Speaker 2: in a very basic military sense, even if there aren't
2:50
Speaker 2: a lot of vessels or airframes or indeed personnel committed
2:58
Speaker 2: that that, I think that that's a a picture that
3:00
Speaker 2: doesn't quite represent the situation. I think there's a much
3:03
Speaker 2: greater underlying commitment to what's going on than is being
3:09
Speaker 2: made clear, and I think we're, you know, we are trapped.
3:13
Speaker 2: Part of what I was just talking about in the
3:14
Speaker 2: news is the sort of the so called special relationship
3:19
Speaker 2: with the United States, which on the face of it
3:22
Speaker 2: looks like it it's taken a hammering or is in tatus,
3:26
Speaker 2: certainly when one listens to what the Trump administration is saying.
3:31
Speaker 2: But at the point that Mike just made now in
3:33
Speaker 2: extra was that he doesn't really see it like that.
3:36
Speaker 2: There is still a proximity with which I totally agree.
3:38
Speaker 2: And I think what I didn't necessarily articulate in the
3:41
Speaker 2: news program was that it seems like we are trapped.
3:44
Speaker 2: And of course part of that trap would be the
3:49
Speaker 2: degree of control that the Americans have over us, which
3:51
Speaker 2: we talked about sort of off air, because of the
3:55
Speaker 2: equipment and technology that they either hold or our behalf,
4:00
Speaker 2: or that they actually retained control of. So how does
4:04
Speaker 2: the British government divorce itself from the United States, even
4:09
Speaker 2: if one supposes that it wants to in a military context,
4:13
Speaker 2: I think it's very very difficult.
4:15
Speaker 1: I mentioned I'm sure last time so I mentioned the
4:18
Speaker 1: Cold War days. Interesting thing about the Cold War as
4:23
Speaker 1: time moves on you look back and a lot of
4:26
Speaker 1: hindsight was the fact that because the relationship was so
4:32
Speaker 1: good with the Americans, there was a lot of provision
4:36
Speaker 1: of intelligence and support and military cooperation that just went
4:43
Speaker 1: on the whole time, and everybody was so comfortable with it.
4:47
Speaker 1: You wouldn't you wouldn't have thought, certainly to challenge it
4:52
Speaker 1: or to question why it was happening. It was just established.
4:55
Speaker 1: And then we've seen as it well, I was going
5:01
Speaker 1: to bring this in today, as we've seen the United
5:05
Speaker 1: Kingdom's military capability and capacity decline to a point where
5:12
Speaker 1: to any credible military power, and whatever we say about
5:16
Speaker 1: the Americans in a military sense, they are very credible.
5:20
Speaker 1: It must have been apparent to the United States ten
5:25
Speaker 1: fifteen years ago that the UK was a big mouth
5:29
Speaker 1: on the international stage but simply had not got the
5:33
Speaker 1: military muscle to back that up, and that must have
5:38
Speaker 1: chipped away at confidence in the background. So whilst nothing
5:43
Speaker 1: too tense was happening, that was all containable. But really
5:48
Speaker 1: the events in the Middle East have now brought a
5:51
Speaker 1: really sharp spotlight on what the United Kingdom can and
5:55
Speaker 1: can't do in a military sense. And I think the
5:58
Speaker 1: Americans knew that actually they couldn't rely on the UK.
6:05
Speaker 1: So they might they might, they might have wanted the
6:08
Speaker 1: British declaration of support on a international media stage in
6:15
Speaker 1: order to demonstrate the friendship was still there, but beyond that,
6:20
Speaker 1: they didn't expect anything. They didn't want anything. Yeah, that's
6:25
Speaker 1: that's where I've got.
6:26
Speaker 2: To I think. I think I think that would be
6:28
Speaker 2: absolutely right. I think we could probably extend that too
6:32
Speaker 2: much of Europe and or NATO. And I think the
6:36
Speaker 2: way in which the the NATO the Alliance has been
6:42
Speaker 2: treated again by the Drum administration, I think is quite
6:45
Speaker 2: indicative of the way that not just the United Kingdom
6:48
Speaker 2: but but the other European nations are viewed. And it
6:52
Speaker 2: is It is an interesting one because on the one hand,
6:55
Speaker 2: America are able to play the well, you know, we're
7:00
Speaker 2: really looking to you for help card, but actually by
7:05
Speaker 2: knowing that there isn't really the capability there and therefore
7:08
Speaker 2: not the willingness or not the willingness or the capability,
7:11
Speaker 2: whichever way you quite look at it. In actual fact,
7:14
Speaker 2: and I think we see this absolutely. Now in Iran,
7:18
Speaker 2: it gives them a much freer reign to do what
7:21
Speaker 2: they want because nobody is there in the room with
7:24
Speaker 2: them to act as a moderating influence or to dictate
7:28
Speaker 2: in any way that terms might be different, so for
7:30
Speaker 2: them to I mean, okay, we may never know exactly
7:33
Speaker 2: how things got to the stage they did with regard
7:37
Speaker 2: to what happened in what started in Iran at the
7:41
Speaker 2: end of February, but what is for sure is that
7:44
Speaker 2: we were well outside of the decision making process, and
7:46
Speaker 2: I think every other European nation was as well. And
7:48
Speaker 2: the other element to that is one must consider that
7:54
Speaker 2: Donald Trump, for all his extraordinary actions and speeches, is
8:01
Speaker 2: a businessman. Okay, opinion is divided into how yeah, But
8:07
Speaker 2: that's beside the point. To a certain extent. This is
8:09
Speaker 2: a massive sales opportunity telling telling NATO members that they
8:13
Speaker 2: must hit X, Y, and Z targets with regard to
8:18
Speaker 2: spending and capability. And America's got all the kit, you know,
8:22
Speaker 2: come and buy our kit. So that I think shouldn't
8:25
Speaker 2: be shouldn't be ignored as well as the you know,
8:28
Speaker 2: he said this outright. The fact that he is absolutely
8:32
Speaker 2: attempting to manipulate the volatility in the oil market to
8:37
Speaker 2: the advantage of America A come and buy our oil. Okay,
8:41
Speaker 2: I can see why he would do that, but to
8:43
Speaker 2: to try to pursue such an end via these means
8:47
Speaker 2: is reprehensible. Yeah, and and again, you know, we returned
8:51
Speaker 2: to the point of, well, the problem is we are
8:53
Speaker 2: we are involved, and I think part of the reason
8:56
Speaker 2: that we've ended up being involved in the way that
8:58
Speaker 2: we are is exactly because of the limited capabilities that
9:02
Speaker 2: were perceived, as you say, at least fifteen years ago.
9:05
Speaker 2: So this has been a long plan in the making.
9:10
Speaker 2: I would think from the United States, I would say
9:13
Speaker 2: it's entirely questionable as to whether militarily there was ever
9:19
Speaker 2: any such thing as a as a special relationship, as
9:22
Speaker 2: a whether it was a regard certainly from the United
9:26
Speaker 2: States that was there was sort of parity in terms
9:29
Speaker 2: of command and control, planning, any of any of those elements.
9:36
Speaker 2: I don't know, speculation really, but certainly I going back
9:41
Speaker 2: at least a couple of decades, the only interactions I
9:44
Speaker 2: ever had with the Americans suggested that that there was
9:48
Speaker 2: nothing and this was this was very much endorsed by
9:54
Speaker 2: General Sir Richard Sheriff. The other day he spoke out
9:58
Speaker 2: about this, saying that it does what America wants to do.
10:01
Speaker 2: And I don't think it doesn't matter what you call it.
10:04
Speaker 2: But I don't think the United Kingdom has really ever
10:08
Speaker 2: being in a position to do anything other than decide
10:12
Speaker 2: to go along and make out that they're part of
10:14
Speaker 2: the part of the show.
10:16
Speaker 1: We could say no, and I know I'm anticipating reaction
10:20
Speaker 1: it because I suspect there'll be people in our audience
10:25
Speaker 1: who will say, but Brian, we don't want that. What
10:28
Speaker 1: I was going to say was that if we had
10:31
Speaker 1: credible forces on the ground in the Middle East, then
10:37
Speaker 1: perhaps things could have been different, because we could have
10:42
Speaker 1: provided the reassurance to countries in the region that we
10:47
Speaker 1: had got the military cloud to do something if necessary.
10:50
Speaker 1: But also we would have brought in one would hope,
10:54
Speaker 1: some more measured British diplomacy into the situation. People might
11:02
Speaker 1: think I'm naive saying this, so I'm using the right
11:06
Speaker 1: terms here for the situation in the first instance. So
11:11
Speaker 1: if we had proper kit on the ground and we
11:15
Speaker 1: demonstrated that we were credible as a major military power,
11:23
Speaker 1: then it would naturally be more difficult for the Americans
11:27
Speaker 1: because they wouldn't have muscled in with all their bases anyway.
11:31
Speaker 1: Are we saying we are better, more well behaved than
11:34
Speaker 1: the Americans. Well, sometimes I think we are, but just
11:39
Speaker 1: sort of looking at it in a black and white way,
11:43
Speaker 1: that's how it appears to me. We've talked this game
11:46
Speaker 1: about bases in the Middle East, and whether it's missile
11:51
Speaker 1: systems or aircraft or ships or mine hunters or certain
11:57
Speaker 1: amount of boots on the ground in the Middle We've
12:00
Speaker 1: talked about it, but actually there was nothing there that
12:03
Speaker 1: was really credible, and so the Americans walked all over us.
12:07
Speaker 2: I think that's very credible. I think that's exactly right.
12:10
Speaker 2: And this is the it's the extraordinary paradox because again
12:15
Speaker 2: we've said this. I think in every episode we've had,
12:17
Speaker 2: we don't sit here agitating for war and more guns
12:21
Speaker 2: and AMMO because no good really comes of it. However,
12:25
Speaker 2: we are where we are, and as much as we've
12:28
Speaker 2: lampooned the Trump administration, in particular Pete Hexith banging on
12:33
Speaker 2: about peace through strength and how that's been used to
12:41
Speaker 2: mean a particular thing that they want it to mean,
12:44
Speaker 2: which is basically to be stronger in your eyes than
12:50
Speaker 2: your adversaries and therefore giving yourself can't blanche to do
12:55
Speaker 2: whatever you like. In actual fact, I think there is
12:57
Speaker 2: a very strong case for what you're saying, which is
13:00
Speaker 2: that you are if you are in an alliance or
13:05
Speaker 2: a state of alliance with another country, let's say the
13:09
Speaker 2: United Kingdom, which is militarily strong and therefore does have
13:13
Speaker 2: I mean, okay, we're always hearing about British interests in
13:15
Speaker 2: the Gulf and this, that and the other. But the
13:16
Speaker 2: point is, if you do have strategic interests, and you
13:19
Speaker 2: do have significant capability, then you have absolutely got a
13:24
Speaker 2: stake in that game. And therefore, if any action is
13:28
Speaker 2: going to be taken that's going to jeopardize your capabilities,
13:32
Speaker 2: then it's entirely appropriate that you would say to If
13:36
Speaker 2: it's going to be the States who are about to
13:39
Speaker 2: check a grenade into the situation, you say, no, stop,
13:43
Speaker 2: don't do that. And you know, and again we're hearing
13:45
Speaker 2: we talked about this just now on extra because otherwise
13:48
Speaker 2: you end up in the situation which we are in now,
13:50
Speaker 2: which is people with at least one arm tied behind
13:53
Speaker 2: their back calling for restraint. You know, calling for Israel
13:56
Speaker 2: to be restrained rather than stopped. I mean, okay, probably
14:00
Speaker 2: neither thing is actually going to happen. But the trouble
14:03
Speaker 2: is that there isn't a a credible at the moment,
14:08
Speaker 2: there isn't a credible force. Let's say that can reckon
14:14
Speaker 2: with the United States and Israel. No one is actually
14:19
Speaker 2: going to stand up to them. And I think even
14:21
Speaker 2: with China and Russia sort of in the wings and
14:24
Speaker 2: occasionally spoke about and obviously the Chinese have at least
14:28
Speaker 2: on paper condemned the actions of the Israelis and the Americans.
14:33
Speaker 2: But is it going to go any further than that?
14:36
Speaker 2: Seems unlikely. So I absolutely agree. And again we've made
14:43
Speaker 2: this point before. The other looking at the other side
14:45
Speaker 2: of it in terms of the paradox is, well, if
14:48
Speaker 2: we are in a position where we are sort of
14:50
Speaker 2: in hoc and therefore we do need to do something,
14:54
Speaker 2: and look what's happened we have. You know, we were
14:57
Speaker 2: musing as to whether the Prince of Whale, the aircraft carrier,
15:01
Speaker 2: was going to be effectively re routed, having been due
15:04
Speaker 2: to go north up to the Arctic, whether it was
15:06
Speaker 2: going to go to the Mediterranean. It seems that that
15:10
Speaker 2: is the more likely outcome. That's what there's been some
15:13
Speaker 2: chatter about. But the point is that if you're if
15:15
Speaker 2: all you're doing is sending off a very poorly protected
15:19
Speaker 2: and under resourced, under prepared force, then that is a disaster.
15:24
Speaker 1: Well it's a disaster. And from the American point of view,
15:30
Speaker 1: it's baggage.
15:32
Speaker 2: Yes.
15:32
Speaker 1: And this is something I felt very strongly once you
15:36
Speaker 1: saw that the Americans were going to commit to possibly
15:40
Speaker 1: three carriers, and that automatically means with the full battle
15:45
Speaker 1: group that goes with them, in order to ensure that
15:49
Speaker 1: the carriers themselves are defended, because in many ways carriers
15:55
Speaker 1: are very vulnerable, valuable pieces of kit. But the moment
16:02
Speaker 1: the Americans have declared that they were going to put
16:05
Speaker 1: some substantial forces, in capable forces, and then we are
16:10
Speaker 1: offering a carrier without its integral support group, and now
16:17
Speaker 1: we've got down to one air defense ship, HMS Dragon.
16:23
Speaker 1: And what is that ship capable of? Well, actually we
16:28
Speaker 1: now know with the Tiger warfare going on, it's got
16:31
Speaker 1: trouble defending itself, let alone defending anything else. But the
16:36
Speaker 1: idea that we've sent HMS Dragon and Dragon provide some
16:41
Speaker 1: huge additional capability for the Americans is just laughable. Absolutely,
16:46
Speaker 1: and they are laughing. That's presumed. I would guess this
16:49
Speaker 1: is why. One of the reasons why Trump has been
16:52
Speaker 1: so flippant, never mind claims of dementia, is the fact
16:57
Speaker 1: that he knows what he has been offered or refused
17:01
Speaker 1: by the other countries. Means you know, they are simply
17:04
Speaker 1: not credible anymore. Yeah, so as he is a bully
17:08
Speaker 1: in my opinion, therefore he's turned on them as only
17:12
Speaker 1: a bully.
17:12
Speaker 2: Caan, Yes, And I think the other really serious consequence
17:16
Speaker 2: of this, which has absolutely not been taken on by
17:20
Speaker 2: the British public yet, and I hope it is, but
17:24
Speaker 2: I hope it is for the right reasons, not the
17:26
Speaker 2: wrong ones, is by logic, the threat that Iran should
17:34
Speaker 2: pose to the United Kingdom, because first of all, we
17:37
Speaker 2: have committed resources militarily to supporting I mean, it doesn't
17:43
Speaker 2: matter how we describe it. We are obviously supporting the
17:47
Speaker 2: United States and Israel we are we are protecting. They
17:50
Speaker 2: may know bones about it, collective self defense, protecting our
17:52
Speaker 2: allies in the region. Doesn't matter whether you say that
17:54
Speaker 2: that is Bahrain or whatever. If an Israeli aircraft is
17:59
Speaker 2: about to be at you can defend it as the
18:01
Speaker 2: United Kingdom, as a British Royal Air Force role naver,
18:04
Speaker 2: you will do it, and therefore we are we are
18:07
Speaker 2: absolutely involved. And therefore, as we've said, you know, those
18:13
Speaker 2: are targets, albeit poorly defended one, so there's a there's
18:16
Speaker 2: a vulnerability there. But also this this issue of the
18:20
Speaker 2: use of the in particular air bases in the United Kingdom,
18:26
Speaker 2: the fact that most in this what I mean I
18:29
Speaker 2: reported specifically on this on the news are a Fairford
18:32
Speaker 2: for the use of B one bombers, and B fifty
18:36
Speaker 2: two's Lake and Heath for F twenty two's and the
18:41
Speaker 2: A tens now you know, bombing things in the in
18:44
Speaker 2: the Strait up Homers. So we've we set that alongside
18:49
Speaker 2: what the Security Service has been banging on about for years,
18:53
Speaker 2: which is that there is an Iranian state threat. Now
18:56
Speaker 2: I'm not sitting here saying that UK column has suddenly
19:00
Speaker 2: changed to completely I believe everything that comes out of
19:02
Speaker 2: the Establishment's mouth. But the point is that if that
19:05
Speaker 2: narrative is supposed to make sense, and there really is
19:08
Speaker 2: an Iranian state threat in the United Kingdom, what on
19:11
Speaker 2: earth are they thinking by allowing bombing campaigns, whether they're
19:16
Speaker 2: described as defensive or not, to be taking place from
19:20
Speaker 2: from here, and where does that put the populations that
19:24
Speaker 2: surround these airfields in terms of in terms of risk,
19:29
Speaker 2: it's I mean, irresponsible at best, but it's it's much
19:34
Speaker 2: worse than that, because it's not only putting those people
19:37
Speaker 2: at risk, it is also, like like say at the beginning,
19:41
Speaker 2: it's complicity in what is I would say undoubtedly an
19:46
Speaker 2: unlawful engagement. So it's it's just it is wrong in
19:50
Speaker 2: every every which way. But of course we go back
19:53
Speaker 2: to this this sort of trap or cycle where really,
19:59
Speaker 2: you know, you consider it if you were kissed armor
20:02
Speaker 2: and you wanted to I mean, I'm giving him a
20:05
Speaker 2: lot of the benefit of the doubt here, but if
20:08
Speaker 2: you were and he wanted to say, right, you get
20:13
Speaker 2: your blokes out aircraft gone by this afternoon, then the
20:17
Speaker 2: consequences of that would be would be greater than the
20:21
Speaker 2: potential fallout of leading the status quo persist. So it's
20:26
Speaker 2: a it is a proper trap. And again, you know,
20:29
Speaker 2: I think the bit that we should really talk about
20:31
Speaker 2: is what you know, you're saying. Fifteen years Let's say
20:34
Speaker 2: the Americans have seen the decline of our armed forces?
20:38
Speaker 2: How how has that been allowed to happen? I know
20:42
Speaker 2: we've talked about this quite a lot before, but it is,
20:45
Speaker 2: it is pretty staggering. And then you see, I mean
20:48
Speaker 2: one example that springs to mind now is it was
20:52
Speaker 2: a small announcement which in fact I haven't reported on yet,
20:55
Speaker 2: but the land Rover is to be retired from service
21:00
Speaker 2: from military, you know, the fleet, and you know what
21:04
Speaker 2: a surprise, it's twenty twenty six. They're going to retire.
21:07
Speaker 2: I can't forget when. But there is nothing yet no
21:10
Speaker 2: to replace it. Who would do that? Well, you know,
21:14
Speaker 2: if you needed a car to get somewhere habitually and
21:19
Speaker 2: you wanted to get rid of it, is it really
21:23
Speaker 2: credible that you would get rid of it without any
21:25
Speaker 2: plan to replace it. I mean, you wouldn't do that
21:27
Speaker 2: in the individual level. So why would you do it?
21:29
Speaker 1: You might know what my response is. My response is
21:32
Speaker 1: because in my opinion, and I've held this for a
21:37
Speaker 1: very long time, when we look at the evidence as
21:39
Speaker 1: to what's happening around us, there is only one conclusion
21:43
Speaker 1: we can come to, and that is that policies that
21:48
Speaker 1: the government creates and then enacts those policies are malicious.
21:55
Speaker 1: They are designed to cause breakdown. So we've got we've
22:00
Speaker 1: got something happening within the country where we've got to
22:04
Speaker 1: the point where we say, well, this can't be incompetence. Normally,
22:08
Speaker 1: the thing that's discussed is cocker versus conspiracy, isn't it.
22:13
Speaker 1: That's the favorite expression. But when we look at these things,
22:19
Speaker 1: is it credible that as a nation state we've suddenly
22:25
Speaker 1: mysteriously become so incompetent that we can't we can't do anything.
22:31
Speaker 1: We can't run a proper health system, we can't run
22:34
Speaker 1: the military, we can't fix the potholes in the road.
22:38
Speaker 2: Right.
22:39
Speaker 1: This has all been coming on over the last twenty years.
22:42
Speaker 1: But you get to a point where you say, no,
22:44
Speaker 1: this isn't cock up. This is deliberate policy in order
22:48
Speaker 1: to destroy institutions in infrastructure in this country. And the
22:54
Speaker 1: military just take what they did with the carriers on it.
23:00
Speaker 1: So the moment they made the decision to get rid
23:03
Speaker 1: of the three previous carriers, there was then a gap
23:11
Speaker 1: before the order went in for the new car in
23:14
Speaker 1: your parlance, and we got Queen Elizabeth aircraft carriers built. Okay,
23:22
Speaker 1: they were built. Credit to those who built them, but
23:27
Speaker 1: the delay between getting rid of the old carriers and
23:30
Speaker 1: bringing the new carriers in meant that you had completely
23:33
Speaker 1: lost continuity in your trained manpower to operate those carriers
23:43
Speaker 1: and fly the aircraft. So even when the carriers went
23:47
Speaker 1: to sea and the government was boasting that here is
23:49
Speaker 1: Queen Elizabeth at sea, they weren't actually functioning aircraft carriers
23:54
Speaker 1: because the teams weren't trained, they weren't worked up, they
23:58
Speaker 1: had no operational experience. They were a shell of their
24:02
Speaker 1: former selves. And then if you take the Type forty
24:07
Speaker 1: five destroyers that they made such a big thing about,
24:10
Speaker 1: because on paper, the see viper system is one of
24:18
Speaker 1: the best, if the best counter missile systems in the world.
24:23
Speaker 1: But out of the six we ended up with two
24:28
Speaker 1: sort of operating and then we've ended up with one
24:31
Speaker 1: sort of operating, and that means that there's no capability
24:35
Speaker 1: in those crews. Therefore, those ships are operating at you
24:41
Speaker 1: have a guess sixty what they should be capable of doing.
24:46
Speaker 1: There's no disrespect to the to the cruise because it's
24:49
Speaker 1: not their fault that they've been through this process, but
24:53
Speaker 1: it's it's madness and this cannot be accidental because each
24:58
Speaker 1: year and another decision is made which is equally or
25:03
Speaker 1: more crazy than the year before. Yeah, and so it
25:06
Speaker 1: goes on.
25:07
Speaker 2: It does.
25:08
Speaker 1: So we are we're we're dealing, I think, with a
25:12
Speaker 1: mindset in government that's got an objective to destroy this
25:18
Speaker 1: country as a nation state.
25:19
Speaker 2: It is very hard to take a view opposite to
25:22
Speaker 2: that when when put like that. So in asking the
25:27
Speaker 2: question that I did know that that is exactly the
25:30
Speaker 2: response to to get back, and again just to sort
25:34
Speaker 2: of add to that, well, actually, first of all, to
25:36
Speaker 2: go back. You know, I've talked about if we are
25:39
Speaker 2: to believe what we're told about Iran and Iran's intent
25:43
Speaker 2: towards those that would harm her, then it would appear
25:48
Speaker 2: that there's a credible threat to the United Kingdom. And
25:51
Speaker 2: so my question is, why are people not considering that?
25:56
Speaker 2: Why are they not up in arms about it? Why
25:57
Speaker 2: are they're not up in arms about what's going on anyway,
26:00
Speaker 2: regardless of whether they perceive there to be a threat,
26:03
Speaker 2: because we are involved that that's part of it, and
26:06
Speaker 2: then the other part or not the other part. But
26:09
Speaker 2: in response to what you've just said, and for anyone
26:11
Speaker 2: mulling over whether that is possible, you know, whether this
26:13
Speaker 2: can be deliberate, and whether we could be doing better
26:21
Speaker 2: it is I think it is very easy to answer
26:25
Speaker 2: that because even in you know, absolutely living memory, I
26:29
Speaker 2: mean even in this studio, we can both think of
26:33
Speaker 2: times when things were done better, but also you go
26:36
Speaker 2: back a little bit before that. And the example I'm
26:39
Speaker 2: going to give is from Portsmouth, where I went a
26:43
Speaker 2: couple of weeks ago and not even back ten days ago,
26:47
Speaker 2: and the historic Docks, which is now a large area
26:54
Speaker 2: of several different museum exhibits, some of which are ships
26:59
Speaker 2: in dry docks and whatnot. There was one example I
27:03
Speaker 2: thought that really stood out, and especially because of where
27:06
Speaker 2: it is. It's it's a small a small vessel in
27:11
Speaker 2: dry dock painted in dazzle. Yeah, really interesting. But it's
27:19
Speaker 2: called M thirty three and it was it was a
27:22
Speaker 2: sort of coastal inspection vessel built in Belfast in nineteen fifteen,
27:30
Speaker 2: and it took seven weeks under seven weeks to build
27:34
Speaker 2: and was in service until I forget it was either
27:39
Speaker 2: nineteen eighty three or nineteen eighty four. Absolutely amazing. And
27:43
Speaker 2: what's so extraordinary is you stand there on the Civvy
27:48
Speaker 2: Museum side of the fence, and you see M thirty
27:51
Speaker 2: three in her in her dry dock there as an exhibit.
27:53
Speaker 2: Now I'm still, actually, to be honest, looking a very
27:55
Speaker 2: good nick And then beyond on the left you can
27:58
Speaker 2: see HMS Duncan sister ship to drag on and then
28:03
Speaker 2: and then and then there's there's the carry out as well.
28:06
Speaker 2: They're both sitting there basically doing nothing, and it just
28:11
Speaker 2: the contrast is staggering. Okay. M thirty three built in
28:15
Speaker 2: nineteen fifteen, not a terribly sophisticated, complicated vessel, but nonetheless
28:20
Speaker 2: the point is that it was absolutely not beyond the
28:24
Speaker 2: capabilities of the shipbuilders or the Navy or whatever to
28:29
Speaker 2: get something going, get it into service, and maintain it
28:33
Speaker 2: keep it in service.
28:34
Speaker 1: You know, I'm smiling because this morning, while you were working,
28:37
Speaker 1: I was doing a little bit of sight seeing and filming,
28:40
Speaker 1: and plementation we ended up down around the naval base
28:46
Speaker 1: the dock yards, you know, So we were talking about it,
28:49
Speaker 1: and I was explaining a little bit about the history
28:55
Speaker 1: about the base and the amount of work that went
28:59
Speaker 1: in to building all of the facilities. So there's three
29:03
Speaker 1: hundred and forty hectares at naval base. I mean that
29:08
Speaker 1: naval base is vast with one or two ships in
29:12
Speaker 1: it now. But when it was built in the very
29:17
Speaker 1: late eighteen hundreds throw into the early nineteen hundreds, you
29:22
Speaker 1: were dealing in steam traction engines and steam engines that
29:27
Speaker 1: were brought into bring material in.
29:29
Speaker 2: And haul it out.
29:31
Speaker 1: But the coffer dams to keep the River Tamar out
29:34
Speaker 1: of that facility, I mean, just fantastic engineering. And then
29:40
Speaker 1: once all those things were built, just down there, a
29:43
Speaker 1: few miles down the road from us, they were building warships,
29:48
Speaker 1: and all of the expertise to do that across every
29:52
Speaker 1: trade was here in this locality, and warspite was built
29:59
Speaker 1: down I think I'm correct in saying, and the and
30:03
Speaker 1: of frigates were built down here and launched into the
30:07
Speaker 1: River Tamar. And we had the capability here, but there
30:10
Speaker 1: was capability in Portsmouth, there was capability in Chatham, there
30:15
Speaker 1: was capability up in real scythe that we did it ourselves,
30:18
Speaker 1: and then mysteriously all of this expertise and capability disappears.
30:25
Speaker 1: It slowly, if operates, until we've got our own government saying, oh, well,
30:31
Speaker 1: the problem is you workers in this country can't do anything,
30:36
Speaker 1: and we need to bring in a new set of
30:38
Speaker 1: workers in order to be able to do the jobs
30:42
Speaker 1: that we can no longer do. Initially, you accept this,
30:46
Speaker 1: all of us accepted this. But when you sit in
30:48
Speaker 1: your chair with a cup of tea one day and
30:50
Speaker 1: you say, hang on a minute, I think we've been
30:53
Speaker 1: I think we've been had. Because look at Iran at
30:56
Speaker 1: the moment. Iran has been under sanctions for years. It's
31:01
Speaker 1: largely regarded as a capable I think some people would
31:09
Speaker 1: say capable, quite modern, but it's put under huge sanctions.
31:14
Speaker 1: And then the Iranians, to their huge credit, train their
31:19
Speaker 1: own engineer, scientists and engineers to produce hypersonic missiles which
31:27
Speaker 1: NATO cannot counter or produce the equivalent missile. And the Americans,
31:34
Speaker 1: although they've kept talking about their capability to do it,
31:36
Speaker 1: have also not got these. The Russians and the Chinese,
31:40
Speaker 1: and I believe the Korean and North Koreans have now
31:42
Speaker 1: got the equivalent. So Iran, as a suppressed country under sanctions,
31:51
Speaker 1: crippling sanctions for years, when it turns its attention in house,
31:56
Speaker 1: is able to build this absolutely state to the art equipment.
32:01
Speaker 1: But we can't all of a sudden, we can't we
32:05
Speaker 1: can't build things, and you know, Charles, to me it
32:10
Speaker 1: is so obvious. Well, the reason we can't build anything
32:13
Speaker 1: is because all of our national pride and infrastructure to
32:18
Speaker 1: do such a thing has been destroyed absolutely, piece by piece.
32:22
Speaker 2: Yes, yes, And of course, as we've talked about many times,
32:26
Speaker 2: for the continual handing of bits of kit that do
32:30
Speaker 2: work to other people, other people yet mostly the Ukrainians,
32:34
Speaker 2: or indeed forking out enormous sums of money to pay
32:37
Speaker 2: for new bitscuit for them, rather than I was going.
32:41
Speaker 1: To save it to the end of our chat, but
32:43
Speaker 1: I'm going to reach over for this is a little
32:45
Speaker 1: prop here for our chat today. So I'm going to
32:49
Speaker 1: bring this in front of the camera and obviously be
32:51
Speaker 1: in front of me. But this is a particularly fine aircraft.
32:56
Speaker 1: There is a small part of it missing at the front.
32:59
Speaker 1: And I know for any aviation enthusiasm out there, but
33:03
Speaker 1: what is this aircraft? Well, this aircraft is TSR two,
33:10
Speaker 1: which was developed from the nineteen fifties until it was
33:15
Speaker 1: flying in a test form into the early sixties. And
33:22
Speaker 1: this aircraft was incredible because the change in technology, if
33:28
Speaker 1: you think from the earlier, the very earliest jet aircraft
33:33
Speaker 1: at the end of the Second World War, very simple,
33:37
Speaker 1: based on the German designs. And then by the late
33:42
Speaker 1: fifties this aircraft had been produced, the TSR two. Now,
33:47
Speaker 1: initially they had some technical troubles with it, and it
33:52
Speaker 1: took them a bit of time to sort that out,
33:56
Speaker 1: but eventually the aircraft was flying. Just make sure it
34:01
Speaker 1: stays flying.
34:02
Speaker 2: There.
34:03
Speaker 1: The aircraft was flying and there was nothing else to
34:07
Speaker 1: beat it. So a MAC two tactical strike aircraft with
34:13
Speaker 1: flying characteristics, endurance characteristics, performance window beating everything else. And
34:21
Speaker 1: then in nineteen sixty five, the then Labor government, the
34:27
Speaker 1: man was Dennis Healy, canceled the project. Not only did
34:33
Speaker 1: they cancel the project, they ordered that all the jigs
34:36
Speaker 1: were destroyed, which meant that the project could never be recreated.
34:41
Speaker 1: And one of the reasons I know quite a bit
34:44
Speaker 1: about this particular aircraft is my father worked at British
34:47
Speaker 1: Aerospace on it, and I can still remember the day
34:51
Speaker 1: he came home utterly shattered because the workforce had been
34:54
Speaker 1: told that that aircraft had been canceled. Now why was
34:57
Speaker 1: that aircraft canceled? It was canceled because of some pretty
35:02
Speaker 1: malicious politics going on in the background, and in particular
35:06
Speaker 1: that the Americans wanted to sell us the F one
35:09
Speaker 1: to eleven and a dirty deal was done somewhere in
35:14
Speaker 1: political levels between the US and UK. And so all
35:19
Speaker 1: of this technology, okay, technology for war, but we give
35:23
Speaker 1: it credit for what it is. That was all just
35:27
Speaker 1: utterly destroyed. And this has happened time and time again
35:31
Speaker 1: with design and innovation by the British, our missile systems,
35:38
Speaker 1: Black Arrow missile systems, our space program all trashed by
35:43
Speaker 1: our own government. And what's the result. We end up
35:47
Speaker 1: in twenty twenty six and we can barely put a
35:49
Speaker 1: warship to see. So when you start to look back
35:55
Speaker 1: and put a little bit put some of these pieces together,
35:59
Speaker 1: to me, it's just obvious.
36:00
Speaker 2: That that there is.
36:02
Speaker 1: Another agenda working across the political parties, because it's not
36:06
Speaker 1: limited to conservatives or labor.
36:11
Speaker 2: I mean, yeah, it's a fascinating story, and I just
36:15
Speaker 2: I just.
36:15
Speaker 1: Add Charles for people who are interested, if they go
36:17
Speaker 1: onto YouTube and put TSR two in, there's some very
36:21
Speaker 1: good documentary clips, including some of the original trial footage
36:28
Speaker 1: of the aircraft flying, and you know, it's very interesting
36:33
Speaker 1: to watch, but our capability has been smashed, and that's
36:38
Speaker 1: that's not been accidental, it's been deliberate.
36:40
Speaker 2: And were they were flown only by the Air Force,
36:44
Speaker 2: by the Navy as well.
36:45
Speaker 1: No, they didn't get into service. They only had a
36:48
Speaker 1: they only had the final prototype flying. But they got
36:53
Speaker 1: it to the stage where they were they were very happy.
36:56
Speaker 1: The next stage is production and so at at one
36:59
Speaker 1: point they did have some issues with it, but they
37:01
Speaker 1: got through that. And then if you read all of
37:05
Speaker 1: the commentary from informed aviators who understand the period, they
37:10
Speaker 1: said the aircraft was incredible because there was nothing else
37:15
Speaker 1: like it, and then it's.
37:17
Speaker 2: Gone, yes, no, I mean, you know, I think, well,
37:21
Speaker 2: like we've said in previous discussions, it's it's an incredible story,
37:25
Speaker 2: but it's sort of it doesn't surprise neither of us really.
37:30
Speaker 2: I think we both think of numerous examples of similar
37:34
Speaker 2: things happening, or you know, going back to these sort
37:37
Speaker 2: of the replacement, the replacement of bits of kit which
37:41
Speaker 2: are perfectly serviceable.
37:44
Speaker 1: And then you know, when we have the destruction of
37:48
Speaker 1: the Royal Ordinance Factories or the closure of the Royal
37:51
Speaker 1: Ordinance Factories, and then we're simply saying, well, we're not
37:54
Speaker 1: going to be building armored vehicles in this country. Yeah,
38:00
Speaker 1: what were they thinking? Well, of course what we were
38:03
Speaker 1: told is don't worry because all this equipment is going
38:06
Speaker 1: to appear via joint partnership projects within the European Union.
38:12
Speaker 1: And then we get such wonders as the multi role
38:17
Speaker 1: combat aircraft and that the Tornado was not regarded as
38:24
Speaker 1: a fantastic aircraft because it came out of the background
38:27
Speaker 1: of compromise. And this is where we're embedded now. HMS
38:33
Speaker 1: Dragon is not even in service in the Middle East
38:37
Speaker 1: at the moment because it's got a water fresh water
38:43
Speaker 1: production problem. But I saw in the paper that the
38:46
Speaker 1: company that had built the whatever it is desalination system
38:51
Speaker 1: is an American company, So apparently there's no British company
38:55
Speaker 1: it was capable of producing.
38:57
Speaker 2: Fresh water on board. It's our own worship, I must say, yeah.
39:03
Speaker 2: I mean again, I am not surprised. I suspect that
39:08
Speaker 2: there might be people listening who might be surprised. But
39:11
Speaker 2: I think when you when you do spend any time
39:15
Speaker 2: looking into any of this researching where bits of kit
39:17
Speaker 2: do actually come from and how they put together, it
39:20
Speaker 2: becomes clear very quickly from a British perspective that very little.
39:25
Speaker 2: Even though there's there's talk about investment in British businesses
39:29
Speaker 2: and whatnot, Actually when you scratch beneath the surface, often
39:33
Speaker 2: you'll find that the supposed British business business is actually
39:37
Speaker 2: a subsidiary of a bigger, usually American company, So so
39:42
Speaker 2: very much the smoke and mirrors exercise, and actually what
39:45
Speaker 2: it does remindment of you've just mentioned is the massive
39:50
Speaker 2: distraction that the Artemis Space Moon mission has provided at
39:58
Speaker 2: at exactly a time where people, I think really could
40:01
Speaker 2: be concentrating on a whole host of other things, especially
40:05
Speaker 2: in light of what you've just been talking about about
40:07
Speaker 2: the systematic destruction of so much. But this is directly
40:14
Speaker 2: relevant again because of the way in which okay we're
40:16
Speaker 2: talking about a NASA project, but that spacecraft has had
40:23
Speaker 2: the involvement of they say, twenty seven hundred contractors. Absolutely amazing.
40:29
Speaker 2: But the other thing about it is that one shouldn't
40:31
Speaker 2: forget that every single one of the sort of main
40:34
Speaker 2: contractors who are providing constituent parts are of course all
40:40
Speaker 2: referred to as defense companies, but you know, are in
40:44
Speaker 2: the business of war, and so this, you know, this
40:48
Speaker 2: space element. We've alluded to it a little bit before,
40:52
Speaker 2: but it is an amazing illustration of how much things
40:59
Speaker 2: have changed. I think going back to what you're talking
41:02
Speaker 2: about with the you know, whether it's the production of
41:06
Speaker 2: warships or whatever it is, really but first of all,
41:10
Speaker 2: the dual use aspect of space assets as they're referred to.
41:16
Speaker 2: So we're sold the idea through through events like a
41:22
Speaker 2: Moon mission, that it's all for science and exploration, but
41:26
Speaker 2: in actual fact, the technology underpinning is HAS the has
41:31
Speaker 2: absolutely has a military application or may have a military application,
41:34
Speaker 2: and that that again is it's quite closely related to
41:38
Speaker 2: the some of the shenanigans that's gone on with the
41:42
Speaker 2: American Department of Defense and their relationship with some of
41:46
Speaker 2: the AI companies, Anthropic being one, and you know this
41:49
Speaker 2: this there being a little bit of a sort of
41:52
Speaker 2: pushback in terms of conscience about how things are used.
41:58
Speaker 2: And I think again, we're we're moving into an arena
42:03
Speaker 2: where the control of what are essentially military assets is
42:10
Speaker 2: absolutely slipping away from militaries, which which is okay. Again,
42:18
Speaker 2: I go back to the point that we're not sitting
42:20
Speaker 2: here saying that armies should be out sort of killing
42:23
Speaker 2: people all the time that that's that's not the point.
42:25
Speaker 2: But the point is it is surely more alarming if
42:28
Speaker 2: control of especially bits of oky that deliver kinetic effects,
42:34
Speaker 2: are handled by people who are not actually involved in
42:37
Speaker 2: that in that business, it is terribly I think that's
42:40
Speaker 2: terribly alarming.
42:41
Speaker 1: It's to the side of where you've come in there
42:44
Speaker 1: in Charles. But as part of my preparation for this,
42:49
Speaker 1: I started to focus se on really who our government
42:53
Speaker 1: is in bed with when it when it comes to
42:56
Speaker 1: defense matters. Because okay, we know, we know that the
43:00
Speaker 1: big corporations, the military industrial complex is there in a plenty,
43:07
Speaker 1: but I've been interested for some time and the fact
43:11
Speaker 1: that the government simply doesn't talk to the public about
43:15
Speaker 1: matters to do with defense. So the moment you get
43:18
Speaker 1: anywhere towards something of substance, then well this is you know,
43:23
Speaker 1: this is a defense matter, and we can't talk about it.
43:27
Speaker 1: So there's less and less about defense, which seems to
43:30
Speaker 1: get an open debate, and the moment there's any hint
43:34
Speaker 1: of operational then there's virtually nothing said at all. You know,
43:39
Speaker 1: we saw that in Syria with David Cameron busy reassuring
43:46
Speaker 1: people that there'd be no boots on the ground, and
43:48
Speaker 1: then sort of a couple of months later we discovered
43:50
Speaker 1: that the sas have been operating out there for some time.
43:55
Speaker 1: That's just one example, but in relation to the Middle East,
44:00
Speaker 1: I got interested in this memorandum of understanding with the
44:06
Speaker 1: Israelis now I paid attention back in I think it
44:11
Speaker 1: was twenty fifteen when Francis Maude went public on the
44:16
Speaker 1: fact that there was going to be a lot more
44:20
Speaker 1: cooperation with Israel, and he specifically talked about the fact
44:26
Speaker 1: that the Israeli Intelligence Unit eight two one hundred would
44:35
Speaker 1: be we would be engaging with that unit, it would
44:38
Speaker 1: be engaging with six the Security Services and also GHQ,
44:46
Speaker 1: but also universities were going to be cooperating between the
44:51
Speaker 1: UK and Israel. And I found this very interesting because
44:55
Speaker 1: at that time David Cameron had said his belief in
44:59
Speaker 1: Israel was unshakable, and I put a little article up
45:04
Speaker 1: on the UK column saying, well, this is interesting because
45:07
Speaker 1: no man can have two masters, and if his belief
45:11
Speaker 1: in Israel is unshakable, that actually means UK come second,
45:16
Speaker 1: the UK come second. So that was back in twenty fifteen,
45:21
Speaker 1: and then we have seen successive British Prime ministers also
45:27
Speaker 1: express this allegiance to Israel, culminating in a statement in
45:34
Speaker 1: twenty twenty twenty that we were in partnership with Israel
45:41
Speaker 1: and I dug into some of this in a little
45:44
Speaker 1: bit more detail. So this is the real thing, because
45:48
Speaker 1: you haven't I haven't mentioned this to you before, but
45:51
Speaker 1: maybe we can talk about it and see what the
45:54
Speaker 1: reaction is. But so the first thing I started looking
45:57
Speaker 1: at is the fact that we've got in place of
45:59
Speaker 1: four more UK Israel military relationship. And if somebody says
46:06
Speaker 1: straight away, well, what does that mean, I can say
46:10
Speaker 1: with total confidence I don't fully know, because no matter
46:14
Speaker 1: where I go trying to pin down what exactly this
46:18
Speaker 1: is and what the parameters are, I can't find out
46:20
Speaker 1: what it does in detail. And we've got the defense
46:26
Speaker 1: cooperation agreement with Israel from twenty twenty, and the text
46:32
Speaker 1: for that was not publicly disclosed for security reasons. So
46:39
Speaker 1: we go into a defense cooperation agreement with Israel in
46:44
Speaker 1: twenty twenty, no details of that are given to the
46:49
Speaker 1: UK public at all. And here we are in twenty
46:55
Speaker 1: twenty six with a war going on in the Gulf,
46:57
Speaker 1: and I'm thinking, well, okay, little corporation between the UK
47:02
Speaker 1: and Israel took place which was helping to stop that
47:10
Speaker 1: war or alternative ferment that war. And I can't get
47:16
Speaker 1: the answers because if I go searching for comment in
47:19
Speaker 1: the government, you can't get a response. And you do
47:22
Speaker 1: see that people have asked questions which have been logged
47:28
Speaker 1: in handsard where the government simply says we're not going
47:32
Speaker 1: to tell you. So that's twenty twenty the Defense Cooperation Agreement.
47:37
Speaker 1: And then we've got the twenty thirty road Map for
47:42
Speaker 1: Bilateral Relations and that was signed in March twenty twenty three,
47:47
Speaker 1: and that also includes security, defense, research and development, cyber
47:54
Speaker 1: and Technology framework, the details which are also not declared
48:00
Speaker 1: aired to the UK public. So there's a war going
48:05
Speaker 1: on at the moment where we are helping the Americans
48:09
Speaker 1: in a defensive way by allowing them to operate their
48:12
Speaker 1: armed aircraft from our airfields. So we are helping fight
48:17
Speaker 1: the war against Iran. And I have a question. My
48:21
Speaker 1: question is was this pre agreed with these Israel under
48:25
Speaker 1: these defense these defense agreements, So that Defense Cooperation Agreement,
48:32
Speaker 1: the road Map for bilateral relations which includes security defense,
48:38
Speaker 1: and then when you try and pin down what it's about.
48:43
Speaker 1: It's quite well stated publicly that, oh, well, these things
48:48
Speaker 1: are about shared strategic concerns regarding Iran. So clearly since
48:58
Speaker 1: twenty twenty we've been discussing Iran with Israel and in
49:03
Speaker 1: recent in the recent month, Israel has absolutely started a war,
49:11
Speaker 1: so did we agree to that? And then the other
49:14
Speaker 1: thing that goes with it is we've got the air
49:17
Speaker 1: defense expertise exchange, So we're exchanging expertise about air defense
49:24
Speaker 1: with Israel because there are a lot of benefits. I'm
49:29
Speaker 1: quoting here, there's a lot of benefits of UK and
49:32
Speaker 1: Israel sharing best practices for aerial defense. And why is that, Well,
49:39
Speaker 1: this is to help development of the UK's ground to
49:44
Speaker 1: air missile system predominantly used in the Middle East sky Saber.
49:51
Speaker 1: But this is all being done in agreement with Israel,
49:59
Speaker 1: not discussing parliament and not published for the UK. But
50:05
Speaker 1: you can find something on it. And where do you
50:07
Speaker 1: go to find out details of it? You have to
50:10
Speaker 1: go to the Labor Friends of Israel website and they've
50:14
Speaker 1: got a document there where in general terms they're setting
50:19
Speaker 1: out how this partnership works.
50:23
Speaker 2: It is eye opening. It absolutely is. And I think
50:26
Speaker 2: the question you ask is a completely pertinent one. And
50:31
Speaker 2: I suppose if you perhaps you extend the question in
50:36
Speaker 2: so far as considering, you know, what did the United
50:39
Speaker 2: Kingdom know or was the United Kingdom somehow in partnership
50:44
Speaker 2: with But given what you've just said, if not, why not?
50:48
Speaker 1: There's interesting question, Charles, because as I got deeper into this,
50:52
Speaker 1: I decided, you know, I should have a little bit,
50:56
Speaker 1: little bit of a closer look at why they talked
50:59
Speaker 1: about it being a memorandum of understanding in the beginning.
51:03
Speaker 1: And if you do some simple research you can find
51:08
Speaker 1: a nice little table with differences between an MoU and
51:12
Speaker 1: a treaty.
51:13
Speaker 2: Right.
51:14
Speaker 1: Yeah, So the first line I think is really significant
51:18
Speaker 1: because it says feature legally binding, and then it says
51:23
Speaker 1: that the MoU is not legally binding or as a
51:26
Speaker 1: treaty is yes, feature public text an MoU sometimes, so
51:35
Speaker 1: these are very convenient things. We've set up a memorandum
51:38
Speaker 1: of understanding, we may tell you we might not military obligation.
51:45
Speaker 1: Memorandum of understanding not or none automatic, but a treaty
51:51
Speaker 1: can include it. And then flexibility. The MoU is very
51:56
Speaker 1: flexible because whatever you've agreed, you can maneuver around and
52:00
Speaker 1: change and deny you ever agreed it, whereas the treaty,
52:04
Speaker 1: because it's fixed in law, becomes more specific. So when
52:12
Speaker 1: I took a little bit of help from AI on
52:15
Speaker 1: this one, because I thought this was a good question
52:17
Speaker 1: to ask an AI system, it said, so a UK
52:21
Speaker 1: Israel MoU does not obligate the UK to fight for Israel.
52:27
Speaker 1: It enables cooperation, not automatic military action. The UK is
52:34
Speaker 1: not required to join Israeli military operations. Cooperation is strategic,
52:41
Speaker 1: intelligence based and defensive in nature. This explains why Israel
52:49
Speaker 1: can carry out strikes on Iran while the UK remains
52:53
Speaker 1: in a separate defensive role. And I thought, well, Ai,
53:01
Speaker 1: that's a very interesting little conclusion you've come to, because
53:04
Speaker 1: that seems to me to absolutely fit the picture we
53:07
Speaker 1: are seeing.
53:07
Speaker 2: At the moment. It absolutely does.
53:10
Speaker 1: Yeah, So who is actually running the show?
53:15
Speaker 2: Is it?
53:16
Speaker 1: I'm brave enough to ask this question in twenty twenty six?
53:19
Speaker 1: Is UK running well? I mean, is UK running the
53:22
Speaker 1: show here in UK? Or is it actually Israel that's
53:26
Speaker 1: running it? And I don't know because it's not clear,
53:31
Speaker 1: And that should worry people because if it's not clear,
53:35
Speaker 1: that's saying, well, there's a possibility that it isn't our
53:38
Speaker 1: own elected government that's making the military policy decisions over
53:45
Speaker 1: what's happening in the Middle East.
53:46
Speaker 2: Yes, well, and also, you know you talked about Unit
53:50
Speaker 2: A two hundred, and when one considers the number of
53:54
Speaker 2: Israeli arms manufacturers who are making bits of git that
53:58
Speaker 2: are used by the armed forces, particularly bits of kit
54:02
Speaker 2: that are that have a communications capability and therefore can
54:06
Speaker 2: be controlled from elsewhere, I think the sort of de
54:12
Speaker 2: facto control that Israel has over the a lot of
54:17
Speaker 2: what happens in the United Kingdom, I think I think
54:20
Speaker 2: is beyond doubt. I think some of that could be
54:23
Speaker 2: you could say it's sort of passive control in that
54:26
Speaker 2: the Starmer administration is a classic example. He himself and
54:32
Speaker 2: many of those around him are very obviously if it
54:35
Speaker 2: came to a choice of you know, Israel or so
54:38
Speaker 2: and so, they would all side with Israel in exactly
54:41
Speaker 2: the same way that you're saying that David Cameron would,
54:44
Speaker 2: And you know Frances more than any of these people.
54:47
Speaker 2: I think that is that that is the significant thing.
54:50
Speaker 2: So there's the there's there's I suppose an implicit status
54:57
Speaker 2: of support for and therefore control by Israel. Absolutely. I
55:03
Speaker 2: don't think that can really be denied at all for
55:07
Speaker 2: exactly the reasons you say. I mean, one thing that
55:09
Speaker 2: just came to mind, which is sort of interesting. It
55:14
Speaker 2: was it was a bizarre moment that the the Israel
55:16
Speaker 2: Defense Forces hosted a I think they called it a seminar,
55:20
Speaker 2: a series of seminars basically a few days where they
55:25
Speaker 2: invited personnel from armed forces from around the world to
55:31
Speaker 2: in effect showcase what they'd been doing in Gaza, to
55:34
Speaker 2: demonstrate sort of lessons learned. And they they invited United
55:40
Speaker 2: Kingdom representatives and they even stated that that we are
55:47
Speaker 2: personnel were sort of on the on the bill, on
55:49
Speaker 2: the list, And of course this was vociferously denied by
55:54
Speaker 2: the Ministry of Defense, who then had to water down
55:57
Speaker 2: their denial. So there was it was never it was
56:00
Speaker 2: never clarified because I got in touch with the with
56:04
Speaker 2: the IDF media team to find out what had happened,
56:07
Speaker 2: and and indeed it seemed that that had been, for
56:12
Speaker 2: whatever reason, a miscommunication in that British personnel had been
56:18
Speaker 2: invited but apparently had not accepted the invitation, but the
56:22
Speaker 2: Minister of Defense here were unsure as to whether to
56:25
Speaker 2: answer that they had been invited and had not accepted
56:28
Speaker 2: the invitation, or whether they'd been invited and they couldn't go.
56:32
Speaker 2: And it was interesting because they absolutely changed their answer.
56:37
Speaker 2: But yes, I mean that's I suppose sort of associated.
56:41
Speaker 2: I mean, in a way a small example. But no,
56:45
Speaker 2: I mean, I think this is a very legitimate subject
56:48
Speaker 2: to be to be discussing.
56:50
Speaker 1: For me, it goes on a bit because if we say,
56:53
Speaker 1: it's pretty clear from what's happened in the Middle East
56:56
Speaker 1: over the last four weeks that it has not gone
57:01
Speaker 1: well for Israel. So we have seen we've just analyzing
57:08
Speaker 1: this in a military sense. We've seen the Iranian strikes,
57:14
Speaker 1: whether they've been high capability missiles, hypersonic missiles with multiple warheads.
57:22
Speaker 1: We've seen those defeating the Israeli iron Dome system and
57:27
Speaker 1: calling it iron Dome, I mean the whole integrated defense system.
57:32
Speaker 1: We've seen drone attacks defeating the things. So it hasn't
57:38
Speaker 1: gone well for Israel. On the land battle, we are
57:44
Speaker 1: seeing the increasing use of drones to attack Israeli armored
57:49
Speaker 1: vehicles with considerable success, just as on the battlefield in Ukraine.
57:57
Speaker 1: So we've got the use of drones, and we've also
57:59
Speaker 1: got the use of portable anti tank and anti aircraft
58:05
Speaker 1: missile systems absolutely devastating to the Israeli vehicles. And therefore
58:13
Speaker 1: my mind says, well, maybe this is demonstrating that Israel
58:17
Speaker 1: isn't actually the best country that we should be going
58:20
Speaker 1: to in military cooperation because they're going to teach us something.
58:26
Speaker 1: And you could you could almost say that the war
58:30
Speaker 1: in Ukraine has been running, you know, over the over
58:34
Speaker 1: the previous four years, where we have seen a massive
58:40
Speaker 1: change in the power of units on the ground, whether
58:45
Speaker 1: you know, we've seen large extent the decline of armed
58:49
Speaker 1: forces on the ground and the rise of the power
58:52
Speaker 1: of the soldier with the right equipment, whether it's an
58:55
Speaker 1: anti tank missile or some shoulder launched anti aircraft things.
58:59
Speaker 1: So the lesson on the on the battlefield in Ukraine,
59:03
Speaker 1: in lots of areas has been very clear as to
59:07
Speaker 1: what happens when these new systems and the drone systems
59:11
Speaker 1: get in the hands of the ordinary soldiers. And yet
59:14
Speaker 1: Israel has unleashed a ground war in Lebanon, falling absolutely
59:19
Speaker 1: into that trap that they're trying to use. You're you're
59:23
Speaker 1: the you're the army. I should I should be careful here, Charles,
59:26
Speaker 1: because you're the army man and I'm the navy man.
59:29
Speaker 1: But you know, you look at it, and what what
59:31
Speaker 1: is Israel doing at the moment? They seem to be
59:34
Speaker 1: making every mistake going that they're trying to use armored units,
59:41
Speaker 1: tanks in very difficult locations, and all of a sudden
59:47
Speaker 1: they're getting hammered. And this is a surprise to them.
59:50
Speaker 1: But why is it a surprise because it's been happening
59:53
Speaker 1: on the battlefield in Ukraine for four years.
59:57
Speaker 2: I don't Again, you've said it to an extent in
1:00:01
Speaker 2: answer to an earlier question, I don't know. I don't know,
1:00:04
Speaker 2: because again you're looking at their ally, the United States,
1:00:10
Speaker 2: who again, I mean, yes, you're quite right to make
1:00:13
Speaker 2: the point that, of course they are militarily credible, certainly
1:00:16
Speaker 2: in relation to the state of the United Kingdom Armed forces.
1:00:20
Speaker 2: But again it's perfectly clear that they had no plan
1:00:28
Speaker 2: in beginning what has unfolded in and around Iran.
1:00:34
Speaker 1: So, okay, trolls, doesn't that mean that they they didn't
1:00:39
Speaker 1: get the intelligence exactly? This is it spent in WRECKI wasted?
1:00:47
Speaker 1: How could it possibly be that the United States did
1:00:53
Speaker 1: not understand that the Iranians had built some very capable systems.
1:01:02
Speaker 2: Yeah, well this is, you know, again another another sort
1:01:05
Speaker 2: of paradox. We we seem to be simultaneously expected to
1:01:09
Speaker 2: believe that Iran was capable of building nuclear warheads but
1:01:15
Speaker 2: apparently not anything else. And and and then this happens,
1:01:21
Speaker 2: and you know, we're still the line from America as
1:01:24
Speaker 2: now well, you know, we've defeated all their systems in
1:01:26
Speaker 2: this I was quite patently not true. But it does
1:01:31
Speaker 2: seem ridiculous really in a in a mainstream sense, that
1:01:37
Speaker 2: that narrative can be put out that we think that
1:01:40
Speaker 2: they're capable of building something very very sophisticated which we
1:01:42
Speaker 2: don't want them to have, but that they cannot possibly
1:01:45
Speaker 2: have a capability that yea, it doesn't doesn't make any sense.
1:01:51
Speaker 1: Yeah, I I look at the Americans, and yeah, part
1:01:58
Speaker 1: of it the carriers. I've hinted at this before, but
1:02:03
Speaker 1: I believe that America swallowed its own propaganda with tom
1:02:09
Speaker 1: Cruise and Top Gun, where the you know, the easy
1:02:15
Speaker 1: capability and the massive strength of the American carriers meant
1:02:19
Speaker 1: that they started to believe that air power could do
1:02:23
Speaker 1: everything everywhere, and that was their propaganda, and they swallowed it.
1:02:29
Speaker 1: And now they've taken on somewhere where the scale of Iran,
1:02:34
Speaker 1: the number of targets, the damage that's been done to
1:02:38
Speaker 1: the American school based radar stations, and therefore the damage
1:02:44
Speaker 1: done to an integrated air defense system. What Iran has
1:02:49
Speaker 1: achieved just need some recognition because it's pretty astonishedly, very capable.
1:02:58
Speaker 2: Absolutely, and I suppose that that points towards what next
1:03:06
Speaker 2: and where where this will actually go, because obviously today
1:03:10
Speaker 2: we are speaking at the time that there's been a
1:03:15
Speaker 2: bit I mean, this may well be out of date
1:03:17
Speaker 2: even by the time I finish my sentence, but you
1:03:19
Speaker 2: know that the Americans have said there's to be a
1:03:23
Speaker 2: two week period, two week cease fire, or at least
1:03:27
Speaker 2: the Strait of Homos is in effect to be opened.
1:03:31
Speaker 2: I mean, whether that will be the case by the
1:03:32
Speaker 2: time this goes out, who knows. But it's still it's
1:03:36
Speaker 2: terrifically unclear what sort of a strategy the either the
1:03:41
Speaker 2: Americans or the Israelis do actually think that they have,
1:03:45
Speaker 2: not one that seems to make sense to those trying
1:03:48
Speaker 2: to understand it.
1:03:49
Speaker 1: It's certainly it's certainly very complex one thing is for sure,
1:03:54
Speaker 1: is that the amount of challenge now appearing in the
1:03:59
Speaker 1: world media for Israel. Israel is in the spotlight in
1:04:02
Speaker 1: a way that I've never seen it. Yes, I've never
1:04:05
Speaker 1: seen it before. And although there's already the backlash that
1:04:10
Speaker 1: it's unfair on Israel, or it's anti Semitic, all these
1:04:15
Speaker 1: things are being thrown, but actually Israel has come under
1:04:19
Speaker 1: the spotlight in a huge way. And I've been reading
1:04:23
Speaker 1: quite a few articles over the last week, in particular
1:04:27
Speaker 1: where where israelis are challenging leta Yahoo and saying this
1:04:33
Speaker 1: man is dangerous and he's got to go, and we
1:04:36
Speaker 1: are saying the same thing about Trump yea.
1:04:39
Speaker 2: Indeed, yeah, yeah, no, And you know, I think it's
1:04:42
Speaker 2: reasonable to assume that that will that will continue, that
1:04:45
Speaker 2: will increase, But to what effect, I wonder. Yeah, we
1:04:48
Speaker 2: just have to ensure.
1:04:50
Speaker 1: The The other thing, I'll just drop in because I
1:04:53
Speaker 1: mentioned it somebody and they laughed, and I think they
1:04:58
Speaker 1: didn't put much credibility ability in what I was saying
1:05:02
Speaker 1: or why I was saying it. But in a couple
1:05:05
Speaker 1: of locations about four days ago, I read a report
1:05:09
Speaker 1: that in America a stripper had spoken out and said
1:05:16
Speaker 1: that basically troops who are now being mobilized, ground troops
1:05:22
Speaker 1: who are being mobilized from their base in the States
1:05:27
Speaker 1: were not happy men and had said they didn't want
1:05:30
Speaker 1: to go and fight a war on Israel's behalf. Now
1:05:34
Speaker 1: I believe this little report is true, and to me,
1:05:40
Speaker 1: I paid attention to it because it's local knowledge. You
1:05:43
Speaker 1: imagine in Plymouth there's a club and a girl says, well,
1:05:47
Speaker 1: all the sailors were in here last night. They're due
1:05:49
Speaker 1: to sail and they're not happy. That's local knowledge and
1:05:53
Speaker 1: that's got some substance to it. But that was one source.
1:05:58
Speaker 1: But also we're now seeing across other agencies that American
1:06:04
Speaker 1: troops are saying we are not happy to go and
1:06:07
Speaker 1: fight this war on Israel's behalf, and that that I
1:06:12
Speaker 1: have never heard before. So I think there's there is
1:06:15
Speaker 1: a substantial backlash.
1:06:17
Speaker 2: Year yeah, well, and and again I preferred to the
1:06:20
Speaker 2: British public, but I would I would hope that that
1:06:23
Speaker 2: sentiment permeates through the British armed forces as it seems
1:06:28
Speaker 2: that we're going to be drawn further into the into
1:06:32
Speaker 2: the wider war. Now I'm conscious of time. I wasn't
1:06:37
Speaker 2: expecting to to talk about strippers. But well, but we
1:06:43
Speaker 2: have so we've we've covered We've covered a lot, I think.
1:06:47
Speaker 2: But you know, when we last convened, we didn't really
1:06:52
Speaker 2: have any idea of what was going to happen, except
1:06:55
Speaker 2: for the fact I think we were fairly certain that
1:06:56
Speaker 2: things would not going to kick on. Yeah, something's absolutely
1:06:59
Speaker 2: going to kick off from and there would not be
1:07:01
Speaker 2: a sort of swift conclusion. I mean, I think on
1:07:04
Speaker 2: that score my view is unchanged. I don't see that
1:07:09
Speaker 2: this is going to be wrapped up swiftly. It seems
1:07:12
Speaker 2: that Israel, despite what Donald Trump may say about cease fire,
1:07:17
Speaker 2: and of course everyone has their own interpretation of exactly
1:07:20
Speaker 2: what ceasefire means, but it doesn't look to my mind
1:07:24
Speaker 2: like Israel is stepping back from the brink.
1:07:27
Speaker 1: No, and I could believe that Israel will deliberately attempt
1:07:32
Speaker 1: to undermine any worthwhile agreement.
1:07:36
Speaker 2: With it ran absolutely and that's pretty tragic. Yes, absolutely tragic,
1:07:42
Speaker 2: And that is absolutely where pressure should be applied wherever
1:07:46
Speaker 2: possible in order that those who do have the ability
1:07:50
Speaker 2: to influence at that level do so.
1:07:55
Speaker 1: Charles thirty seconds as we finished, you had this book
1:07:59
Speaker 1: with Yes, just tell our audience what that little book is. Well,
1:08:05
Speaker 1: I will although and I respond, okay, yeah, you will respond,
1:08:10
Speaker 1: you will outdo me. We were considering what we might
1:08:14
Speaker 1: use as props, and I have brought the only thing
1:08:18
Speaker 1: that I happened to have with me, which is a
1:08:22
Speaker 1: camouflage edition of the New Testament and Psalms, the contemporary
1:08:27
Speaker 1: English version. Brand and I were looking through this yesterday
1:08:31
Speaker 1: and to my amusement, there was a typo on the
1:08:33
Speaker 1: inside front cover. I mean, as if covering it in
1:08:36
Speaker 1: camouflage isn't I mean, it's just perfectly absurd. But it
1:08:39
Speaker 1: turns out and this absolutely speaks to what we've been
1:08:42
Speaker 1: talking about. So this might sound rather frivolous. Obviously nice
1:08:44
Speaker 1: to have New Testament Psalms in the first place. And
1:08:47
Speaker 1: it was issued and I think I forget exactly when
1:08:50
Speaker 1: I think it was for an operational deployment. But it's
1:08:54
Speaker 1: printed in Career. It's printed in Career, and I did
1:08:59
Speaker 1: mention it. I did find it. So if I hold
1:09:01
Speaker 1: that up to camera, that is an equivalent New Testament
1:09:07
Speaker 1: Active Service edition. And this was my father's from the
1:09:14
Speaker 1: second of September nineteen forty one, and it's a lovely
1:09:20
Speaker 1: little book has colored photo colored pictures in as well,
1:09:25
Speaker 1: and I think it's got It doesn't have maps, but
1:09:29
Speaker 1: it's pretty well put together. Yours was printed in Korea.
1:09:36
Speaker 1: This was printed in England. Yes, and maybe that says
1:09:40
Speaker 1: a little something.
1:09:41
Speaker 2: I think it does. I think it absolutely does. I
1:09:43
Speaker 2: think it encapsulates exactly precisely what we've been talking about.
1:09:47
Speaker 2: And also, sorry for not making it clear. This is plastic.
1:09:51
Speaker 2: I mean, this is a you know, it's sufficient quality,
1:09:54
Speaker 2: but it is not great. And this is a sort
1:09:56
Speaker 2: of plastic laminate. I mean it's it is a very
1:10:00
Speaker 2: very poor relation.
1:10:03
Speaker 1: So there we are. We'll end on that point. We
1:10:05
Speaker 1: were smiling, which is a good thing, exactly