BHR
First of all if you bothered to read my thread, before throwing your teddy bear out of the cot, you will see that I stated that I did not necessarily disagree with the basic thrust of your arguement. It was your use of Japan as an example that I thought unwise. You stated:
"...Germany, Canada and Japan. If you look at these three countries and then look at the more costly line items in the defence budget of the UK it is difficult to justify the expenditure. Neither of these three countries has any carriers nor any plans for them in the future. None of these countries has a nuclear deterrent or any known plans to acquire one. In the cases of Germany and Japan both of these countries are heavily reliant on oil from the Middle East yet they do not seem to have the same need for massive navies."
I tried to point out that Japan does indeed have many of the more expensive/costly items in a traditional type defence budget, AD fighters, AWACS, tankers, MPA, a modern navy, etc. I discussed why carriers weren't even an option for the Japanese for historic reasons (which does not mean they do not want them). I didn't even mention before that both Germany and Japan would never consider going near nuclear weapons, whether they wanted them or not, for exactly the same historic reasons! I tried to point out that Japan does indeed have a fairly massive navy. As for the point about the Japanese navy routinely operating a long way from home (ROUTINELY - not a one off global visit like the Irish jolly you mentioned), I was trying to point out it is a major 'blue water' navy, not a coastal defence outfit!!
I didn't attack the basic premise of your arguement, if you can't take some simple criticism you aren't going to win many people over to your way of thinking!!
Nuff said