War...was is it good for?

mudcow007

Just been listening to Radio 2 an there was a heated discussion about the Falklands an Prince William being posted out there.

Supposedly the posting of William has antagonised some of the "Argies" an they see it as a build up to something

so what do you think, do you reckon we should give the Falklands back or stick two fingers up at them an relish in all our Falkland island goodness?

cornerblock

I'm trying to sing that title, but something's not right. Huh, say it again.

Mr Sworld

What? Give up a place with a military grade airstrip not far from the last unexploited continent on earth?

We won't be giving that away...

SimonAH

What?

Sorry, I was listening to the same thing. John Gaunt is a pirck, no wonder he was a Sun Journalist - he sounds like he's reading from a mid eighties copy everytime he opens his gob.

My tuppence;

1) Sending William there is stupid, it is obviously inflammatory at this time.

2) Sod 'em, by right of might and reasonably recent history the Falklands are British.

3) If Scotland devolves does England have to give them a bit of the Falklands to be Scottish?

rebs

I think sending William is irrelivent. Any excuse would give Argentina a chance to bang on about the place.

The islanders didnt want to be part of Artgintine rule and are free to not be under British Rule from what I can see. Arrgentina had the best oppotunity to get the falklands once and for are in the 80's and fluffed it up. The Islands have been under British Rule since 1833.... why change that now?

Are Argentina in any position to go to war again? Our Navy arn't. Always wanted to know why NATO never kicked into gear over the Falklands? It's the only member that has been attacked by another country since it was formed? I know the Stories that the French intelligence were working big time for Britain but was hardly a bold stance.

Lets not kid ourself though. This is only an issue because of resources just off the coast of the falklands.

il_principe

rebs wrote:

Lets not kid ourself though. This is only an issue because of resources just off the coast of the falklands.

For Britain? Whilst selling Exocets to the Argies?

Gotta love the French.

NGale

With the Type 45 destroyer the Navy is actually a little more capable than some would think. The Navy of today may be smaller than that of the Falklands War 30 years ago, but with new weaponry in form of the Sea Viper (instead of the old Sea Dart) and the ability to carry the Tomahawk missile the RN can afford to be smaller.

The problem however is in the aircraft carriers, we don't have any. Unless we are to start getting aircraft out to the islands now in anticipation of a possible invasion we simply wouldn't have the air power needed to fight a war. We may have the capability in the form of the Army, RM and Navy but the RAF are a vital component of any modern war.

As for Prince William being deployed out there. Yes it is a routine deployment, but as with anything the routine can be changed and it could have just as easily been delayed to a time when it would have been less sensitive. The 30th anniversary really wasn't the right time.

30 years ago Argentina made one big mistake. It wasn't that they invaded the islands in the first place but that the soldiers they sent in were predominantly 17/18 year olds conscripted unprofessional men. When faced with the likes of the Royal Marines and Parachute Regiment they didn't stand a chance. Argentina wouldn't make that same mistake again.

t4tomo

Nothing like a good war to take our minds off a recession.

I say bring it on and conscript some of our rioting youths in the process - teach them a bit of discipline.

Pufftmw

The thing that I always consider relevant is that the Falklands were under British control before Argentina was even a recognised country! How they can then think they have a claim is beyond me...


They currently haven't got the capacity to launch an invasion so long may that last as well.

Wallace1492

The world has moved on since 1982, the cold war is long gone, and really no-one should even be contenplating some sort of military confict between two modern democracies.

Trying to compare the military of the two countries and the readiness, really sounds as though it can be contenplated. Is that an easy thing to accept then.

Argentina invaded in 1982 in what was the last throes of a dictatorship desperately trying to cling to power, it backfired. Though did we really need to go to war? Was it worth it. I have no doubts that Galtieri and his henchmen would still have fallen, but maybe later than sooner.....

rick_chasey

Il Principe wrote:

rebs wrote:

Lets not kid ourself though. This is only an issue because of resources just off the coast of the falklands.

For Britain? Whilst selling Exocets to the Argies?

Gotta love the French.

Britain hardly comes out looking golden if you start chatting about arms selling :P

Didn't Britain sell a load of arms to Iraq in the '90s?

Re the Fauklands, is really worth the human expenditure to defend it? I'm not sure.

Mr Sworld

t4tomo wrote:

Nothing like a good war to take our minds off a recession.

Worked very nicely for Thatcher after all....

Dougal_bug

I think keep them, at the end of the day, the falklanders have always claimed to want to be associated with the UK, and we are their protectors so to speak, as a result.

Interestingly, I don't know how commonly known this is, but, we are effectively still at war with Argentina over these islands. A ceasefire was agreed, but no further progress has been made with neither side ever having surrendered, or calling for the end of the war.

Our American cousins, about 10 years ago stated saying publicly that we should give up our call on the falklands, which resulted in a backlash from the general public and the islanders themselves.

Also, yes this may be the nearest land we have to unchartered waters, but it isn't that safe getting their. My brother was based there for 9 months, and admittedly this was some years back. They are transported to the Ascension Iles (sp.) and then flown on from there. At the half way point of this last jump they have to make a decision to either go for it and continue on to Falklands or turn around. If the weather turns they have to divert, and that diversion cannot be to the nearest country - Argentina for obvious reasons. If they don't find anywhere to land that's it, there is no way of getting back to the Ascension Iles, apparently

Ben6899

If Argentina want to raise the old Falklands issue again, then I suggest we let them bring it. And they'll get another good hiding.

rick_chasey

Didn't more Brits die in that war than inhabitants on the island? Or am I mistaken?

spen666

mudcow007 wrote:

Just been listening to Radio 2 an there was a heated discussion about the Falklands an Prince William being posted out there.

Supposedly the posting of William has antagonised some of the "Argies" an they see it as a build up to something

so what do you think, do you reckon we should give the Falklands back or stick two fingers up at them an relish in all our Falkland island goodness?

How can we give something back to somewhere that never had it?

Argentina has no valid claim to the Islands

rick_chasey

spen666 wrote:

mudcow007 wrote:

Just been listening to Radio 2 an there was a heated discussion about the Falklands an Prince William being posted out there.

Supposedly the posting of William has antagonised some of the "Argies" an they see it as a build up to something

so what do you think, do you reckon we should give the Falklands back or stick two fingers up at them an relish in all our Falkland island goodness?

How can we give something back to somewhere that never had it?

Argentina has no valid claim to the Islands

Neither did Britain originally.

rick_chasey

Rick Chasey wrote:

Didn't more Brits die in that war than inhabitants on the island? Or am I mistaken?

Am mistaken:
Argentina:
Casualties and losses
649 killed
1,068 wounded
11,313 taken prisoner

---

1 cruiser
1 submarine
4 cargo vessels
2 patrol boats
1 spy trawler

---

25 helicopters
35 fighters
2 bombers
4 transports
25 COIN aircraft
9 armed trainers


UK
258 killed[4]
775 wounded
115 taken prisoner

---

2 destroyers
2 frigates
1 LSL landing ship
1 LCU amphibious craft
1 container ship

---

24 helicopters
10 fighters

Population: - July 2008 estimate 3,140

Says Wikipedia.

So a equivalent to roughly a third of its inhabitants died in the war on both sides.

greg66_tri_v2.0

My quick skim through wiki discloses that the Spanish held the Falklands for a while; since 1833 they have been British; and that the country now recognised as Argentina was founded in 1862. There may have been some occupation by something called the Union of the River Plate before 1833, but (a) that's not Argentina; (b) the Union didn't come knocking after 1833.

So, if we have had the islands since before modern Argentina existed, where does the "back" in "give them back" come from?

Wallace1492

Rick Chasey wrote:

spen666 wrote:

mudcow007 wrote:

Just been listening to Radio 2 an there was a heated discussion about the Falklands an Prince William being posted out there.

Supposedly the posting of William has antagonised some of the "Argies" an they see it as a build up to something

so what do you think, do you reckon we should give the Falklands back or stick two fingers up at them an relish in all our Falkland island goodness?

How can we give something back to somewhere that never had it?

Argentina has no valid claim to the Islands

Neither did Britain originally.

Brilliant! Yes, we did not have a claim on them till we arrived at an unhinabited island. So now we should give them "back" to someone that never owned them.

rick_chasey

Wallace1492 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

spen666 wrote:

mudcow007 wrote:

Just been listening to Radio 2 an there was a heated discussion about the Falklands an Prince William being posted out there.

Supposedly the posting of William has antagonised some of the "Argies" an they see it as a build up to something

so what do you think, do you reckon we should give the Falklands back or stick two fingers up at them an relish in all our Falkland island goodness?

How can we give something back to somewhere that never had it?

Argentina has no valid claim to the Islands

Neither did Britain originally.

Brilliant! Yes, we did not have a claim on them till we arrived at an unhinabited island. So now we should give them "back" to someone that never owned them.

I never said that.

I was just making the point that claims to colonised bits miles away from the actual nation are all pretty arbitrary anyway.

What Argentina has in its favour if you want to go down the 'claim' route is proximity. i.e. it's the closest proper country to the island.

Wallace1492

@Rick, yes fair point. I am sure we can come to some sort of agreement. (UK and Argentina, not me and you)

But just think any talk of military action is just being silly.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Rick Chasey wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

spen666 wrote:

mudcow007 wrote:

Just been listening to Radio 2 an there was a heated discussion about the Falklands an Prince William being posted out there.

Supposedly the posting of William has antagonised some of the "Argies" an they see it as a build up to something

so what do you think, do you reckon we should give the Falklands back or stick two fingers up at them an relish in all our Falkland island goodness?

How can we give something back to somewhere that never had it?

Argentina has no valid claim to the Islands

Neither did Britain originally.

Brilliant! Yes, we did not have a claim on them till we arrived at an unhinabited island. So now we should give them "back" to someone that never owned them.

I never said that.

I was just making the point that claims to colonised bits miles away from the actual nation are all pretty arbitrary anyway.

What Argentina has in its favour if you want to go down the 'claim' route is proximity. i.e. it's the closest proper country to the island.

I guess that makes Ireland ours and then France scoop the lot.

rick_chasey

Exactly Gregg - it's totally arbitrary and pointless.

What's the value of having an island next to Argentina? Is the value enough to warrant more blood shed?

I.e. what's the cost/benefit analysis? My gut feeling is that it comes out 'not worth defending', but I don't know.

clarkey cat

I guess that makes Ireland ours

errrr, hello, Ireland is ours.

oldraver

NGale wrote:

With the Type 45 destroyer the Navy is actually a little more capable than some would think. The Navy of today may be smaller than that of the Falklands War 30 years ago, but with new weaponry in form of the Sea Viper (instead of the old Sea Dart) and the ability to carry the Tomahawk missile the RN can afford to be smaller.

The problem however is in the aircraft carriers, we don't have any. Unless we are to start getting aircraft out to the islands now in anticipation of a possible invasion we simply wouldn't have the air power needed to fight a war. We may have the capability in the form of the Army, RM and Navy but the RAF are a vital component of any modern war.

As for Prince William being deployed out there. Yes it is a routine deployment, but as with anything the routine can be changed and it could have just as easily been delayed to a time when it would have been less sensitive. The 30th anniversary really wasn't the right time.

30 years ago Argentina made one big mistake. It wasn't that they invaded the islands in the first place but that the soldiers they sent in were predominantly 17/18 year olds conscripted unprofessional men. When faced with the likes of the Royal Marines and Parachute Regiment they didn't stand a chance. Argentina wouldn't make that same mistake again.

Some good points there however, Argentina would have to mount a succesful invasion in the first place.
Troop ships? I think one or two Astute class submarines could deny that.
Hercules transport? Four Typhoons could deal with that possibility.

Argentina would not have a cat in hells chance of military action leading to a position of Argentinian rule over the Falklands.
Cristina Elisabet Fernández de Kirchner knows this. It is called keeping the people happy whilst still remaining in office.
The definitive answer is here http://www.arrse.co.uk/current-affairs- ... ckson.html

NGale

oldraver wrote:

NGale wrote:

With the Type 45 destroyer the Navy is actually a little more capable than some would think. The Navy of today may be smaller than that of the Falklands War 30 years ago, but with new weaponry in form of the Sea Viper (instead of the old Sea Dart) and the ability to carry the Tomahawk missile the RN can afford to be smaller.

The problem however is in the aircraft carriers, we don't have any. Unless we are to start getting aircraft out to the islands now in anticipation of a possible invasion we simply wouldn't have the air power needed to fight a war. We may have the capability in the form of the Army, RM and Navy but the RAF are a vital component of any modern war.

As for Prince William being deployed out there. Yes it is a routine deployment, but as with anything the routine can be changed and it could have just as easily been delayed to a time when it would have been less sensitive. The 30th anniversary really wasn't the right time.

30 years ago Argentina made one big mistake. It wasn't that they invaded the islands in the first place but that the soldiers they sent in were predominantly 17/18 year olds conscripted unprofessional men. When faced with the likes of the Royal Marines and Parachute Regiment they didn't stand a chance. Argentina wouldn't make that same mistake again.

Some good points there however, Argentina would have to mount a succesful invasion in the first place.
Troop ships? I think one or two Astute class submarines could deny that.
Hercules transport? Four Typhoons could deal with that possibility.

Argentina would not have a cat in hells chance of military action leading to a position of Argentinian rule over the Falklands.
Cristina Elisabet Fernández de Kirchner knows this. It is called keeping the people happy whilst still remaining in office.
The definitive answer is here http://www.arrse.co.uk/current-affairs- ... ckson.html

That's the key, Argentina getting troops there in the first place. with HMS Dauntless being deployed there as we speak and HMS Clyde already in the area, troops wouldn't get there by sea. Astute Class subs. well who knows where they are at any one time. we just know we have at least one sub deployed at any one time somewhere around the world. Would we send the Astute class down there, well thats for the RN and MOD top brass to decide but to be honest the T class and V class would do the same job.

HMS Dauntless would be the biggest danger to Argentina (hence why they are getting antsy about the type 45 deployment) as the Sea Viper has the surface to air capability which exceeds Sea Dart, which would deal with a possible invasion by air and if they decided to fit Dauntless with Tomahawk cruise missile then what would happen there is anyones guess. Dauntless also has a greater ability at local area and wider area defence, in other words it can see things coming sooner and act more quickly. For example when HMS Defender (Yet to be commissioned into the fleet and under going stage 2 sea trials) was testing it's radar systems in Plymouth it was picking up aircraft movements in Paris and pretty much everything flight wise around the UK. If it can do that on a test then think about the capability just a few miles off of the Argentine mainland. Against the old type 42s, Argentina stand a good chance, 45 is a different matter and we have 4 of those in service at present.

bompington

Rick Chasey wrote:

Exactly Gregg - it's totally arbitrary and pointless.

What's the value of having an island next to Argentina? Is the value enough to warrant more blood shed?

I.e. what's the cost/benefit analysis? My gut feeling is that it comes out 'not worth defending', but I don't know.

Would you feel the same way if it was your home being threatened with invasion? The Falklands is no more pointless than any other nation to its inhabitants, and to describe the existence of nation states as "totally arbitrary and pointless", which is effectively what you do, shows a surprising lack of understanding of history and psychology, unless it's just anti-colonialist wishful thinking?

oldraver

NGale wrote:

oldraver wrote:

NGale wrote:

With the Type 45 destroyer the Navy is actually a little more capable than some would think. The Navy of today may be smaller than that of the Falklands War 30 years ago, but with new weaponry in form of the Sea Viper (instead of the old Sea Dart) and the ability to carry the Tomahawk missile the RN can afford to be smaller.

The problem however is in the aircraft carriers, we don't have any. Unless we are to start getting aircraft out to the islands now in anticipation of a possible invasion we simply wouldn't have the air power needed to fight a war. We may have the capability in the form of the Army, RM and Navy but the RAF are a vital component of any modern war.

As for Prince William being deployed out there. Yes it is a routine deployment, but as with anything the routine can be changed and it could have just as easily been delayed to a time when it would have been less sensitive. The 30th anniversary really wasn't the right time.

30 years ago Argentina made one big mistake. It wasn't that they invaded the islands in the first place but that the soldiers they sent in were predominantly 17/18 year olds conscripted unprofessional men. When faced with the likes of the Royal Marines and Parachute Regiment they didn't stand a chance. Argentina wouldn't make that same mistake again.

Some good points there however, Argentina would have to mount a succesful invasion in the first place.
Troop ships? I think one or two Astute class submarines could deny that.
Hercules transport? Four Typhoons could deal with that possibility.

Argentina would not have a cat in hells chance of military action leading to a position of Argentinian rule over the Falklands.
Cristina Elisabet Fernández de Kirchner knows this. It is called keeping the people happy whilst still remaining in office.
The definitive answer is here http://www.arrse.co.uk/current-affairs- ... ckson.html

That's the key, Argentina getting troops there in the first place. with HMS Dauntless being deployed there as we speak and HMS Clyde already in the area, troops wouldn't get there by sea. Astute Class subs. well who knows where they are at any one time. we just know we have at least one sub deployed at any one time somewhere around the world. Would we send the Astute class down there, well thats for the RN and MOD top brass to decide but to be honest the T class and V class would do the same job.

HMS Dauntless would be the biggest danger to Argentina (hence why they are getting antsy about the type 45 deployment) as the Sea Viper has the surface to air capability which exceeds Sea Dart, which would deal with a possible invasion by air and if they decided to fit Dauntless with Tomahawk cruise missile then what would happen there is anyones guess. Dauntless also has a greater ability at local area and wider area defence, in other words it can see things coming sooner and act more quickly. For example when HMS Defender (Yet to be commissioned into the fleet and under going stage 2 sea trials) was testing it's radar systems in Plymouth it was picking up aircraft movements in Paris and pretty much everything flight wise around the UK. If it can do that on a test then think about the capability just a few miles off of the Argentine mainland. Against the old type 42s, Argentina stand a good chance, 45 is a different matter and we have 4 of those in service at present.

Agreed in the meantime crab air can continue practising missing runways not that they will be needed
Have you ever read Hugh Mcmanners book " Forgotten voices of the Falklands "?

Shows our mistakes & also how Conqueror let the Argentinian fleet off very lightly after the sinking of the Belgrano.

leodis75

It kinda reminds me of the scene in Dirty Harry "Make my day punk"

Strange enough though the RN was facing massive cuts in 1982 and a carrier had to return due to lack of £40m worth of repairs. Fairpoint though, the Arggies were fighting a civil war as well in 1982.

NGale

oldraver wrote:

NGale wrote:

oldraver wrote:

NGale wrote:

With the Type 45 destroyer the Navy is actually a little more capable than some would think. The Navy of today may be smaller than that of the Falklands War 30 years ago, but with new weaponry in form of the Sea Viper (instead of the old Sea Dart) and the ability to carry the Tomahawk missile the RN can afford to be smaller.

The problem however is in the aircraft carriers, we don't have any. Unless we are to start getting aircraft out to the islands now in anticipation of a possible invasion we simply wouldn't have the air power needed to fight a war. We may have the capability in the form of the Army, RM and Navy but the RAF are a vital component of any modern war.

As for Prince William being deployed out there. Yes it is a routine deployment, but as with anything the routine can be changed and it could have just as easily been delayed to a time when it would have been less sensitive. The 30th anniversary really wasn't the right time.

30 years ago Argentina made one big mistake. It wasn't that they invaded the islands in the first place but that the soldiers they sent in were predominantly 17/18 year olds conscripted unprofessional men. When faced with the likes of the Royal Marines and Parachute Regiment they didn't stand a chance. Argentina wouldn't make that same mistake again.

Some good points there however, Argentina would have to mount a succesful invasion in the first place.
Troop ships? I think one or two Astute class submarines could deny that.
Hercules transport? Four Typhoons could deal with that possibility.

Argentina would not have a cat in hells chance of military action leading to a position of Argentinian rule over the Falklands.
Cristina Elisabet Fernández de Kirchner knows this. It is called keeping the people happy whilst still remaining in office.
The definitive answer is here http://www.arrse.co.uk/current-affairs- ... ckson.html

That's the key, Argentina getting troops there in the first place. with HMS Dauntless being deployed there as we speak and HMS Clyde already in the area, troops wouldn't get there by sea. Astute Class subs. well who knows where they are at any one time. we just know we have at least one sub deployed at any one time somewhere around the world. Would we send the Astute class down there, well thats for the RN and MOD top brass to decide but to be honest the T class and V class would do the same job.

HMS Dauntless would be the biggest danger to Argentina (hence why they are getting antsy about the type 45 deployment) as the Sea Viper has the surface to air capability which exceeds Sea Dart, which would deal with a possible invasion by air and if they decided to fit Dauntless with Tomahawk cruise missile then what would happen there is anyones guess. Dauntless also has a greater ability at local area and wider area defence, in other words it can see things coming sooner and act more quickly. For example when HMS Defender (Yet to be commissioned into the fleet and under going stage 2 sea trials) was testing it's radar systems in Plymouth it was picking up aircraft movements in Paris and pretty much everything flight wise around the UK. If it can do that on a test then think about the capability just a few miles off of the Argentine mainland. Against the old type 42s, Argentina stand a good chance, 45 is a different matter and we have 4 of those in service at present.

Agreed in the meantime crab air can continue practising missing runways not that they will be needed
Have you ever read Hugh Mcmanners book " Forgotten voices of the Falklands "?

Shows our mistakes & also how Conqueror let the Argentinian fleet off very lightly after the sinking of the Belgrano.

The Belgrano was a showpiece attack, after that the RN/Government didn't need to push much more, the Argentinians knew time was almost up. Haven't read the book though, I get a lot of first hand stories from the father in law who was on HMS Coventry and then HMS Exeter during the war.