Top brass must put prowess before gender issues
As North Korea develops the potential to threaten the UK, the military need to focus on what’s important
Among the many threats facing Britain today, the potential devastation that could be caused by a North Korean missile strike is the one that is currently causing our military chiefs most concern. The crazed world of dictator Kim Jong-un may seem a long way away from this green and pleasant land, but it is entirely feasible that we could soon find ourselves vulnerable to attack by one of Pyongyang’s intercontinental ballistic missiles.
The Pentagon estimates that the Hwasong-13 missile system, which is currently being developed by Pyongyang, will be able to carry a nuclear warhead over a distance of 4,700 to 5,600 miles. This means, as Defence Secretary Sir Michael Fallon warned last month, that British cities will be closer to Mr Kim’s missiles than many American targets.
The potential threat is all the more worrying because, as we report today, years of cuts mean that Britain does not have an effective defence against high-velocity ballistic missiles. No doubt this is one of the glaring deficiencies in Britain’s military capabilities that Sir Michael will want to fix if Theresa May heeds the call he made at the Conservative Party conference in Manchester yesterday for the Government to spend more than the minimum Nato requirement of 2 per cent of GDP on defence.
Sir Michael certainly deserves credit for highlighting concerns over defence spending, especially as he will have been made aware of the limitations in Britain’s defences during his recent visit to Scotland’s Faslane nuclear navy base. He was briefed there on Formidable Shield, the huge multinational exercise currently being conducted around the Outer Hebrides. The purpose of the exercise is help Britain and other European nations prepare themselves for a potential conflict with North Korea and other “rogue states”.
While the Royal Navy warships taking part have the ability to destroy enemy aircraft, they do not have the weapons to shoot down a sophisticated missile of the sort being developed by North Korea. For that they have to rely on the US Sixth Fleet, also taking part in the exercise, which boasts a weapons system specifically designed to shoot down long-range ballistic missiles of the type being made in Pyongyang.
When Robert “Woody” Johnson, the new US ambassador to Britain, questioned whether the British Government was spending enough on defence when I interviewed him last week, this is no doubt the type of glaring deficiency he had in mind.
Certainly, the fact that we are hosting this massive exercise in anticipation of a future conflict with North Korea shows just how much of a threat Mr Kim’s dysfunctional regime poses to both Britain and its allies. Its timing, though, could not be less opportune for our beleaguered Royal Navy which, rather than focusing its attention on improving the nation’s military readiness, finds itself embroiled in a potential scandal concerning the conduct of one its leading submariners.
This follows reports that Commander Stuart Armstrong has been removed from his Vanguardclass nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine, and relieved of his duties as a precaution, while the Navy investigates allegations that he had an inappropriate relationship with a female officer. The Navy’s fleet of four Vanguard submarines are entrusted with maintaining the continuous at-sea presence of Britain’s Trident nuclear deterrent. As such, the Government has made it clear that, in the event of a major confrontation with North Korea or other rogue states, the boats could be deployed in support of key allies such as the US.
But their reputation as one of the world’s most feared war-fighting machines risks being undermined by the suggestion that their crews might be distracted from fulfilling their duties by taking an overkeen interest in the opposite sex.
No conclusions have yet been reached by the investigation into the allegations concerning Cdr Armstrong, who served with distinction during the 2011 Libyan campaign. But the very fact that the Navy has been required to make such a dramatic intervention inevitably raises questions about whether the top brass spend too much time worrying about gender issues instead of the overall effectiveness of the forces under their command.
The military has had to contend with a number of gender and sexual orientation issues in recent years, from whether gay people should be allowed to serve in uniform to the role of women on the front line. Perhaps the best illustration of the military’s sensitivity to these subjects came in the summer, when a host of senior British commanders leapt to the defence of transgender people serving in their ranks after Donald Trump banned them from the US military.
Gender equality in the forces is all very well, but when countries like North Korea have prompted a dramatic increase in the global threat level, the top brass need to take care that such sensitivity does not come at the expense of military prowess.