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

Originally posted by boymonkey74
reply to post by Soloprotocol

 

You must learn more history about Hong kong we had it on lease for 99 years.
en.wikipedia.org...

Only the mainland part!

Most of the islands were already owned by Britain, the 99 year lease was on an extra bit.
Yet the tory government and the governor at the time bent over and wouldn't stand up to the Chinese (who were starting to flood the west with their stuff).

So they handed over the lot!

Originally posted by EvanB
reply to post by Rapha

 

Then of course is our second to none special forces and battle hardened infantry to deal with...


Good luck x

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 ...

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 !

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 ..

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

Originally posted by biggilo
reply to post by CJCrawley

 

It doesn't matter if there is a sovereignty issue between Canada and Alaska, YOU said it was all about proximity, therefore Alaska is being forcibly occupied by the USA..

And as you have been saying, it doesn't matter a damn what the Alaskans want, they are joined onto Canada so Canada should own them. Why should Alaskans be given the right to self-determination, sure it's all about proximity

If they don't like it let them move back to the continental United States.

Alaska was bought from Russia in the 1860s

reply to post by HelenConway


Personally, i really hope there is no war. However, to say we would not be able to maintain air superiority is complete madness. There is a permanent group of Typhoons stationed on the Falklands. Ok, the number is small, but they far outweigh any Argentinian air capabilities.

Plus, should these fail for whatever reason at all, the defensive capabilities of the new Astute class subs means that no aircraft would be able to take off anywhere in South America if we didn't want them to! They literally have the capability to destroy aircraft before they even get off the runway - and that includes identifying them leaving the hangars in the first place (scary technology).

But i will say it again - they won't be needed. Kirchner will not go to war over the Falklands. It is a drum she keeps banging in order to take the heat off her domestic record. It is a drum she keeps banging in order to keep attention away from the outstanding $40 billion in loans that the Paris Club are chasing and have absolutely no intentions of writing off. It is a drum she keeps banging because it allows anger to focus on colonialism, which helps to take the heat off her decision to nationalise Repsols' holdings in Argentina. Basically, the list goes on and on.

reply to post by Flavian


In addition 1 T45 Destroyer could annihilate virtually ANY air force on the planet.

Please see this link I posted earlier...

Could UK still Defend Falklands?

and, i know Alaska was bought from the Russians...

Originally posted by Flavian
reply to post by HelenConway

 

Personally, i really hope there is no war. However, to say we would not be able to maintain air superiority is complete madness. There is a permanent group of Typhoons stationed on the Falklands. Ok, the number is small, but they far outweigh any Argentinian air capabilities.

Plus, should these fail for whatever reason at all, the defensive capabilities of the new Astute class subs means that no aircraft would be able to take off anywhere in South America if we didn't want them to! They literally have the capability to destroy aircraft before they even get off the runway - and that includes identifying them leaving the hangars in the first place (scary technology).

But i will say it again - they won't be needed. Kirchner will not go to war over the Falklands. It is a drum she keeps banging in order to take the heat off her domestic record. It is a drum she keeps banging in order to keep attention away from the outstanding $40 billion in loans that the Paris Club are chasing and have absolutely no intentions of writing off. It is a drum she keeps banging because it allows anger to focus on colonialism, which helps to take the heat off her decision to nationalise Repsols' holdings in Argentina. Basically, the list goes on and on.

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 . 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.

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,

The Falklands War was 30 years ago. "But in military terms it is 100 years ago," says Clarke. British forces have advanced about 60 years in sophistication, but Argentine forces have barely improved, still using military hardware from the 1970s and 80s.

I think that bit summed it up nicely.

reply to post by HelenConway


It is a different time now, we didn't have the radar capabilities that we have now, The type 45 daring class destroyer is one of the best if not the best anti air ship in the world.
news.bbc.co.uk...
They will never even get close.
Not that they would try seeing we have a pretty good sub as well protecting the islands.

reply to post by HelenConway


I would suggest that you compare the countries armed forces of today. The UKs have progressed to the point that it makes Argentinas look positively ancient. The Argentinians are basically using the same stuff that they were using in 1982 and even then it was outdated.

Fortress Falklands has the latest in air defence capability via HMS Dauntless as well as at least one Tomahawk armed Astute class submarine plus a flight of Tornados and at least 1,500 pairs of boots on the ground, with one of the longest runways in the South Atlantic that can air-reinforced within a few hours.

I think that any Argentinian General/Admiral worth their salt would know that to try an '82 again would spell suicide for its armed forces either in theatre and/or on its own soil.

I would also imagine that MI5/MI6 and other agencies have boots on Argentinian soil making sure that intelligence is up to date and that no nasty surprise can spring.

If the combined might of ALL the South American nations were brought to bear, then it may get interesting, BUT, then I think some NATO countries would step in. By that, I mean the US and Canada.

reply to post by HelenConway


I live by what used to be the largest ordinance depot in Europe. The MOD was a major employer in this area. Most of that depot has been sold off to developers who have turned it into a housing estate. Suppose they could still supply toasters and bored housewives.

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.

reply to post by HelenConway


Helen ....have you not visited portsmouth? i know people who personally worked on the type 45's
We don't need hundreds of ships and bigger is not allways better. read my post a few pages
back on these capabilites..

They are the best in the world by far when it comes down to the job at hand...
People are making this huge mistake in thinking because we have cut down the numbers
that we don't have the capabilities.

P.S it's not the quantity but QUALITY...

I knew these were about in the making many years before they were even being built but kept stum..

Originally posted by threewisemonkeys
reply to post by HelenConway

 

I live by what used to be the largest ordinance depot in Europe. The MOD was a major employer in this area. Most of that depot has been sold off to developers who have turned it into a housing estate. Suppose they could still supply toasters and bored housewives.

edit on 11-1-2013 by threewisemonkeys because: (no reason given)

That would be portsmouth uk...and oxfordshire..

Originally posted by denver22

Originally posted by threewisemonkeys
reply to post by HelenConway

 

I live by what used to be the largest ordinance depot in Europe. The MOD was a major employer in this area. Most of that depot has been sold off to developers who have turned it into a housing estate. Suppose they could still supply toasters and bored housewives.

edit on 11-1-2013 by threewisemonkeys because: (no reason given)

That would be portsmouth uk...and oxfordshire..

edit on 11-1-2013 by denver22 because: (no reason given)

or Plymouth

Originally posted by denver22
reply to post by HelenConway

 

Helen ....have you not visited portsmouth? i know people who personally worked on the type 45's
We don't need hundreds of ships and bigger is not allways better. read my post a few pages
back on these capabilites..

They are the best in the world by far when it comes down to the job at hand...
People are making this huge mistake in thinking because we have cut down the numbers
that we don't have the capabilities.

P.S it's not the quantity but QUALITY...

I knew these were about in the making many years before they were even being built but kept stum..

I am from Portsmouth - or a village outside, but do not live there these days I hope you are right ..

Originally posted by Wotan
reply to post by HelenConway

 

If the combined might of ALL the South American nations were brought to bear, then it may get interesting, BUT, then I think some NATO countries would step in. By that, I mean the US and Canada.

great post - but no way between hell and high water would Obama help the British - he thinks we are b******s.
He hates us - he even kicked Churchill's bust out of the Whitehouse,

I guess he was too dumb to know that Winston Churchill was also an American, having an American mother and citizenship. Canada should not get involved and they would not either - enough of their soldiers have died over European conflicts.

reply to post by HelenConway


Exactly Helen, I always think it fishy that our 'great hero' Chruchill, the Americanophile, is the guy who INVITED a foreign occupying force into our country, where it remains to this day, 120+ bases to be exact, and for what reason?

Their jets fly at will in our air space and even initiate mock dogfights against our planes,

F15s dogfight Eurofighter

And their 'Generals' refer to us as nothing but their 'unsinkable aircraft carrier' (they have 2 of those, us and Japan)

Maybe we need to liberate our homeland too?

Originally posted by HelenConway
great post - but no way between hell and high water would Obama help the British - he thinks we are b******s.
He hates us - he even kicked Churchill's bust out of the Whitehouse,

I guess he was too dumb to know that Winston Churchill was also an American, having an American mother and citizenship.

Small point of accuracy, Churchill was given honary US citizenship in 1963, not because his mother was a US citizen, but for other reasons. He was only a British subject and not an American.

Regards

Originally posted by biggilo
reply to post by HelenConway

 

Exactly Helen, I always think it fishy that our 'great hero' Chruchill, the Americanophile, is the guy who INVITED a foreign occupying force into our country, where it remains to this day, 120+ bases to be exact, and for what reason?

Their jets fly at will in our air space and even initiate mock dogfights against our planes,

F15s dogfight Eurofighter

And their 'Generals' refer to us as nothing but their 'unsinkable aircraft carrier' (they have 2 of those, us and Japan)

Maybe we need to liberate our homeland too?

yea we were always told that that was so that they could have their strategic nuclear missles based in the British Isles - they had an army in the Rhine too along with the Britsh army and RAF.. anyway if MAD kicked off .. if the first strike was required - the reply strike would be at Britain even though the button and decision was inn America !!

America was responsible for much of the fall of the Bristish trading empire after the war - they insisted on it. They also hated the Royal Navy because it was bigger then the US Navy at the time.

In fact the American govt sold us out after the war - and their bankers finaced both sides of the conflict - London was destroyed by bombs financed in America.

I love the American people in general so not having a go at them but America sold Britain out - their help was was a double edged sword.

However the American service men who served in WW2 will always be in our prayers and hearts .. I am NOT talking about the people but the govt

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.