article: UK vulnerable to "seaborne attack"

[CougarKing]

More MSM sensationalism or a genuine concern?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8054491.stm

UK 'at risk of sea-borne attack'

Just six warships protect the UK's coastal cities from attack 
Britain is vulnerable to terrorist attack from the sea because no single body is responsible for protecting the UK's coast, MPs have warned.

Just nine Royal Navy ships along with a "motley collection" of police and coastguard boats guard a shoreline more than 7,000 miles long.

The Commons defence committee suggests developing a "deterrent capability" to ward off sea-borne attacks.

The Ministry of Defence has insisted clear procedures are in place.

Concerns over the UK's preparations for dealing with a maritime terrorist threat were raised by the committee.

Reactive forces

Its statement said: "We are concerned at the level of action being taken to address threats to aspects of national infrastructure such as ports.

"What assets are available for maritime security tend to be reactive forces."

The statement continued: "There is a strong case for developing a deterrent capability in relation to threats to civilian maritime targets.

"We are not satisfied that an intelligence-led approach is sufficient."

At present the Royal Navy has six warships, two patrol vessels and a support tanker protecting UK waters.

They are backed up by 120 police boats, five coastguard patrol boats and five UK Border Agency vessels.

But the Conservatives have called for a full review of the defensive capability.

They say the November 2008 Mumbai attacks - during which gunmen arriving by boat killed more than 170 people - could be replicated in the UK.

Lack of clarity

Shadow defence secretary Liam Fox said: "It is clear from this report the government has not given sufficient attention to the role of the armed forces in its domestic security policy.

"The lack of clarity about the role of the MoD in terms of maritime security needs to be addressed.

"This is why we need a Strategic Defence Review to identify the roles the armed forces will be needed for."

The committee also called for the role of the Army during natural emergencies such as floods to be clarified and the Territorial Army to be used more regularly.

But an MoD spokesman said: "There are clear procedures in place for the armed forces to provide military assistance to other government departments both in times of national crises.

"Work is under way to provide other government departments with guidelines on how to request military assistance in areas such as counter terrorism.

"We regularly take part in counter terrorism exercises."

 

[Mike Baker]

From who? Who is going to launch a seaborne attack against the UK? Who would want to do that?




*puzzled*

 

[N_Dussault]

From who? Who is going to launch a seaborne attack against the UK? Who would want to do that?

*puzzled*

Somalian Pirates?
Or perhaps the dreaded Taliban Navy  ???

 

[aesop081]

I wouldnt be so quick to critisize UK politicians.

Who are we trying to protect the North from again ?

 

[Michael OLeary]

"Sea-borne attacks" is a pretty vague category. It's easy to scaremonger when you don't actually define the threat.

An invasion, a la Dieppe or D-Day, would be hard to hide or launch with surprise.  Individual boats with a fertilizer and diesel bombs would be impossible to mount a watertight defence against.

How can anyone clearly say what response capability is appropriate without a defined threat scenario?

 

[Pat_Y]

Might as well just load a boat with some fertilizer and diesel and throw it up the river thames. Parlement is right there. Not to mention there are always a few naval vessels docked there.

 

[40below]

As it is a low-lying island, they are also vulnerable to tsunamis, but no one's losing sleep about that.

Also, nine Navy ships tasked with protecting 7,000 miles of coast? Wonder how that compares to us, with or without the Arctic Ocean figured in.