Cameron: Britain would fight another war with Argentina to keep the Falkland Islands

reply to post by waynos


Yes they sold us out - and we have been a bit lost ever since IMO

reply to post by waynos



They actually bullied us into Pound convertibility which caused a run on our currency and almost bankrupted us.

Absolutely. I added to my previous post too.

Originally posted by waynos
reply to post by HelenConway

 

One of the greatest ironies of the aftermath of WW2 is how, in the justifiable aim of avoiding a repeat of what followed WW1, The USA introduced the Marshall Aid plan investing millions of Dollars in rebuilding a shattered Europe, but an equally shattered and broken Britain, who had stood shoulder to shoulder with the US, and fought for longer, not only got nothing, but also was forced to repay war debts for the next half century.

This was how the US levered Britain away from the power table and installed itself alone facing Russia. It is also the reason why the world traded in dollars, rather than sterling, ever since 1945.

I have seen some incredibly disrespectful posts about Britain and the Empire on this thread and, while I am not going to try and paint the empire building of previous centuries as something great and beneficial, which it was for some, but not for most, people would do well to consider that amends might be considered to have been made when the British Empire took the decision to stand against Germany alone when it didn't really need to, after the fall of France, becoming the first empire in history to willingly bankrupt itself in the name of freedom from tyranny. And if you think Churchill wasn't aware of the consequences of this stand, there is plenty of source material including his own diaries from the time.

Americans bang on about gratitude for their help (or winning the war for us as some like to see it), but how about some recognition of this lonely defiance with no indication the US would ever get involved militarily? Without what Britain and its empire and the refugee fighters from the conquered nations did America would never have had the opportunity in the first place and the eventual stand off between the USA alone against the Nazi Empire could have had a very different outcome.

edit on 12-1-2013 by waynos because: (no reason given)

Very well said. Britain suffered a terrible price but I believe that blood forfeit started in the totally pointless slaughter of WW1 . - ' lions led by donkeys' - the buffoons mascerading as generals and leaders.

It makes my blood boil, I know many other countries suffered terribly too .. like Australia and Canada and in the last year America We have been led down the path of slaughter and misery by incompetent and evil leaders again and again IMO. It is time we as a people insist that we have a country run for the benefit of the people not the politicians.

Originally posted by SprocketUK
There are two parts to this, really.
1 can we successfully defend the islands against an attack? I think so, remember that in 1982 there was no air cover, no fighting ships and only 30 odd marines on the islands. Even then they crippled a couple of Corvettes.
These days there are lots of troops, land based aircraft, sams, a frigate and a sub.
I don't even think an allied-South American force could push us off before reinforcements got there. It would take the yanks to see us off...or a similarly equipped, trained and massive force. None of the south Americans could hope to get to that stage for years.

2 could we take them back if we lost them?
No. No carriers, stripped down army...our cupboard is bare. It was close back in 82 (supply wise) but we are way lighter on stuff now. We'd have to go to the UN or nuke Buenosaires and hope that frightens them enough to give the islands back.

You see....I think we could take them back without an aircraft carrier, don't get me wrong, an aircraft carrier would be bloody useful! But it's possible. I'd imagine we could launch jets of the Ascension Islands to gain air superiority and maintain air-strikes on Argentine position (on the Falklands ofcourse) and on battleships, possibly subs. Then we could launch an amphibious assault with our marines, again back up with the Tornadoes, drop in the psychotic Para's who'd rain lead on the Argentines, job done.

Wonder if Cameron would be in the front line when defending his ego ...
Defending the Falklands would be a obvious choice ..No need for Cameron to start beating the War drums

as a UK citizen i couldn't care a less about the Falklands ..what i do care about is my taxes paying for yet another Corporate war ... Fortunately i don't see it happening in my life time

reply to post by Krono


It took 16 Victor tankers to put 1 Vulcan bomber over Port Stanley. No RAF fast jet is capable of making that trip today, however a sub with 50 cruise missiles carries its own air power.

Originally posted by christafinias

Originally posted by michael1983l

Originally posted by NateHatred
offer them the falklands back minus the oil rights they wont take it, us brits have too many bird lovers and send them there to be with the penguins.
then we can sell the oil rights to america again!

The Islands are not the British Governments to offer to Argentina for a start as much as the oil is also not the British governments to take. We are protecting the soverignty of the Islanders that is all, they Govern themselves on all other levels and yes this does include them having the sole rights to the profits from the Oil extracted from their waters.

It would still be taxable? or not

From what I can gather, the only revenue the UK Government would get would be on gross profits from any UK registered oil firm through Corporation tax, just as they do from BP's activities around the world.. The actual direct taxation on the Oil will be the prerogative of the Falklands Island Government.

Originally posted by HelenConway
who are sorely depleted and facing redundancy - and the small matter of no hawker harrier jumpjets / aircraft for the aircraft carriers indeed we do not even have any ACC anymore ...

Not really. Bear in mind, we built the Empire with a smaller Army than we do these days and the capability the guys have now would make you think again about putting them down.

Originally posted by HelenConway
The armed forces has shrunk on a massive scale since the 1980s .. maybe Argentina is the only foe we may be able to fight off !

Our Navy is still the 4th or 5th largest in the world, one of only a few that operates Nuclear submarines, one of only a few with a real amphibious capability and we have 2 shiny new carriers being built, alongside over a dozen new Frigates to be ready for 2020. Not to mention the Astute order has actually been increased from 6 to 7 boats.

Originally posted by HelenConway
We have a defensive army now - not an offensive army ..the Navy once the largest in the world is now piddling and the RAF has been downscaled ..

I'm sorry, this clearly shows your lack of knowledge with things military. Our Army is structured around expeditionary operations, the same it has been for around 150 years. We can maintain for a short period (6-9 months) a division sized combat element or have two brigade sized forced in two seperate operational theatres simultaneously for an indefinite period.

Our Air force is being restructured with an emphasis on UAV's, of which we are a world leader, hence why the fast jet fleet has been shrunk. Never the less, the aircraft we have are amongst the most capable in the world, far and above what the Argentines fly, hence why we get large export orders for them.

Originally posted by HelenConway
There is no way the British could maintain or attain air supremacy and that is the main reason that they won the last battle / skurmish / war in the Falklands

Ha, really? Do explain how we could fail in doing so? Stanley is a fully sized, operational airfield with a flight of Typhoons on standby. Not only that, but we have a Type 45 in situ. These alone are enough to see off the Argentine airforce. In the last war, the Argentines had the numerical air superiority and the terrain advantage (Skyhawks used the Islands themselves to avoid British radar) but still lost over 100 aircraft against our 30 odd Harriers, while we lost none.

Originally posted by HelenConway
I am not military expert but in the first conflict the British very nearly did NOT achieve air supremacy and I think there would need to be aircraft carriers and troop carriers which we do not have .

We never had air supremacy during the last conflict and still muddled through. As for carriers, the first new one is due in service in 2 years and we have 1 helo carrier already, plus several amphibious assault ships. We haven't had dedicated troop transports since WW2, instead we press-gang cruise liners as it is more efficient.

Originally posted by HelenConway
Even in the 1980s they had to bring in the Canberra and the QE2 to transport the troops / marines - the naval capacity is much worse now.

Again, if you understood the military you'd know why. All RORO ferries are designed in such a manner as being capable of landing in as little as 6 inches of water just in case the UK needs big landing vessels. The DotR Act makes provisions for any UK ship to be appropriated by the UK MoD and that dates from 1915.

Originally posted by HelenConway
It would be like Dunkirk again- getting a flotilla of little civilian tug boats to transport people and goods, we do not have a defensive military capacity these days,

##snipped##

Originally posted by waynos
reply to post by Krono

 

It took 16 Victor tankers to put 1 Vulcan bomber over Port Stanley. No RAF fast jet is capable of making that trip today, however a sub with 50 cruise missiles carries its own air power.

Where does that leave our armed forces then if the sub is taken out ???? Up ^hit creek without a paddle ?

reply to post by HelenConway


And, pray tell, how exactly is Argentina with their "fleet" of half a dozen redundant RN cast off's, going to locate and destroy the most advanced attack submarine in the world?

Admittedly, it is dangerous being so confident in one's weapons systems hence why we have 7 of them on order (3 are in service I believe) and they could strike lucky, but this is a platform even the Yanks are creaming over.

reply to post by stumason


Stu is 100% right here, the Astute class submarine is 'stealth' and can do things like 'hover' in the water (very very few subs are acutally able to do this) making it extremely hard for first rate navies such as Americas to detect on Sonar never mind Argentinas'.

As for the T45, ALL the hype is true and then some. It is a stealth ship, said to have the same radar signature as a small fishing boat. It has a hangar bay large enough to accomodate a Merlin helicopter, these are used in anti-submarine warfare, but is also capable of carrying an Apache if needed.

When its radar was first switched on for testing in Portsmouth it almost instantaneously locked onto and started tracking every aircraft taking off or landing from Charles de Gaul, Schipol and Heathrow plus a few other smaller ones.

This is a radar capable of tracking and locking onto something as small as a cricket ball travelling at Mach 3. In real terms that means it can lock onto and track the 'stealth' fighters that Russia are building, such as the PAK FA T50 (not really stealth to the Royal Navy), Argentina doesn't have access to anything as 'advanced' as the PAK FA..

It is because of this ship that it can be argued we don't need so called 5th gen planes for RAF (the JSF will be though...please don't get me started on it!) if you can see the 'stealth' plane on radar then it isn't stealth and comes down to dogfighting ability, something which quite often gets sacrificed for 'stealth'. The Eurofighter Typhoon is considered to be one of the best dogfighters available and 4 are permanently based on the Falklands.

So, for Argentina it isn't just a case of having to destroy 1 wonder weapon but many.