By adopting a "Blue Peace" approach, the MOD can ensure a strong navy while contributing to a healthy and sustainable ocean. This requires a shift in focus from sheer military might to a holistic approach that considers environmental security alongside traditional defense concerns. This approach fosters long-term stability and promotes a secure future for all nations.


ARTISTS IMPRESSION - By way of an illustration only, solar assistance for existing ships might help contain harmful particulate emissions. While a move to replace bunker fuel oils with hydrogen, will go a stage further in the clean up process.




Naval Blue growth, equates to 'Blue Peace,' the military equivalent of sustainable navies in a circular economy. Though, no navy in the world is actively pursuing sustainable peace keeping. In the main, this is so as not to upset cozy relationships and allowable procurement fraud. Yes, believe it or not, the defence industry appears to have negotiated a percentage for bungs and bribes, as allowable expenses. Such that a conference exists on the subject!


There will always be dictators, more prevalent in socialist countries, where ruthless contenders are literally handed the keys to the palace, if they are prepared to crush all remnants of lawful opposition, including beatings and murders. This situation occurred in Nazi Germany when Adolf Hitler and his thugs seized the opportunity, and in more recent times in: China, North Korea and Russia.




Socialist, or communist based administrations are on a war footing almost all of the time. Donald Trump is at least right about one thing, and that is Europe not spending enough in percentage terms on defence. Not just mundane every day incremental replenishment, but also on R&D. In forsaking continuous development, democracies are effectively handing over the lead, hence, what appears to be creating an opening for them, to try for the crown: global domination. This is no longer a 'Capitalist War' as China was fond of saying, since China and Russia now have as many billionaires as India and the US. Meaning that the Red states have a foot in each camp, as China realised the way to weaken their democratic enemies, was to infiltrate their ranks, with cheap imports and loans.


Each nation should pass laws to outlaw the ownership of infrastructure of national importance, by foreign powers.


Winning wars is a strategic logistics problem, like playing chess. You need to position your players, to defuse the Queen and capture the King. It's a good idea to look at the planet in those terms. How do you watch/defend your borders, and/or keep a weather eye on air and sea activities 24/7 to be able to detect and neutralize threats - or any build up of threats.


It's just one long, continuous, game of chess, where you cannot afford to blink.




Expansionism, does not involve Africa, Australia, Europe, India, the Middle East, North or South America. It is a peculiarity of former communist dictators: China, North-Korea and Russia. An ongoing and long term agenda to usurp democratic freedoms coveted by Red Flag waving states; Wolves in Sheep's clothing.


Traditional naval defense relies heavily on expensive, high-maintenance platforms like aircraft carriers and submarines. These assets face increasing vulnerability from evolving threats like long-range missiles and drone swarms. Potentially rendering them obsolete.




Do we really need nuclear powered aircraft carriers and submarines? Many of which have misfired recently. Do they represent good value for money?


The same question is raging about tanks and infantry. Do we need conventional heavily armoured tanks? Studies say not. Leaving us with the pomp and ceremony associated with the giant grey floating behemoths and white uniforms on deck. Those same symbols of power could represent an irresistible target, such as Japan's Yamato and Germany's Bismarck super battleships in World War Two.


Very large investments in time and money, appear to come crashing down in real regional wars. To wit the number of Russian tanks biting the dust from drone attacks in Ukraine.


At present, naval interpretations of 'Blue Growth' may be focused on maritime military dominance, presumably aimed at increasing the number of destroyers, submarines and aircraft carriers, as the main players in any conflict - at time of writing. If that is as it appears, the main players will be the superpowers: US, Russia and China, with India joining in the arms race to protect their assets.


How then might one approach the subject of 'Blue Growth,' from a beleaguered Ministry of Defence (MOD) sustaining the peace perspective, and still retain 'Blue Growth' sustainability at the core, bearing in mind that nuclear weapons are in any event deemed to be illegal (and unsustainable) under United Nations declarations, and that conventional diesel-oil heavy bunker fuels are to be phased out to comply with the International Maritime Organization's (IMOs) new clean air rules?


The concept of "Blue Growth" has traditionally focused on promoting economic prosperity through sustainable practices in the maritime domain. However, some interpretations emphasize military dominance, particularly for superpowers like the US, Russia, China, and India. Here we explore how the Ministry of Defence (MOD) can approach Blue Growth from a perspective that sustains peace, prioritizes environmental sustainability, and adheres to international regulations.


Sustainable security is not a contradiction, but rather a necessity. By embracing a "Blue Growth" approach, Ministries of Defence can maintain a strong and capable navy while contributing to a clean and healthy ocean. Through international collaboration and innovation, the MOD can ensure a secure and sustainable future for our oceans and our planet.

By adopting a "Blue Peace" approach, the MOD can ensure a strong navy while contributing to a healthy and sustainable ocean. This requires a shift in focus from sheer military might to a holistic approach that considers environmental security alongside traditional defense concerns. This approach fosters long-term stability and promotes a secure future for all nations. The only way to defeat such paradigm shift in maritime security, being to engage is a Cyber War. Thus cyber warfare, and parrying hackers, even infecting their computers, becomes of major importance. Where China has already managed to infiltrate US systems.


The traditional focus on naval might in Blue Growth can be reframed towards cooperative security. This approach emphasizes collective efforts to address shared maritime threats like piracy, terrorism, and illegal fishing. Collaborative exercises, information sharing, and capacity building for regional countries fosters trust and reduces the need for unilateral force projection.


Military fleets heavily rely on
fossil fuels, contributing to pollution and climate change. The IMO's clean air regulations necessitate a shift towards sustainable marine fuels like biofuels, hydrogen, and electric propulsion for both military and civilian vessels. Investing in research and development of these technologies not only benefits the environment, but also fosters innovation within the domestic blue economy.


The MOD'S of each nations can champion Blue Growth initiatives that enhance maritime security in a sustainable way. This could include:

- Oceanographic research: Collecting data on currents, weather patterns, and marine resources for enhanced situational awareness and disaster preparedness.

- Marine protected areas (MPAs): Collaborative efforts to establish and enforce MPAs can protect critical marine ecosystems crucial for healthy fisheries and coastal resilience.

- Sustainable aquaculture: Supporting the development of sustainable aquaculture practices can provide alternative food sources, reducing reliance on over-exploited wild fish stocks.

- Renewable energy from the sea: Integrating wave, tidal, and offshore
wind energy into military bases fosters energy independence and reduces reliance on fossil fuels.


Sustainable Blue Growth in the context of maritime security relies heavily on international cooperation. Collaborative research and development of clean technologies, shared enforcement of regulations, and joint efforts to combat transnational crime all contribute to a more stable and sustainable maritime environment.

By adopting a cooperative and environmentally conscious approach, the MOD can reconcile Blue Growth with maritime security. Prioritizing sustainable technologies, fostering innovation, and collaborating with international partners can create a more secure and healthy maritime domain for the future. This approach strengthens national security while also contributing to a thriving and sustainable
blue economy.











The current geopolitical climate presents as a complex situation. Here we consider how autonomous surface vessels (ASVs) designed for deterrence by peaceful nations could potentially counter aggressive behavior:

1. Increased Monitoring and Presence:

ASVs can patrol vast areas autonomously, providing persistent surveillance in international waters or contested zones. This can deter aggressive actions by increasing the likelihood of detection and exposure. Large numbers of unmanned vessels could be deployed at a lower cost compared to manned warships, creating a more robust deterrent presence.

2. De-escalation and Non-lethal Measures:

ASVs can be programmed to follow and harass aggressive vessels with non-lethal tactics like high-powered spotlights, loudspeakers with recorded warnings, or creating physical barriers to movement. This allows for a measured response without resorting to immediate use of force.

3. Information Gathering and Communication:

ASVs can gather real-time data on suspicious activities, including vessel movements and potential weapon deployments. This information can be relayed to manned forces for informed decision-making. ASVs can also act as communication relays, facilitating dialogue and de-escalation efforts between conflicting parties.

4. Cooperative Defense Networks:

A network of ASVs from peaceful nations, working as alliances, such as
NATO, could be established to monitor critical shipping lanes and strategic chokepoints. Collaborative efforts along these lines will strengthens deterrence and discourages aggression against international trade routes. Such as that being experiences at present in the Red Sea.




Relying solely on autonomous systems for critical decisions is risky. Human oversight and intervention capabilities should be built-in to prevent miscalculations.


Likewise, threats from military hackers needs to be addressed where ASVs are potentially vulnerable to hacking and manipulation. Robust cybersecurity measures are essential to ensure they don't become weapons themselves.


The development and deployment of autonomous weapons systems are subject to ongoing discussions and potential limitations under international law. Though, the US has already deployed such a warship. Meaning that all we are looking at is COLREGs compliance, such as "eyes on board."


Overall, ASVs offer a potential tool for peaceful nations to deter aggression without escalating tensions. However, their effectiveness relies on responsible development, clear communication of intent, and strong international cooperation.


Here we emphasize the importance of clear communication of purpose behind deploying ASVs – purely for defensive and de-escalatory purposes. There is also the potential role of ASVs in humanitarian missions like search and rescue or disaster relief operations.




Navies of the world should strive to temper their game plan in compliance with 21st Century sustainable peacekeeping, as a highly prized pinnacle, against the background of IMO clean air legislation, and United Nations' targets. Such attainment being social, moral and spiritual guidance to other nations in terms of world leadership. In itself a stabilizing attribute to be admired and emulated.


The Cleaner Ocean Foundation, is not concerned with the militaristic interpretation of 'blue-growth,' but shares it's thoughts, only to encourage Admirals and Sea-Lords to think outside the box. COF's focus is on sustainable waterborne transportation, ocean pollution, scientific exploration and conservation issues. Keeping their fingers crossed, as to eventual world peace, with food security. Where some nations are pursuing varying degrees of aggressive economic  and geographical expansion, including straying into another nations economic fishing zones.



In an era of rapidly evolving threats and constrained defense budgets, not least of which is the shortage of conscripts as cannon-fodder, it is imperative to explore innovative solutions that enhance naval capabilities while optimizing costs. Enter the Autonomous Surface Vehicle (ASV), a game-changing force multiplier that promises to revolutionize maritime operations. The following presents a compelling case for integrating ASVs into naval fleets, emphasizing their versatility, cost-effectiveness, and strategic advantages. First proposed some 10 years ago, no NATO member has budged, giving clear signals to their adversaries, to keep building conventional weapons. The first sign of movement came from Ukraine, experimenting with modified off the shelf drones to attack Russian tanks and munitions dumps.



Cost-Effectiveness: ASVs are significantly more affordable than their manned counterparts. Their construction, maintenance, and operational costs are a fraction of those associated with aircraft carriers and submarines. By deploying ASVs, naval forces can allocate precious resources elsewhere, investing in critical areas like cybersecurity, training, and infrastructure.

Versatility: ASVs can perform a wide range of missions:

- Surveillance and Reconnaissance: ASVs equipped with advanced sensors provide persistent surveillance over vast oceanic expanses.

- Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW): ASVs can hunt down and neutralize enemy submarines, reducing reliance on expensive nuclear subs.

- Mine Countermeasures: ASVs detect and neutralize underwater mines, safeguarding shipping lanes and harbors.

- Logistics Support: ASVs transport supplies, reducing strain on manned vessels.

- Reduced Risk: ASVs operate autonomously, eliminating the need for crew onboard. No lives are at stake during dangerous missions. Their modular design allows for rapid adaptation to changing threats without risking human lives.









Networked ASVs: Imagine a virtual “Sea-Net” — a tightly woven web of ASVs patrolling hotspot maritime zones. These interconnected platforms share intelligence, collaborate, and adapt dynamically. Skilled human admirals and commanders would oversee the network, making strategic decisions based on real-time data and digital intelligence gathering. (Not to be confused with the ocean filtration dustcart control system, this is just a convenient handle)

Neutralizing Threats: ASVs swarm hostile targets, overwhelming them with sheer numbers and precision. Conventional missile launches struggle against multiple adversaries that fire back. ASVs, acting as a unified force, disrupt enemy operations.


Enhancing ASV Capabilities: Each ASV might carry Vertical Takeoff and Landing (VTOL) fighters - compact, agile aircraft capable of air-to-air combat and ground support. Imagine a squadron of VTOL fighters launching from ASVs, extending the reach of naval air power to eliminate the need for an offshore aircraft carrier.

The Drone Swarm Fleet: Ten ASVs working together form a drone swarm fleet. Each ASV carries two VTOL fighters. These swarms can saturate enemy defenses, strike high-value targets, and maintain air superiority.

The seas have always been a theater of power, where nations project influence, protect their interests, and maintain peace. However, traditional naval assets - such as aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines - come with hefty price tags and operational limitations. The ASV, a fusion of cutting-edge technology and strategic vision, offers an alternative path toward maritime dominance. We feel sure both Joe Biden and Donald Trump would approve. A homeport win for either candidate in the forthcoming 2024 presidential elections.




In amongst all the advantages listed above, no nation need send conscripted soldiers, sailors or pilots to their deaths. Operational costs are also reduced where there are no need to provide food and water, waste disposal facilities, clothing, bunks, salaries, funerals or pensions.


World War II witnessed immense naval casualties due to battles, torpedoes, and sinking ships, broken down into Naval and Merchant Seamen:

Naval Personnel: Allies: Around 70,000 Allied naval personnel are estimated to have been killed in action [Source: Britannica - World War II (1939-1945)]

Merchant Seamen: Some 36,749 British merchant seamen were lost to enemy action. 


Considering just the provided figures, at least 106,749 personnel (70,000 Allied Naval + 36,749 British Merchant Seamen) perished at sea. Obviously, this does not include Japanese, Russian or Italian sailors.




Since Russia invaded Ukraine, commentators have openly worried that the escalating conflict may trigger World War III. In mid-March, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky told NBC News that a third world war “may have already started.” Ukraine’s former prime minister, Oleksiy Honcharuck, went further, declaring that “World War Three … has already begun.”  Western journalists have followed suit, with Bret Stephens responding to Russia’s invasion by writing: “This is How World War III begins” and the British press wondering whether “World War 3 [is] now a reality in Europe?”


Great power conflicts defined the 20th century: Two world wars claimed tens of millions of lives, and the Cold War that followed shaped everything from geopolitics to sports. But at the start of the 21st century, the ever-present fear of World War III seemed to be in our historic rearview mirror.

Russian land grabs in Ukraine and constant flights of bombers decorated with red stars probing Europe’s borders have put NATO at its highest levels of alert since the mid 1980s. In the Pacific, the U.S. and a newly powerful and assertive China are engaged in a massive arms race. China built more warships, warplanes nuclear bomb shelters than any other nation during the last several years, while the Pentagon just announced a strategy to “offset” it with a new generation of high-tech weapons. Indeed, it’s likely China’s alleged recent hack of federal records at the Office of Personnel Management was not about cyber crime, but a classic case of what is known as “preparing the battlefield,” gaining access to government databases and personal records just in case.

The worry is that the brewing 21st century Cold War with China and its junior partner, Russia, could at some point turn hot. “A U.S.-China war is inevitable” warned the Communist Party’s official People’s Daily newspaper after recent military face-offs over rights of passage and artificial islands built in disputed territory. This may be a bit of posturing both for U.S. policymakers and a highly nationalist domestic audience: A poll by the Perth U.S.-Asia center found that 74% of Chinese think their military would win in a war with the U.S. But it points to how the global context is changing.

World War Three could slow burn and erupt as a reordering of the global system in the late 2020s, the period at which China’s military build up is on pace to match the U.S. Arguably, lighting of the fuse to WWIII was when Russia annexed Crimea, which fizzed into realization with the invasion of Ukraine. Sparks from those actions caused Norway and Sweden to join NATO, with Ukraine hot on their heels. Notably, Putin waited for Covid19 to put a strain on European economies, lending credibility to the notion a virus was weaponized in Chinese laboratories to assist Russia. Another form of chemical warfare, perhaps.

A great power conflict would be quite different from the small wars of today that the U.S. has grow accustomed to and, in turn, others think reveal a new American weakness. Unlike the Taliban or even Saddam’s Iraq, great powers can fight across all the domains; the last time the U.S. fought a peer in the air or at sea was in 1945. But a 21st century fight would also see battles for control of two new domains.

The lifeblood of military communications and control now runs through space, meaning we’d see humankind’s first battles for the heavens. Similarly, we’d learn “cyber warfare” is far more than stealing Social Security Numbers or e-mail from gossipy Hollywood executives, but the takedown of the modern military nervous system and Stuxnet-style digital weapons. Worrisome for the U.S. is that in 2015, the Pentagon’s weapons tester found nearly every single major weapons program had “significant vulnerabilities” to cyber attack.

A total mindshift is required for this new reality. In every fight since 1945, U.S. forces have been a generation ahead in technology, having uniquely capable weapons like nuclear-powered aircraft carriers. It has not always translated to decisive victories, but it has been an edge every other nation wants. Yet U.S. forces can’t count on that “overmatch” in the future. These platforms are not just vulnerable to new classes of weapons like long-range missiles, but China, for example, overtook the EU in R&D spending in 2014, with new projects ranging from the world’s fastest supercomputers to three different long-range drone-strike programs. And now off-the-shelf technologies can be bought to rival even the most advanced tools in the U.S. arsenal. The winner of a robotics test, for instance, was not a U.S. defense contractor but a group of South Korea student engineers.

The historic trading patterns between great powers before each of the last world wars and the risky actions and heated rhetoric out of Moscow and Beijing over the last year demonstrate it is no longer useful to avoid talking about the great power rivalries of the 21st century and the dangers of them getting out of control. We need to acknowledge the real trends in motion and the real risks that loom, so that we can take mutual steps to avoid the mistakes that could create such an epic fail of deterrence and diplomacy. That way we can keep the next world war where it belongs, in the realm of fiction.







The nuclear submarine AUKUS security pact faces an uncertain future, casting shadows over British defence plans with Australia and the US.

The £286 billion nuclear submarine deal under one of Britain's biggest security pacts appears to be teetering on the brink of collapse, raising serious concerns about Australian, British and US defence plans.

The deal has faced scrutiny from defence experts, leading to warnings that it might not come to fruition.

Hugh White, an emeritus professor of strategic studies at the Australian National University and a former defence adviser, expressed scepticism about the effectiveness of the plan.

In an interview with ABC RN's Global Roaming, Professor White said: "I think the chance of the plan unfolding effectively is extremely low." He criticised the reliance on nuclear-powered submarines, citing their exorbitant cost and technical complexities.

The AUKUS security partnership, announced on September 15, 2021, between Australia, the UK, and the US, aimed to replace Australia's previous £70 billion deal with France for conventional-powered submarines.

Hugh White, an emeritus professor of strategic studies at the Australian National University and a former defence adviser, expressed scepticism about the effectiveness of the plan.


The pillars of AUKUS included the acquisition of nuclear-powered submarines and the sharing of advanced technologies like quantum computing and artificial intelligence.

Professor White outlined two main concerns regarding AUKUS. Firstly, he questioned the necessity of nuclear-powered submarines, underscoring their higher costs and operational difficulties. Secondly, he expressed doubt about Australia receiving the submarines, highlighting reliance on future decisions from the US and UK governments and formidable technical challenges.

Allan Behm, the director of the international and security affairs program at the Australia Institute, echoed doubts about the feasibility of the deal.

He raised concerns about Australia's lack of experience in maintaining nuclear-powered submarines and the potential strain on resources required for the complex endeavour.

The strategic importance of AUKUS in deterring China has also been stressed by Australian leaders, but Professor White warned of pitfalls. He suggested that AUKUS could entangle Australia in a conflict between the US and China, questioning the wisdom of committing to a war for submarines that may not be necessary.

Moreover, the estimated cost of the submarine program, reaching up to £286 billion over the next 30 years, has drawn significant criticism. Behm argued that concentrating such a substantial portion of the defence budget on this project could lead to constrained capabilities in other crucial areas.










https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/summary/the-eu-s-strategy- for-sustainable-marine-and-maritime-growth-blue-growth.html






Please use our A-Z INDEX to navigate this site



This website is Copyright © 2024 Cleaner Ocean Foundation Ltd, an equal opportunities company. This website is carbon friendly, using less energy to load on average per page via simplicity & picture optimization. The same may not apply to third party links.

The names 'HydroRacer'™ and 'HydroSport'™ are trademarks of the Cleaner Ocean Foundation, all rights reserved.