Far from being a "minor disturbance" GW1 prevented a tyrant from controlling 20% and threatening to control another 25% of the World's known oil reserves. I'd say that the continuing prospect of those sorts of "minor disturbances" are a pretty good reason to keep the USN equipped with super carriers beyond the life of the current fleet.

 

As for China, its conventional strategy is the same as its nuclear strategy, aim to impose sufficient cost upon the US to disuede it from intervening in any Asian conflict. China's means of doing that are its sea denial assets, submarines, ballistic missiles to hit forward bases, maritime strike aircraft etc. China isn't aiming to protect its sea lanes against the US in the conventional sense with its carriers, escorts and the like, it can't because the US is too long and there are too many US allies along those routes where land based assets can interfere. It's carrier program etc is intended to dominate the region with the US out of the picture due to sea and forward base denial.

 

The USN carriers are and remain a cornerstone to defeat this strategy, because with nearby land bases denied they, ship and submarine based TLAMS and USAF strategic bombers are the only way for the US to hit the Chinese sea denial capabilities at home. They are also effective assets for defense of maritime traffic, as are the LHDs in sea control mode.

Consider a situation where a unilateralist right wing US government wants to attack the likes of Iran at the same time as a somewhat leftist, anti war Labour Party government is in power in the UK. What is that British Labour going to say "Nah, we aren't going to support the War but you can base your B-2's on our Indian ocean island". They would have no domestic credibility if they did that. I'd also note that it was probably only because a rightist like Blair was in power that the US got the British support it did in GW2, the UK public were on the balance against the war and so were many in the Labour Party.

 

Anyway, for the purposes of this discussion it doesn't really matter as DG is inadequate to exclusively support a campaign in the Middle East anyway.

It is a remote possibility AG, no government in the last 40 years has been left wing enough to meet your criteria (and there won't be) - and you need to consider the degree of defensive participation that exists between the UK and US - to the point of sharing ICBM's and intel cooperation that is unprecedented, there are understandings that exist, basing would be no issue even in the circumstance you describe.

R

That negation assumes the possibility from a UK Fabian socialist perspective. BUT, we have the grandson of a Mau Mau murderer and terrorist as US chief of state. Read that again, R, the grandson of a Mau Mau, who was a murderer and a terrorist. The current President is a Saul Alinsky, disciple, a trained Marxist community organizer, who hates the British.   

 

Its already happened.

 

H.

 

 

I must admit I was very wrong about Obama , luckily I think that there is next to no chance he will be re-elected, he's become a toxic brand even amongst the dems - he has produced many sleights against us, some mild and two (the "malvinas" and the D-5 pooled stockpiles release) did more than ruffle feathers but I think British diplomacy takes a longer-term view on the transatlantic relationship - this president will be a one-termer as long as the republicans don't implode - the critically important factor; the economy doesn't have enough time to pick up between now and the election - it may show signs of improvement but I think the duration of this downturn coupled with a big-spending Keynesian administration makes the outcome pretty much a guaranteed republican victory (as long as they don't elect a runner with too many skeletons in the closet) Romney will be the victor imho. And payback from the UK will happen during that election campaign, count on it.

 

R 

You have a point: But the anti-china carriers are already build and operational.

The problem is: What is to follow them?

Here the trick is to use the technological advances to build smaller carriers - carriers that can operate in fleets if need be.

R 

The governing party in Britain has only changed three times in the last 40 years. Based on those odds I don't call it a remote possibility at all. It is simply not reasonable to assume that the UK won't get another left leaning government some time in the first half of this century, that is just the way the pendulum swings. Also, Britain only supported the Iraq War in '03 because of Blair and even then he needed Tory support to go against it, 139 of his own MPs revolted. Under a different Labour leader it wouldn't have happened and they couldn't very well have allowed the US to use bombers off UK sovereign territory for a war that they didn't support. For the sake of the alliance they probably would have allowed continuing use of the C4 assets to be used as those are deniable, but that is it.

 

 

I'm sorry but there are two fundamental points you seem to be missing here:

 

a) Basing is different to active engagement in war.

b) Labour's majority was in no small part due to Blair being a centrist - and even if Brown (further to the left) was premier the result in the commons would have been almost identical.  

c) The permanent civil service guides foreign policy affairs far more than in other nations. 

d) there is very little political difference between the three main parties (the party farthest to the left is now in govt with the conservatives)

e) the "special relationship" is of paramount importance for several reasons.

 

I'm not sure how much you really understand the level of defense and intel cooperation between the UK and US - to suggest that the UK would refuse the US to conduct military operations, even ones we had voted to remain out of in a substantive way is sheer lunacy - our entire nuclear deterrent relies on US systems, US maintenance, US  compliance, to actively undermine US strategic interests in a time of extremis would place those agreements in real jeopardy, which for a country and a parliament in particular that is as sensitive as ours to maintaining that relationship, no, it isn't going to happen.

 

You then say:

 

"and they couldn't very well have allowed the US to use bombers off UK sovereign territory for a war that they didn't support"

 

Which is also nonsense (sorry but it is) they could absolutely provide material assistance to a war in which parliament had voted to stay out of, if you think politicians are incapable of hypocrisy if it is in their national interest then I refer you to the past 5000 years of recorded history.  

 

I think, again, with respect you have limited understanding of the level of influence the permanent civil service has in the UK, parliament is only half the story, arguably less - the US is regarded as the single most important strategic ally at all levels of government and in all 3 major parties, I tell you that it will be a cold day in hell before a UK government, left or right of centre does anything to change that. 

 

I think it might be hard to get an accurate impression of this country's political situation from your vantage point. 

 

R