The MoD said the preparedness of HMS Prince of Wales is being increased, reducing the time it would take for it be deployed
The UK is preparing an aircraft carrier for possible deployment to the Middle East, reducing the time it would take to be readied.
This does not mean that Portsmouth-based HMS Prince of Wales, which is used to carry fighter jets and helicopters, will be sent into the Gulf as conflict escalates in the region, but the preparedness of the Royal Navy’s flagship is being increased, the Ministry of Defence (MoD) said.
The Independent understands no decisions to deploy the Prince of Wales have been taken.
An MoD spokesperson told The Independent: “We have been bolstering our UK military presence in the Middle East since January, and we have already deployed capabilities to protect British people and our allies in the region, including Typhoons, F-35 jets, air defence systems and an extra 400 personnel into Cyprus.
Fucks sake, starmer. Stop being such a little bitch. What a tool.
I had high hopes after Labour won but this fuckstick just keeps on being a monumental prick.The response from many European countries to Trump and Netanyahu’s illegal war leads me to conclude that they are not at all upset about the illegal war whatsoever. They’re only upset Trump didn’t coordinate with them on it.
Fucking appalling.
Canada too
Unfortunately correct
May it be sunk.
Israel owns the UK politicians too.
Give Israel a break, they work really hard at it
I love the ramp thingy
That’s WW2 tech and means they have to buy the worst version of the F-35 to launch from it.
Does look fun though.
Why would they get involved? What’s in it for the UK? The whole war is just bad for Europeans.
Because Epstein and Maxwell operated extensively in the UK and anyone who thinks it was only Andrew and a diplomat are woefully naive
Yeah, but in the civilised world these people are facing consequences, not enough, but a long way ahead of anything the US can muster
Not really. The two I mentioned were only arrested because of the classified documents they were publicly caught leaking.
Still not enough I suppose.
Uh, because the UK has always been the USA’s bitch at every war they start?
Everyone trying to get a lil combat experience under their belt.
Maybe secure the trade routes.
A British aircraft carrier won’t be enough to do that.
Yes, but NATO is a thing.
Not applicable here. NATO is a defensive pact, but America is the aggressor in this case. They can’t invoke Article 5 for this.
There is no such thing as NATO in the sense that it’s popularly understood, i.e. as a defensive alliance against outside threats. There are no outside threats to any NATO members, and there never really were. It’s closer to a crime family or a protection racket. Like a crime family, the lower-ranking members “kick up” earnings to the higher ranking member in the form of defense contracts with american companies. Of course the other NATO members have their own defense companies, but they work closely with the American ones, and the overall flow of capital in general is towards America from the junior members.
At the same time, the junior members act as auxiliaries to America - Canada is an excellent example of this as our military is highly specialized towards to the provision of good quality light infantry and mechanized units to enhance American force projection in colonial policing missions, but we’re severely lacking in most other departments, in particular air defence - the Canadian Army had absolutely zero anti-aircraft weapons until 2024, and the ones we got in 2024 are all short-range systems with very limited utility against anything but helicopters and drones. This ensures we are useful to America while still being dependent on and subservient to America.
There has been a lot of talk recently about NATO members growing more independent of and less subservient to the US, but so far it’s only talk. The extent to which it’s true will be determined in part by their commitment to this war against Iran. You have to remember that NATO members benefit economically from US imperialism. Our companies operate freely in the third world without fear of unionization of their workforce, nationalization, the burden of increasing worker protections or wages, burdensome environmental laws, etc., so we’re bought-in to the project. We cannot abide the formation of an opposing pole that could interfere with our economic domination of the world, and aside from that broader concern, Iran also has a large public sector ripe for privatization and looting.
Nato is not only Article 5
Ability to contribute to the organization’s defense and missions
Devotion of sufficient resources to armed forces to be able to meet the commitments of membership
This is not a NATO mission. This is not defense. The commitments of membership do not in any way require that NATO members have to lift a finger to help other NATO members prosecute unprovoked wars of aggression.
Correct, but they can do it voluntarily.
The wording of the admission requirements for the members after the end of the cold war suggests that Nato is not only a defence pact.
Iran fired missiles at a British base in Cyprus. They also fund the Houthi terrorists, who attacked a British warship last year.
By the UK’s own admission, the attack did not come from Iran. They “think” it’s hezballah, but my money is on Israel false flag.
my money is putting some attack out of context so it can be used as an excuse for war. like usual.
Sooooo Iran needs a closer target and a higher density of human casualties?
It’s like Blair all over
Wars have this funny habit of getting out of control, we can just hope we don’t get dragged in to much but I won’t hold my breath.
Wankers
Sorry, respect for trying, UK. But I’ll never be able to take it seriously with diesel fuel and that cope-slope.
The only time the US has fought really serious carrier battles was in WW2. Those carriers also had oil-powered engines and were without catapults.
