So says the Telegraph in an article here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/the_queens_diamond_jubilee/9305678/Diamond-Jubilee-The-Queen-no-longer-rules-the-waves.html Apparently the once-vaunted British Navy has been so reduced in size that a traditional review (i.e. parade) of ships, which would normally be an essential part of a major celebration like the current queen's diamond jubilee, has been passed up because it would have quite the opposite effect of that normally intended by such a review (being pathetic rather than impressive).

The GDP of the USA is 6.2 times that of Britain. How do the two navies compare relative to this ratio? The USA floats eleven aircraft carriers carrying fixed wing attack planes - the Royal Navy has just one carrier and it flies only helicopters. The USN has 22 cruisers; the RN has none. The Brits have six destroyers, the USA has sixty. Submarines: Britain 11, USA 71 (finally, a near-match to the GDP ratio).

While the relevance of various measures and comparisons can be debated, one fact beyond dispute is that the Royal Navy at one time "ruled the waves", pulling way more than Britain's weight, but today is just a more or less average navy for a nation its size (despite Britain being an island!).

Regardless of whether one is a warmonger or pacifist or of the left or right, I think it would be hard to avoid feeling at least a little sorry to see such a once-proud and once-overwhelming force so reduced. Maybe the main reason the ceremonial review would be so pathetic is that so many of the ships are active and busy all around the world and coming home for a stupid ceremony (for a sovereign much reduced in prestige since the last diamond jubilee was held) makes no sense. Fine. But the ship count doesn't lie. Britain's navy is roughly the same size as Brazil's, France's, and India's. Russia's is larger. Even Spain has a real aircraft carrier.

But perhaps the right way to look at this is to ask why the USA wants, thinks it needs, or thinks it can afford a navy with "battle fleet tonnage... greater than that of the next 13 largest navies combined"? Perhaps the question should be whether or not the waves need ruling by anyone. There's been increased piracy in recent years. China has 26 destroyers and 63 subs and can't really be called "friendly". But does the USA really need eleven supercarrier task forces?

Your thoughts?

references:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_Royal_Navy_ships
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_ships_of_the_United_States_Navy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29#List
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/navy.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercarrier

Regardless of whether one is a warmonger or pacifist or of the left or right, I think it would be hard to avoid feeling at least a little sorry to see such a once-proud and once-overwhelming force so reduced.

I don't feel sad. It means that Britons can spend their hard earn money on feeding their families, paying their bills, and saving for their retirements, instead of warmongering around the world.

Maybe they can feel pride in themselves, their families, and their communities instead of pride in a state's ability to kill people in far away lands.

theodorelogan wrote:...a state's ability to kill people in far away lands.

What if those people are pirates? If there were no navy to stop them, pirates would multiply and cause havoc with world trade. Prices of nearly everything would go up. Then the efforts of Britons to "spend their hard earn money on feeding their families, paying their bills, and saving for their retirements" would just get more difficult.

It's a real shame that military forces are needed in the real world, but they are.

I've got to start reading the Telegraph. This article was quite enjoyable, thanks for sharing. I thought the quote from Kipling was an excellent touch.

Far-called, our navies melt away;
On dune and headland sinks the fire:
Lo, all our pomp of yesterday
Is one with Nineveh and Tyre!

Purple wrote:

theodorelogan wrote:...a state's ability to kill people in far away lands.

What if those people are pirates? If there were no navy to stop them, pirates would multiply and cause havoc with world trade. Prices of nearly everything would go up. Then the efforts of Britons to "spend their hard earn money on feeding their families, paying their bills, and saving for their retirements" would just get more difficult.

It's a real shame that military forces are needed in the real world, but they are.

There are solutions to piracy that do not include taxation. I wonder what the "per pirate" cost of the British Navy is?

Piracy is the PR for state navies. It isn't why they exist. You don't need submarines, aircraft carriers, and cruisers to fight pirates.