I see the Argentinean govt is getting quite noisy again and I suspect that the entire south american sub-continent would rally around them should they
decide they want to have a go.
Do we have the staff, equipment and will to repel any invasion of the islands?
Would the USA honour our 'special relationship' and help out?
Would the EU stand up for one of its own?
Be interested to hear what folks views are on this one...
in short, no.
quote:
Would the EU stand up for one of its own?
No, 1 aircraft carrier but no aircraft for the carrier! That was a clever defence cut!
I was in the RN last time this happened. The major difference this time is there is a decent standing force on the Islands which would deter most
attacks.
If the question is "could we take it back again, assuming it was invaded" the answer is unlikely given the lack of fixed wing aircraft on
carriers, although the Sea Harriers where hardly the last word in fighter aircraft and we have only had RAF Harriers on the carriers for many years
now.
We could certainly make it very uncomfortable for anyone trying to hold the Islands and have the amphibious & helicopter capability to invade but
the lack of air cover would be the deciding issue. How many warships are you prepared to lose this time?
i spent 4 months there we have a lot of things there all on standby ready for a kick off
quote:
Originally posted by IainL
No, 1 aircraft carrier but no aircraft for the carrier! That was a clever defence cut!
We likely would cos there's oil involved 
though personally I don't understand the rationale for claiming ownership of tiny islands miles away from our own shores and right next to the
shores of another country..... It would seem more logical to give them back.
e.g. who should these islands belong to? It's a bit like the French owning the Isle of Wight (though I don't think they want it!)
I think that the UN would have to help, if not just sell the oil to the chines at a discount and ask them to go and get it.
South America would not want that.
The question is, do you British people feel that Folkland islands defence is a patriotic affair?
I believe that Mrs Thatcher, back in '90s, took over the islands to "conquer" people's confidence (and vote ) and the result
was austerity measures and uneployment.
[Edited on 2/1/12 by DRCorsa]
The Falklands have not, at any time in history, been a legitimate Argentine territory. There's no "Give them Back" because they have never belonged to any South American nation.
I'm still in hope of Turkey leaving Cyprus, same difference.
quote:
Originally posted by Toprivetguns
I'm still in hope of Turkey leaving Cyprus, same difference.
Probably upset a lot of people, But if it wasn't for Maggies stuborn nature we wouldn't be having this discussion they'd already be
Argentinian,
tony
The americans are already siding with Argentina over the islands, oil talks to the americans. No such thing as a special relationship when oil is involved.
You could offer every Islander (approx 2,000 of 'em) £1,000,000 each and it would be a far cheaper option than trying to preserve British
sovereignty. (Quite apart from any loss of life involved).
I believe we wouldn't be successful in defending the Falklands (and equally, in attempting to re-take them) because we have so little of what we
had last time around. (a leader with cojones), no Harriers and no carriers, a much reduced surface fleet and no long range bomber force.
If you read the history of the last conflict, it was a far closer-run affair than most folk realise, especially when the exocets started hitting their
targets and incinerating our troops. The political will of Mrs T in her standoff with Galtieri and his military junta meant he 'blinked
first' following the sinking of the Belgrano.
Oil may be a factor now, (as it doubtless was 30 years ago), but we live in a different world now. N. Korea, Iran, Al Qaeda and the Middle East in
general are festering sores that need addressing long before the Falklands appears on the radar screen.
Half a world away, is it really worth risking yet more service-lives in a conflict for which are not equipped for a few barrels of oil? Don't
forget, that in the eyes of many, we are still seen as a former colonial power, and thus are always tagged as the aggressors, whatever the
circumstances and public perception is crucial for any support we may seek.
As for Obama! He's trying to save his skin and get re-elected for a second term. I can't see any evidence that US support would be anything
other than luke-warm at best. (Just like last time when Reagan was president).
I don't think we'd get much support from the 'cheese-eating surrender-monkeys' nor the rest of the EU come to that.
(just my two penn'orth).
Bob.
Its easy...
ASK the People who live on the Island, who they want to be ruled by.
In some ways they are more British than a lot of people living in the UK today.
If they wanted it, it might be different.
We have No Right to say these islands should be given away to any other country. We have a duty to the current inhabitants who hold UK passports by
right of birth.
You would like it if you lived there, to be told you are to become a foreign national of another country which you probably don't want to live in
or be under their Gov't.
Lets face it living in the UK may not be ideal.
We do a have a decent health service (compared to the majority of the rest of the world).
A Pension scheme and many more benefits that just simply do not exist in other countries.
We dont have death squads, and people dont just "dissapear" due to their religeous or political beliefs.
You can get on your podium at Hyde Park Corner, and say more or less what you please to anyone with the time to listen to you.
Try doing that in Iran, or North Korea, or a host of other countries, including some South American ones.
The Falklands have been under the UK's Control and part of our teritories continuously for 170+ years. Why the hell should we give it away, or
not protect those people who live there? Its ours, and it should stay ours.
Would you give parts of your garden away to a neighbour just becuase he starts partolling his boundary waving his cricket bat... NOT FRIGGING
LIKELY... Would You?
Sorry but I feel quite strongly about giving bits our our lands and peoples away, just because some NON UK person / country covets / wants it.
</Rant>
So I guess when oil is discovered by the French on the Isle of Wight, nobody will mind them invading and throwing all the brits off it then ?
Good debate Scott - If Norway invaded Scotland, count me in for the fight, as they would get one from me....
Whether this half arranged, consortium government could make a decision that Clogg could comfortably nod too, I very much doubt it.
Falkand Islanders deserve our support, the world corn beef suppliers only remain interested in Malvinas for the same reasons we are !
quote:
Originally posted by wilkingj
Its easy...
ASK the People who live on the Island, who they want to be ruled by.
In some ways they are more British than a lot of people living in the UK today.
If they wanted it, it might be different.
We have No Right to say these islands should be given away to any other country. We have a duty to the current inhabitants who hold UK passports by right of birth.
You would like it if you lived there, to be told you are to become a foreign national of another country which you probably don't want to live in or be under their Gov't.
Lets face it living in the UK may not be ideal.
We do a have a decent health service (compared to the majority of the rest of the world).
A Pension scheme and many more benefits that just simply do not exist in other countries.
We dont have death squads, and people dont just "dissapear" due to their religeous or political beliefs.
You can get on your podium at Hyde Park Corner, and say more or less what you please to anyone with the time to listen to you.
Try doing that in Iran, or North Korea, or a host of other countries, including some South American ones.
The Falklands have been under the UK's Control and part of our teritories continuously for 170+ years. Why the hell should we give it away, or not protect those people who live there? Its ours, and it should stay ours.
Would you give parts of your garden away to a neighbour just becuase he starts partolling his boundary waving his cricket bat... NOT FRIGGING LIKELY... Would You?
Sorry but I feel quite strongly about giving bits our our lands and peoples away, just because some NON UK person / country covets / wants it.
</Rant>
quote:
Originally posted by wilkingj
Its easy...
ASK the People who live on the Island, who they want to be ruled by.
In some ways they are more British than a lot of people living in the UK today.
If they wanted it, it might be different.
We have No Right to say these islands should be given away to any other country. We have a duty to the current inhabitants who hold UK passports by right of birth.
You would like it if you lived there, to be told you are to become a foreign national of another country which you probably don't want to live in or be under their Gov't.
Lets face it living in the UK may not be ideal.
We do a have a decent health service (compared to the majority of the rest of the world).
A Pension scheme and many more benefits that just simply do not exist in other countries.
We dont have death squads, and people dont just "dissapear" due to their religeous or political beliefs.
You can get on your podium at Hyde Park Corner, and say more or less what you please to anyone with the time to listen to you.
Try doing that in Iran, or North Korea, or a host of other countries, including some South American ones.
The Falklands have been under the UK's Control and part of our teritories continuously for 170+ years. Why the hell should we give it away, or not protect those people who live there? Its ours, and it should stay ours.
Would you give parts of your garden away to a neighbour just becuase he starts partolling his boundary waving his cricket bat... NOT FRIGGING LIKELY... Would You?
"It's easy."
Oh Dear oh dear oh dear!
It is easy when you sit in an armchair with no idea of what military conflict and it's consequences mean.
Desensitization by playing too many shoot-em-up computer games I fear.
"Sorry but I feel quite strongly about giving bits our our lands and peoples away, just because some NON UK person / country covets / wants it."
Strong enough to go and fight for them 'armchair warrior?'
I did last time. Now it's your turn.
They're ours - keep them.
Don't forget we've got some brave boys and girls buried
down there, if we give them away ( not back !) they died
for nothing.
Logistical nightmare to defend but never under estimate
true British grit - we have the best armed and special
forces in the world - just less of them thanks to successive
Governments short sightedness.
Thought this was an interesting piece by Ian Dunt (a rarity for him!)...
Argentina's (mostly illusionary) economic resurgence has a disappointing side-effect. It prompts regular bouts of sabre-rattling over the
Falklands Islands.
Its glamorous president, Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, is prone to issuing tetchy attacks on Britain, not least of all her insistence that the UK is
"a crass colonial power in decline". That last point is neither entirely false nor particularly interesting, but it is about 50 years out of
date.
It's been getting worse recently. British licensed fishing boats are being intercepted by Argentina. It announced last year that boats sailing to
or from the Falkland, South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands would require permission to pass through Argentine water.
Kirchner's neighbours, eager to win the approval of a country with a strong economy and a long history of cultural and political dominance in
Latin America, have helped where they can. Uruguayan president Jose Mujica last week announced a ban on Falklands boats using his country's
ports. This week, in a move that surprised the Foreign Office, the Mercosur bloc, which includes major players like Brazil, voted to close their ports
to ships flying the Falklands flag.
Thanking her allies, Kirchner painted a picture of a predatory British state patrolling the waters of the world, looking to snatch up land.
"Malvinas [the Argentine name for the islands] is not an Argentine cause," she said. "It is a global cause, because in the Malvinas
they are taking our oil and fishing resources. And when there is need for more resources those who are strong are going to look for them wherever and
however they can."
Stereotypes of the British as Victorian-era imperialists are as cack-handed and ignorant as jokes about the Germans still being Nazis, but they play
well to her domestic audience, who are still bruised by the war and Argentina's perpetual obsession with its own cultural superiority - a sort of
Japan of the Latin Americas.
Given that the islands are of very little strategic or resource value, one might wonder why Britain should bother to spend considerable money and
diplomatic capital just so everyone can assume that we're violent imperialists in the Braveheart vein. The reason is very simple. We are
protecting the people of the Falklands from a foreign government whose only claim to the territory is at the intellectual level of a five-year-old
child: namely, that it is close by.
Historians are uncertain who landed on the islands first, but it was either the Portuguese, the Spanish or the British and it happened sometime in the
16th century. The Patagonian Indians may have, and indeed probably did, visit earlier. They weren't there when the Europeans got there. These
were uninhabited islands. After much coming and going, the British set up a naval station in 1834, and a permanent colony six years later. It's
from this colony that the inhabitants of the islands come.
Part of the British stake is therefore that it has overseen a continuous administration of the islands since the 19th century. But its real claim is
that it is protecting the islanders' self-determination. There is one person on the Falklands islands who wishes to be Argentinean. His names is
James Peck and he is 43 years old. Everyone else is a British citizen, wishes to remain under British government, and is entitled to our
protection.
The Argentine claim, that it acquired the islands from Spain when it became independent in 1811, is a telling signal of who the imperialists really
are. By piggybacking on the contested properties owned by its former colonial master, the Argentine case shows how superficial that bluster about the
'rule of the powerful' really is.
The ownership of small islands does not derive by geographical proximity, or else we had better start redrawing the world map. Perhaps Cuba should be
enveloped by the US. The idea that small islands near larger countries should be folded into their control is international relations reduced to mere
thuggery. That is the real rule of the strong over the weak. The protection of peoples' self-determination to choose their own government is the
protection of the weak from the strong.
With so cheap a reasoning behind its continued claims, the Argentine case for the Falklands can be seen for what it really is: an aspiration to
express national pride through territorial ownership. It is no coincidence that a far-right military junta decided to try to take the islands by force
in 1982, partly to distract from its own economic inadequacies and partly out of the need for right-wing dictatorships to gather momentum by virtue of
perceived strength.
This bullying approach has always been a feature of Argentine aspirations towards the islands. They appealed to the UN in 1945 to establish their
sovereignty but when the UK tried to submit the case the international courts of justice at the Hague two years later, Argentina refused the offer. Of
course it did. The court would have put the rights of the islanders first, a factor which instantaneously dismisses Argentina's claim.
This is not a profitable venture for Britain. Reports of oil in the 1970s proved to be over-enthusiastic, even though, according to some histories,
their promotion in the British press encouraged moves in Buenos Aires. There was an agreement between Britain and Argentina to explore for offshore
resources in 1995 after some optimistic geological surveys, by the Latin American country pulled out two years later. Climate conditions make
exploration difficult and test well results are mostly disappointing. It doesn't look commercially viable.
British protection of the Falklands is not about money or resources or strategic advantage. After all these years and the temporary humiliation of the
Falklands invasion, of course there is an element of emotion about it. Losing the Falklands after all Britain has sacrificed for it would lose face as
well. It would be absurd to pretend otherwise. But this is primarily about self-determination, the rights of people to live free from the expansionist
folly of their arrogant, stronger neighbours.
Any Latin American with a sense of history should know what that is like. For over 100 years, the US has overthrown democratic left-wing governments
in the continent. It has trained genocidal paramilitaries, it has funded tyrannical murderers, it has invaded and privatised and tested chemicals on
the people of Latin America. It has watched the region turn into a hotbed of crime and anarchy due to its imposition of social-Darwinist economic
policies.
To daub Britain in the colours of the US for doing the precise opposite, for respecting people's self-determination, is a historical irony of
extraordinary cruelty. Argentina's claim to the Falklands is that of the bully towards his victim.
As I seem to recall, its not the oil on/under the Falklands that keeps it British, its the islands proximity to the mineral and oil deposits within
the SouthPole. The Falkland Islands, and South Georgia, are just stepping stones for us to reach the good stuff further South.
Have we got the balls to defend the islands? Our government can't stop a bunch of kids from raping the streets of London so I doubt they could
even if 'we' had the money. We'd need the A-Team. The proper one with Mr T. And perhaps the Equaliser for some UK brains.
quote:
Originally posted by bobinspain
"It's easy."
Oh Dear oh dear oh dear!
It is easy when you sit in an armchair with no idea of what military conflict and it's consequences mean.
Desensitization by playing too many shoot-em-up computer games I fear.
"Sorry but I feel quite strongly about giving bits our our lands and peoples away, just because some NON UK person / country covets / wants it."
Strong enough to go and fight for them 'armchair warrior?'
I did last time. Now it's your turn.
First of all. You have absolutely NO IDEA of who I am, or what my experiences in life are.
Please do not assume that I am a 20 year old who sits in front of a Playstation or X-Box all day shooting animated characters on their TV screen.
I have not played computer games since owning a BBC micro 30 years ago. (4 colours and 32kb of Ram!)
I am not desensitized by playing games. (I dont play them, I have far better uses for my PC)
I do not need to know what your experiences of life are. They are immaterial to me.
My replies to posts are made based on the content of the topics to which I reply and the opinions expressed therein. In your original post, in my
opinion, yours were trite, gung-ho and ill-considered.
I make no assumptions as to your age. I don't care if you're as old as Methuselah (which you'd need to be to be my father). Your age
provides no indemnity from criticism in any event and if I think you're wrong I'll say so, whether you be Prime Minister or pauper.
Good for you that owned a computer 30 years ago.
40 years ago, I was a fast-jet navigator so 'borrowed' my anti-deluvial on-board computer from HMG for the duration of every sortie.
There's too much sabre-rattling by the Argentinians and jingoistic nonsense spouted by our side at present. There needs to be rational
discussion, not confrontation. I am not an 'appeaser' and certainly, no apologist.
Have a peaceful 2012. (It is in your power to do so)
Bob.
As I understand it, the Argentinians would need major re-equipping in order to gain the capability to take the islands from the UK by force (without assistance.....). The forces/plans in place are sufficient to defend the islands.
No, No and thrice No
I was there a couple of decades ago, not the end of the world but you could see it from there.
I would not care to go there again for any reason. Nothing there but a load of sheep and a lot of closely related people.
If we need a foothold in Antarctica it would be better I we had a permanent outpost there, abandoned the malvinas to the Argies and resettled the
Falklanders on the Scottish isles, plenty of room up there, or even the Isle of Wight (might deter the french). Probably a far cheaper option than
keeping a permanent military presence there.
That seems a far better solution than the option of another "conflict" the cost of which could well be the last straw for this country not
to mention the probable loss of life for those involved.
@ wilkingj-----"We dont have death squads, and people dont just "dissapear" due to their religeous or political beliefs." Are you
entirely sure about that? Diana , David Kelly? that's just 2 that spring to mind without any effort.
We can't even secure our own boarders here so not sure how we can defend lands far away....
I think it's less about the number of aircraft carriers and more about the troops on the ground (pretty much as it was last time).
There are a number of troops on rotation through the islands and a fast jet contigent from the RAF, so that would keep back any attempted invasion.
We can also project our power around the globe much more efficiently and quickly than the last time round, especially when we already have plenty
boots and kit on the ground.
Then there's the quality of troops. We gave them a damn good thrashing last time using troops who had largely not been very far or done anything
other than prepare for the USSR to steam roll across europe.
Currently we have well equipped, very experienced, and battle hardened troops after 10 years of front line fighting. Those same troops would also be
exteremely highly motivated as they would be undertaking the combat opertaions they are so good at in defence of their own sovereign territory.
I don't think the average Argy troop could compare in kit, motivation or ability.
http://thevelvetrocket.com/2010/02/21/could-britain-re-take-the-falkland-islands-again-its-not-1982-anymore/
This makes interesting reading and pretty salutary too.
Since this article was written, we've lost a lot more materiel and men from our armed forces. eg armed forces personnel in 1982 numbered
320,000.
Currently, there are 189,000.
[Edited on 2/1/12 by bobinspain]
quote:
Originally posted by Toprivetguns
I'm still in hope of Turkey leaving Cyprus, same difference.
quote:
Originally posted by BenB
quote:
Originally posted by Toprivetguns
I'm still in hope of Turkey leaving Cyprus, same difference.
Eh? you been to Cyprus? I think Syria has a better claim to ownership than Greece.
Sorry, I love Greece and I love the Greeks but Cyprus is logically part of Turkey. It's so far up inside Turkish territory if it went any further it would be in the middle east.
Anyway, if you want look at the history of the partition it's cos the Greek Cypriots started an uprising against the Brits which didn't exactly include the Turkish Cypriots in their plans. End result civil war. I know that's not the popular opinion but hey....
Sod the division, go up the Karpaz peninsula. See the Greek and Turkish Cypriots side by side and go and sink a few beers.
quote:
Originally posted by BenB
quote:
Originally posted by Toprivetguns
I'm still in hope of Turkey leaving Cyprus, same difference.
Eh? you been to Cyprus? I think Syria has a better claim to ownership than Greece.
Sorry, I love Greece and I love the Greeks but Cyprus is logically part of Turkey. It's so far up inside Turkish territory if it went any further it would be in the middle east.
Anyway, if you want look at the history of the partition it's cos the Greek Cypriots started an uprising against the Brits which didn't exactly include the Turkish Cypriots in their plans. End result civil war. I know that's not the popular opinion but hey....
Sod the division, go up the Karpaz peninsula. See the Greek and Turkish Cypriots side by side and go and sink a few beers.
quote:
Originally posted by StevieB
I think it's less about the number of aircraft carriers and more about the troops on the ground (pretty much as it was last time).
There are a number of troops on rotation through the islands and a fast jet contigent from the RAF, so that would keep back any attempted invasion. We can also project our power around the globe much more efficiently and quickly than the last time round, especially when we already have plenty boots and kit on the ground.
Then there's the quality of troops. We gave them a damn good thrashing last time using troops who had largely not been very far or done anything other than prepare for the USSR to steam roll across europe.
Currently we have well equipped, very experienced, and battle hardened troops after 10 years of front line fighting. Those same troops would also be exteremely highly motivated as they would be undertaking the combat opertaions they are so good at in defence of their own sovereign territory.
I don't think the average Argy troop could compare in kit, motivation or ability.
This is an interesting graph
Bit late into this one....but.....
With Mount Pleasant airfield operating highly capable Typhoon aircraft (no matter what speculation says, they are better than the press would have -
see Libya conflict for proof) against the Argentine ageing air fleet (effectively not much more modern than it was back in '82....it's not
only the UK suffering cutbacks in defence spending), rapid troop and aircraft reinforcement strategy (can shift stuff fast these days), and one of
them terrifying Astute's - capable of launcing deep into Argentine territory - lurking nearby (maybe....and maybe not - but if you were in the
position of pushing the button to deploy Argentine troops against the Falkland Isles it would be at the forefront of your mind i guess....? Astute is
exactly what it is described as - a 'deterrent'...) I think that the Falklanders (British nationals on British territory remember with as
much right to have their sovereignty defended as those living in the Orkeney's, for instance) have a fair chance of keeping the Union flag flying
high....
I think somebody commented previously that Argentina has never owned the islands....so they can't reclaim something they never owned....if they
do then I am going to claim back the house next door to me using the same logic...I can because my neighbours don't have an Astute in the back
garden to put me off.....
Just my two penn'orth.....