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.
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
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlargement_of_NATO
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.
Of course they could do it voluntarily. Anyone can decide to declare war on whomever. What would that have to do with being in NATO though?
If all the members participate would it matter whether they call it Nato or not?
It’s already a bit of a fairy tale to assume that one other NATO member is going to join the United States in this train wreck of a war. Most I would expect is some defensive help for Turkey if it gets caught in the splash zone.