Given that we have spent much of the last decade complaining about the inability of England openers to keep their wickets, a little slow scoring is entirely welcome. Openers are supposed to be slow. The point is not to score runs, it is to blunt the attack.
Without wanting to go over the last thread all over again I looked up some stuff on the Falklands War regarding @HYUFD comment on it being easy.
The US Navy assessed that a successful counter invasion was impossible
Lord Craig stated that if just 6 of the 13 bomb fuses that failed because the Argentine Hawks were flying too low had detonated we would have lost
And that is ignoring the threat of the exocets getting past the destroyers and frigates which suffered badly protecting the carriers.
But hey ho just a cake walk.
Right you want to restart this I can go on all evening and all night now if needed.
None of that changes whatsoever my point that Thatcher was prepared to fight to retake the Falklands as Argentina did not have nuclear weapons unlike us and had a far weaker military like us. Hence we won the war and she would have continued to fight the war no matter what the cost.
Sending a no fly zone into Ukraine against a Russia armed with nuclear weapons is however a totally different ball game
Even had all our carriers been sunk and most of our destroyers and frigates been sunk (which they weren't and was highly unlikely) we could still have placed submarines armed with nuclear weapons off the coast off Argentina and refused to remove them until the Argentines withdrew
Again showing your ignorance. Re our frigates and destroyers over 50% were hit. As per my previous reference frome some who actually knew what he was talking about if just 6 of the 13 bombs that failed to explode had done so we would have lost. So not highly unlikely at all, but nearly happened. Bizarrely we were lucky that the very brave Argentine Hawk pilots got too low. As it was 4 did sink.
So 50% were not and most were not sunk and our carriers survived.
Even if all 13 bombs had not gone off that did not mean we would have lost as we had nuclear weapons and Argentina did not.
As I said we could have parked subs armed with nuclear missiles off the Argentine Coast and refused to remove them until Argentine forces withdrew from the Falkland Islands
Again completely missed the point. All I objected to was you saying it was easy. Go on finally admit it wasn't easy. The US Navy thought it impossible. The head of the RAF thought that we would have lost if 6 of those ,13 bombs had exploded. If they had of exploded we would have lost over half our frigates and destroyers.
Under no circumstances can that be described as easy.
Go on admit it wasn't easy. That is all I am after. Be a man at admit you were wrong to say tha.
Nope. That was absolutely the point. You were willing to concede defeat.
Defeat never needed to be conceded as we had a bigger military than Argentina and nuclear weapons unlike them. Thatcher knew that hence she went to war.
You could have gone through every war in history as to hypotheticals which might have given it a different course, so what.
Bonkers. I never said we should concede defeat. Don't know where you got that from. Once we were committed, we were committed. And I was in favour of us doing so. You just make stuff up.
I have objected to one thing, you saying 3 times that the Falklands war was easy and you are so weak you can't admit that was a mistake. Pathetic.
You are so feeble and weak that you are happy to insult the memory of those that fought and the government of the day than admit you were wrong.
Shame on you.
Didn't you notice the same M.O. the other day? When he was pulled up for calculating the CFR wrongly (by yet again doing a comparison of deaths today with cases today and not lagging them), he instantly switched to the attack of "You want to impose restrictions and take away freedoms when there's no use unlike me because I'm a conservative" (or words to that effect).
Anything to avoid admitting mistakes.
(I also wonder where this common meme that HYUFD is always polite and avoids insulting people comes from - he often gets aggressive on ascribing ill motives to whoever he's debating, always in an identity manner ("Yes, but you do [x]/want [y]/hate [whatever] (often all-but-unrelated to the point of the discussion and an extreme take on things) because you're a liberal/lefty/socialist/atheist/Labour whilst I want [other thing that's noble] because I'm a conservative/freedom-lover/right-winger"))
Civility is not the be all and end all of respect. One can be quite disrespectful and, if one chooses, insulting, without becoming vulgar.
Without wanting to go over the last thread all over again I looked up some stuff on the Falklands War regarding @HYUFD comment on it being easy.
The US Navy assessed that a successful counter invasion was impossible
Lord Craig stated that if just 6 of the 13 bomb fuses that failed because the Argentine Hawks were flying too low had detonated we would have lost
And that is ignoring the threat of the exocets getting past the destroyers and frigates which suffered badly protecting the carriers.
But hey ho just a cake walk.
Right you want to restart this I can go on all evening and all night now if needed.
None of that changes whatsoever my point that Thatcher was prepared to fight to retake the Falklands as Argentina did not have nuclear weapons unlike us and had a far weaker military like us. Hence we won the war and she would have continued to fight the war no matter what the cost.
Sending a no fly zone into Ukraine against a Russia armed with nuclear weapons is however a totally different ball game
Even had all our carriers been sunk and most of our destroyers and frigates been sunk (which they weren't and was highly unlikely) we could still have placed submarines armed with nuclear weapons off the coast off Argentina and refused to remove them until the Argentines withdrew
Again showing your ignorance. Re our frigates and destroyers over 50% were hit. As per my previous reference frome some who actually knew what he was talking about if just 6 of the 13 bombs that failed to explode had done so we would have lost. So not highly unlikely at all, but nearly happened. Bizarrely we were lucky that the very brave Argentine Hawk pilots got too low. As it was 4 did sink.
So 50% were not and most were not sunk and our carriers survived.
Even if all 13 bombs had not gone off that did not mean we would have lost as we had nuclear weapons and Argentina did not.
As I said we could have parked subs armed with nuclear missiles off the Argentine Coast and refused to remove them until Argentine forces withdrew from the Falkland Islands
Again completely missed the point. All I objected to was you saying it was easy. Go on finally admit it wasn't easy. The US Navy thought it impossible. The head of the RAF thought that we would have lost if 6 of those ,13 bombs had exploded. If they had of exploded we would have lost over half our frigates and destroyers.
Under no circumstances can that be described as easy.
Go on admit it wasn't easy. That is all I am after. Be a man at admit you were wrong to say tha.
Nope. That was absolutely the point. You were willing to concede defeat.
Defeat never needed to be conceded as we had a bigger military than Argentina and nuclear weapons unlike them. Thatcher knew that hence she went to war.
You could have gone through every war in history as to hypotheticals which might have given it a different course, so what.
Bonkers. I never said we should concede defeat. Don't know where you got that from. Once we were committed, we were committed. And I was in favour of us doing so. You just make stuff up.
I have objected to one thing, you saying 3 times that the Falklands war was easy and you are so weak you can't admit that was a mistake. Pathetic.
You are so feeble and weak that you are happy to insult the memory of those that fought and the government of the day than admit you were wrong.
Shame on you.
Yes you did.
You were not prepared to use all methods at our disposal to free the Falklands. You effectively said if the war had started to go against our conventional forces we would automatically have lost.
You restarted this debate not me, so stop whinging if you can't take the heat
Go on stop keep avoiding the point. Admit you were wrong in saying the , Falklands war was easy.
Stop being a pathetic whimp and man up.
I am not ever going to concede to you so tough.
My original point stands absolutely we would in the end win the war with Argentina as we had a bigger and more effective military than them and nuclear weapons unlike them.
Intervening against a nuclear armed Russia over Ukraine however is a different matter
Lawrence Freedman @LawDavF · 3h At some point it is going to occur to Moldova and Georgia that if the Russian army continues on its current self- destructive path some currently frozen conflicts might get unfrozen.
Fast tracking Moldova into NATO seems to me to be an obvious move. Along with Sweden and Finland. Georgia is more problematic given their geographic location although they do share a border with a NATO country.
However that runs the risk of Putin invading Moldova too, maybe even Finland, if he gets wind of such a plan to fast track them into NATO
Given that Russia is struggling with one country, I doubt his armed forces are in any condition to mix it up in additional states.
Moldova is not in NATO and its active military is less than 5% the size of Ukraine's
Yes, that's why the suggestion to fast track them into NATO. No better time to join than now. That goes for Sweden and Finland too.
Yes - they'll get threatened for doing so, but that just makes the case better.
Nope. That was absolutely the point. You were willing to concede defeat.
Defeat never needed to be conceded as we had a bigger military than Argentina and nuclear weapons unlike them. Thatcher knew that hence she went to war.
You could have gone through every war in history as to hypotheticals which might have given it a different course, so what.
Do you think the Americans would have "allowed" us to strike a city like Cordoba with a nuclear weapon?
The Americans would have suffered an appalling political backlash throughout Latin America and I'm quite sure Reagan, for all his Anglophilia, would have been strongly advised by his administration the nuclear destruction of a Latin American city would be a catastrophe.
I suspect, had we got to that point, American political and economic pressure would have been applied to BOTH London and Buenos Aires to broker a diplomatic solution.
Who cares what the Americans did. We defend our territory at all costs, the Falklands was our territory.
If the Americans refused to respect that they were not true allies anyway.
Of course the UN did pressure both sides for a diplomatic solution and if the Argentines had withdrawn their forces from the Falklands one could have been found without further escalation
Just so I'm clear - if Washington had told us in the event of launching a nuclear attack on Argentina, they (Washington) would impose punitive economic sanctions on the UK, you would still have incinerated Cordoba.
The worldwide economic and diplomatic consequences of such a course of action would have been extreme - we might well have been thrown out of both NATO and the EEC. The pictures of the incinerated ruins of Cordoba would have been broadcast round the world and would have led to huge sympathy for the Argentines.
The economic impact would have been no less severe with a run on sterling and capital flight from the UK leaving us exposed to inflation and renewed unemployment.
Have you forgotten the extent to which American economic pressure forced both us and the French to stand down in Suez in 1956?
Thatcher's Britain would have been as much a pariah state as Putin's Russia is now.
Nope. That was absolutely the point. You were willing to concede defeat.
Defeat never needed to be conceded as we had a bigger military than Argentina and nuclear weapons unlike them. Thatcher knew that hence she went to war.
You could have gone through every war in history as to hypotheticals which might have given it a different course, so what.
Do you think the Americans would have "allowed" us to strike a city like Cordoba with a nuclear weapon?
The Americans would have suffered an appalling political backlash throughout Latin America and I'm quite sure Reagan, for all his Anglophilia, would have been strongly advised by his administration the nuclear destruction of a Latin American city would be a catastrophe.
I suspect, had we got to that point, American political and economic pressure would have been applied to BOTH London and Buenos Aires to broker a diplomatic solution.
Who cares what the Americans did. We defend our territory at all costs, the Falklands was our territory.
If the Americans refused to respect that they were not true allies anyway.
Of course the UN did pressure both sides for a diplomatic solution and if the Argentines had withdrawn their forces from the Falklands one could have been found without further escalation
Is Ukraine - and is the West - willing to let Russia normalise those grotesque annexations for the greater good?
Dead Putin is the key.
Sadly, not on the negotiating table.
Although there is something in the idea that we should push the Russians into agreeing the sort of humiliation that cannot go unanswered by malcontents in Moscow.
Both vindictive and ineffective. Muscovite malcontents lack the power to take out Putin either by ballot or bullet. And in 20s Germany the effect of humiliation was to make people get behind the leader. The danger is of reinforcing the belief in Putin that a majority of Russians currently have
Yes, we need to be serious. "Humiliating" Putin is stupid, as long as he remains in charge and as long as he has nukes.
Don't corner the rat. Give him an exit. It would be nice if we could eliminate him from global politics, at some point and in some way, but right now the world just needs to step back from the abyss, and end the war. Then we re-arm and wait, and hope that Russia mends itself
We don't need to punish Russia further, not right now. It is already quite humbled and the sanctions have already done serious longterm damage
I am afraid you are misreading the nature of the regime. We have been talking about off ramps for months now, and the reality is that the Kremlin does not want an off ramp. Indeed continuing to discuss even fig leaf concessions is counter productive. Literally the only thing that is understood in the mafia state is the naked use of power. In fact you should increase the pressure and upgrade the Ukrainian military capabilities to the point where they can successfully go on the offensive. This rat must be cornered before he recognises that he has no choice but to make whatever peace he can. To let him off the hook leaves him like Saddam Hussein after Desert Storm, when actually the defeat needs to be sufficiently comprehensive to ensure regime change.
Few governments make the kind of mistake that Putin has and survive. The West has been threatened with nuclear anhillation. If there is any way to ensure the removal of the tyrant as quickly as possible, then it should be taken now. Leaving him in place is simply too dangerous.
We established upthread that Charles xii of Sweden, Hitler, Napoleon and ancient Athens survived for years after equivalent mistakes. What are your counter examples?
Wars of aggression where the aggressor lost and there was a subsequent change or major modification of regime? Germany WWI, Germany WW2, Japan WW2, USSR Afghanistan 1979-89 , French occupation of the Ruhr 1923, Arab Israeli wars of 1948 and 1967, West Pakistan versus East Pakistan 1971. Falklands War 1982, there are others.
Given Karl XII was exiled for five years after his defeat at Poltava we should also note that Sweden abandoned absolutism and established Parliamentary rule in his absence, so I could claim him for the aggressors who failed list too.
In the long run, but then all regimes fail in the long run. The implication of your claim was that we can get Putin now while he is especially vulnerable. None of those examples supports that timescale.
Well History doesn´t repeat but it rhymes... I think the Russian army could mutiny and if it does, how long do you give Putin then?
15 years? 20?
Putin has a Praetorian guard, the FSO, not part of the army but geared up and equipped to fight an army. 20,000 strong and has its own tanks and artillery.
Without wanting to go over the last thread all over again I looked up some stuff on the Falklands War regarding @HYUFD comment on it being easy.
The US Navy assessed that a successful counter invasion was impossible
Lord Craig stated that if just 6 of the 13 bomb fuses that failed because the Argentine Hawks were flying too low had detonated we would have lost
And that is ignoring the threat of the exocets getting past the destroyers and frigates which suffered badly protecting the carriers.
But hey ho just a cake walk.
Right you want to restart this I can go on all evening and all night now if needed.
None of that changes whatsoever my point that Thatcher was prepared to fight to retake the Falklands as Argentina did not have nuclear weapons unlike us and had a far weaker military like us. Hence we won the war and she would have continued to fight the war no matter what the cost.
Sending a no fly zone into Ukraine against a Russia armed with nuclear weapons is however a totally different ball game
Even had all our carriers been sunk and most of our destroyers and frigates been sunk (which they weren't and was highly unlikely) we could still have placed submarines armed with nuclear weapons off the coast off Argentina and refused to remove them until the Argentines withdrew
Again showing your ignorance. Re our frigates and destroyers over 50% were hit. As per my previous reference frome some who actually knew what he was talking about if just 6 of the 13 bombs that failed to explode had done so we would have lost. So not highly unlikely at all, but nearly happened. Bizarrely we were lucky that the very brave Argentine Hawk pilots got too low. As it was 4 did sink.
So 50% were not and most were not sunk and our carriers survived.
Even if all 13 bombs had not gone off that did not mean we would have lost as we had nuclear weapons and Argentina did not.
As I said we could have parked subs armed with nuclear missiles off the Argentine Coast and refused to remove them until Argentine forces withdrew from the Falkland Islands
Again completely missed the point. All I objected to was you saying it was easy. Go on finally admit it wasn't easy. The US Navy thought it impossible. The head of the RAF thought that we would have lost if 6 of those ,13 bombs had exploded. If they had of exploded we would have lost over half our frigates and destroyers.
Under no circumstances can that be described as easy.
Go on admit it wasn't easy. That is all I am after. Be a man at admit you were wrong to say tha.
Nope. That was absolutely the point. You were willing to concede defeat.
Defeat never needed to be conceded as we had a bigger military than Argentina and nuclear weapons unlike them. Thatcher knew that hence she went to war.
You could have gone through every war in history as to hypotheticals which might have given it a different course, so what.
Bonkers. I never said we should concede defeat. Don't know where you got that from. Once we were committed, we were committed. And I was in favour of us doing so. You just make stuff up.
I have objected to one thing, you saying 3 times that the Falklands war was easy and you are so weak you can't admit that was a mistake. Pathetic.
You are so feeble and weak that you are happy to insult the memory of those that fought and the government of the day than admit you were wrong.
Shame on you.
Yes you did.
You were not prepared to use all methods at our disposal to free the Falklands. You effectively said if the war had started to go against our conventional forces we would automatically have lost.
You restarted this debate not me, so stop whinging if you can't take the heat
And I said you are polite the other day !!!!!
Your whole commentary on the Falklands was error strewn, fake, and frankly an unbelievable ascertain we would nuke Buenos Aires
I was discussing the Falklands war in detail with constituents in the1983 election, were you? - because if you had said half of what you have said you would have had a very angry response
Without wanting to go over the last thread all over again I looked up some stuff on the Falklands War regarding @HYUFD comment on it being easy.
The US Navy assessed that a successful counter invasion was impossible
Lord Craig stated that if just 6 of the 13 bomb fuses that failed because the Argentine Hawks were flying too low had detonated we would have lost
And that is ignoring the threat of the exocets getting past the destroyers and frigates which suffered badly protecting the carriers.
But hey ho just a cake walk.
Right you want to restart this I can go on all evening and all night now if needed.
None of that changes whatsoever my point that Thatcher was prepared to fight to retake the Falklands as Argentina did not have nuclear weapons unlike us and had a far weaker military like us. Hence we won the war and she would have continued to fight the war no matter what the cost.
Sending a no fly zone into Ukraine against a Russia armed with nuclear weapons is however a totally different ball game
Even had all our carriers been sunk and most of our destroyers and frigates been sunk (which they weren't and was highly unlikely) we could still have placed submarines armed with nuclear weapons off the coast off Argentina and refused to remove them until the Argentines withdrew
Again showing your ignorance. Re our frigates and destroyers over 50% were hit. As per my previous reference frome some who actually knew what he was talking about if just 6 of the 13 bombs that failed to explode had done so we would have lost. So not highly unlikely at all, but nearly happened. Bizarrely we were lucky that the very brave Argentine Hawk pilots got too low. As it was 4 did sink.
So 50% were not and most were not sunk and our carriers survived.
Even if all 13 bombs had not gone off that did not mean we would have lost as we had nuclear weapons and Argentina did not.
As I said we could have parked subs armed with nuclear missiles off the Argentine Coast and refused to remove them until Argentine forces withdrew from the Falkland Islands
Again completely missed the point. All I objected to was you saying it was easy. Go on finally admit it wasn't easy. The US Navy thought it impossible. The head of the RAF thought that we would have lost if 6 of those ,13 bombs had exploded. If they had of exploded we would have lost over half our frigates and destroyers.
Under no circumstances can that be described as easy.
Go on admit it wasn't easy. That is all I am after. Be a man at admit you were wrong to say tha.
Nope. That was absolutely the point. You were willing to concede defeat.
Defeat never needed to be conceded as we had a bigger military than Argentina and nuclear weapons unlike them. Thatcher knew that hence she went to war.
You could have gone through every war in history as to hypotheticals which might have given it a different course, so what.
Bonkers. I never said we should concede defeat. Don't know where you got that from. Once we were committed, we were committed. And I was in favour of us doing so. You just make stuff up.
I have objected to one thing, you saying 3 times that the Falklands war was easy and you are so weak you can't admit that was a mistake. Pathetic.
You are so feeble and weak that you are happy to insult the memory of those that fought and the government of the day than admit you were wrong.
Shame on you.
Didn't you notice the same M.O. the other day? When he was pulled up for calculating the CFR wrongly (by yet again doing a comparison of deaths today with cases today and not lagging them), he instantly switched to the attack of "You want to impose restrictions and take away freedoms when there's no use unlike me because I'm a conservative" (or words to that effect).
Anything to avoid admitting mistakes.
(I also wonder where this common meme that HYUFD is always polite and avoids insulting people comes from - he often gets aggressive on ascribing ill motives to whoever he's debating, always in an identity manner ("Yes, but you do [x]/want [y]/hate [whatever] (often all-but-unrelated to the point of the discussion and an extreme take on things) because you're a liberal/lefty/socialist/atheist/Labour whilst I want [other thing that's noble] because I'm a conservative/freedom-lover/right-winger"))
Civility is not the be all and end all of respect. One can be quite disrespectful and, if one chooses, insulting, without becoming vulgar.
Why don't you just fuck off and join the Liberal Democrats.
$6K/each. 23Kg and can be deployed from a backpack. Can travel out 25 miles and then loiter before launching themselves at armoured targets. Controlled using a tablet. Seem to me very much like an aerial NLAW. Very easy to setup and use but very destructive.
There's going to be a lot of rethinking about defence in the light of this horrible war. Armed drones, portable surface-to-air missiles and the latest anti-tank weapons make any military convoy a pretty easy target for a defender, and extremely difficult to detect and protect against.
OTOH, there's also the alarming prospect of a few $6K armed drones getting into the hands of domestic terrorists.
It is pretty alarming already.
I could knock one up in the shed for a lot less than $6k without even ending up on a list (although I'm already on the official CAA list of people to harass if the local airport does a Gatwick). The explosives are the hard part, the rest is trivial.
The military ones are more expensive because they are less vulnerable to jamming or signal tracking, but that's irrelevant when it comes to terrorist use.
I would guess there's plenty of interesting technology on the roof of Downing Street but it can't cover everywhere.
if you think it's bad now, in 30 years time there will be tons more of this stuff, and all controlled by AIs.
Without wanting to go over the last thread all over again I looked up some stuff on the Falklands War regarding @HYUFD comment on it being easy.
The US Navy assessed that a successful counter invasion was impossible
Lord Craig stated that if just 6 of the 13 bomb fuses that failed because the Argentine Hawks were flying too low had detonated we would have lost
And that is ignoring the threat of the exocets getting past the destroyers and frigates which suffered badly protecting the carriers.
But hey ho just a cake walk.
Right you want to restart this I can go on all evening and all night now if needed.
None of that changes whatsoever my point that Thatcher was prepared to fight to retake the Falklands as Argentina did not have nuclear weapons unlike us and had a far weaker military like us. Hence we won the war and she would have continued to fight the war no matter what the cost.
Sending a no fly zone into Ukraine against a Russia armed with nuclear weapons is however a totally different ball game
Even had all our carriers been sunk and most of our destroyers and frigates been sunk (which they weren't and was highly unlikely) we could still have placed submarines armed with nuclear weapons off the coast off Argentina and refused to remove them until the Argentines withdrew
Again showing your ignorance. Re our frigates and destroyers over 50% were hit. As per my previous reference frome some who actually knew what he was talking about if just 6 of the 13 bombs that failed to explode had done so we would have lost. So not highly unlikely at all, but nearly happened. Bizarrely we were lucky that the very brave Argentine Hawk pilots got too low. As it was 4 did sink.
So 50% were not and most were not sunk and our carriers survived.
Even if all 13 bombs had not gone off that did not mean we would have lost as we had nuclear weapons and Argentina did not.
As I said we could have parked subs armed with nuclear missiles off the Argentine Coast and refused to remove them until Argentine forces withdrew from the Falkland Islands
Again completely missed the point. All I objected to was you saying it was easy. Go on finally admit it wasn't easy. The US Navy thought it impossible. The head of the RAF thought that we would have lost if 6 of those ,13 bombs had exploded. If they had of exploded we would have lost over half our frigates and destroyers.
Under no circumstances can that be described as easy.
Go on admit it wasn't easy. That is all I am after. Be a man at admit you were wrong to say tha.
Nope. That was absolutely the point. You were willing to concede defeat.
Defeat never needed to be conceded as we had a bigger military than Argentina and nuclear weapons unlike them. Thatcher knew that hence she went to war.
You could have gone through every war in history as to hypotheticals which might have given it a different course, so what.
Bonkers. I never said we should concede defeat. Don't know where you got that from. Once we were committed, we were committed. And I was in favour of us doing so. You just make stuff up.
I have objected to one thing, you saying 3 times that the Falklands war was easy and you are so weak you can't admit that was a mistake. Pathetic.
You are so feeble and weak that you are happy to insult the memory of those that fought and the government of the day than admit you were wrong.
Shame on you.
Didn't you notice the same M.O. the other day? When he was pulled up for calculating the CFR wrongly (by yet again doing a comparison of deaths today with cases today and not lagging them), he instantly switched to the attack of "You want to impose restrictions and take away freedoms when there's no use unlike me because I'm a conservative" (or words to that effect).
Anything to avoid admitting mistakes.
(I also wonder where this common meme that HYUFD is always polite and avoids insulting people comes from - he often gets aggressive on ascribing ill motives to whoever he's debating, always in an identity manner ("Yes, but you do [x]/want [y]/hate [whatever] (often all-but-unrelated to the point of the discussion and an extreme take on things) because you're a liberal/lefty/socialist/atheist/Labour whilst I want [other thing that's noble] because I'm a conservative/freedom-lover/right-winger"))
I would note even on the correct calculation the CFR was still well under 0.5%
Yes. It was. People were noting that. The point was to correct the misleading method (that others have made in the past).
All you had to do was say, "Oops; good point. Still, even when the right method's used, it's very low."
Instead, you started accusing people of hating freedom and wanting to lockdown, and that they'd always wanted that.
When no-one had said that, no-one wanted that, and, I believe, the person you were accusing of that had been saying for bloody ages that we didn't need any restrictions now. And even had been illustrating that with amusing memes daily.
How do you think it looks to always refuse to admit error, even when blatantly caught in one, and to instead attack the people pointing it out?
Spoiler: it doesn't make you look strong, or clever, or right.
Lawrence Freedman @LawDavF · 3h At some point it is going to occur to Moldova and Georgia that if the Russian army continues on its current self- destructive path some currently frozen conflicts might get unfrozen.
Fast tracking Moldova into NATO seems to me to be an obvious move. Along with Sweden and Finland. Georgia is more problematic given their geographic location although they do share a border with a NATO country.
However that runs the risk of Putin invading Moldova too, maybe even Finland, if he gets wind of such a plan to fast track them into NATO
Putin's supply lines struggle to get to Kyiv. He won't be able to wage war against Moldova or Finland.
Moldova is less than 10% the size of Ukraine, even if he made the same progress there as he has so far in Ukraine, that would see pretty much all of Moldova fall to the Russians
Moldova would be a logistical nightmare for the Russians, and if Ukraine has shown anything, is that logistics are the weakest link in many, many Russian military weak links.
Russia seems to have an army fit only for fighting civilians who don't fight back.
Without wanting to go over the last thread all over again I looked up some stuff on the Falklands War regarding @HYUFD comment on it being easy.
The US Navy assessed that a successful counter invasion was impossible
Lord Craig stated that if just 6 of the 13 bomb fuses that failed because the Argentine Hawks were flying too low had detonated we would have lost
And that is ignoring the threat of the exocets getting past the destroyers and frigates which suffered badly protecting the carriers.
But hey ho just a cake walk.
Right you want to restart this I can go on all evening and all night now if needed.
None of that changes whatsoever my point that Thatcher was prepared to fight to retake the Falklands as Argentina did not have nuclear weapons unlike us and had a far weaker military like us. Hence we won the war and she would have continued to fight the war no matter what the cost.
Sending a no fly zone into Ukraine against a Russia armed with nuclear weapons is however a totally different ball game
Even had all our carriers been sunk and most of our destroyers and frigates been sunk (which they weren't and was highly unlikely) we could still have placed submarines armed with nuclear weapons off the coast off Argentina and refused to remove them until the Argentines withdrew
Again showing your ignorance. Re our frigates and destroyers over 50% were hit. As per my previous reference frome some who actually knew what he was talking about if just 6 of the 13 bombs that failed to explode had done so we would have lost. So not highly unlikely at all, but nearly happened. Bizarrely we were lucky that the very brave Argentine Hawk pilots got too low. As it was 4 did sink.
So 50% were not and most were not sunk and our carriers survived.
Even if all 13 bombs had not gone off that did not mean we would have lost as we had nuclear weapons and Argentina did not.
As I said we could have parked subs armed with nuclear missiles off the Argentine Coast and refused to remove them until Argentine forces withdrew from the Falkland Islands
Again completely missed the point. All I objected to was you saying it was easy. Go on finally admit it wasn't easy. The US Navy thought it impossible. The head of the RAF thought that we would have lost if 6 of those ,13 bombs had exploded. If they had of exploded we would have lost over half our frigates and destroyers.
Under no circumstances can that be described as easy.
Go on admit it wasn't easy. That is all I am after. Be a man at admit you were wrong to say tha.
Nope. That was absolutely the point. You were willing to concede defeat.
Defeat never needed to be conceded as we had a bigger military than Argentina and nuclear weapons unlike them. Thatcher knew that hence she went to war.
You could have gone through every war in history as to hypotheticals which might have given it a different course, so what.
Bonkers. I never said we should concede defeat. Don't know where you got that from. Once we were committed, we were committed. And I was in favour of us doing so. You just make stuff up.
I have objected to one thing, you saying 3 times that the Falklands war was easy and you are so weak you can't admit that was a mistake. Pathetic.
You are so feeble and weak that you are happy to insult the memory of those that fought and the government of the day than admit you were wrong.
Shame on you.
Yes you did.
You were not prepared to use all methods at our disposal to free the Falklands. You effectively said if the war had started to go against our conventional forces we would automatically have lost.
You restarted this debate not me, so stop whinging if you can't take the heat
And I said you are polite the other day !!!!!
Your whole commentary on the Falklands was error strewn, fake, and frankly an unbelievable ascertain we would nuke Buenos Aires
I was discussing the Falklands war in detail with constituents in the1983 election, were you? - because if you had said half of what you have said you would have had a very angry response
Had you effectively handed over the Falklands to Argentina had the conventional war not started to go in our favour I am sure you too would have met with an angry response
Without wanting to go over the last thread all over again I looked up some stuff on the Falklands War regarding @HYUFD comment on it being easy.
The US Navy assessed that a successful counter invasion was impossible
Lord Craig stated that if just 6 of the 13 bomb fuses that failed because the Argentine Hawks were flying too low had detonated we would have lost
And that is ignoring the threat of the exocets getting past the destroyers and frigates which suffered badly protecting the carriers.
But hey ho just a cake walk.
Right you want to restart this I can go on all evening and all night now if needed.
None of that changes whatsoever my point that Thatcher was prepared to fight to retake the Falklands as Argentina did not have nuclear weapons unlike us and had a far weaker military like us. Hence we won the war and she would have continued to fight the war no matter what the cost.
Sending a no fly zone into Ukraine against a Russia armed with nuclear weapons is however a totally different ball game
Even had all our carriers been sunk and most of our destroyers and frigates been sunk (which they weren't and was highly unlikely) we could still have placed submarines armed with nuclear weapons off the coast off Argentina and refused to remove them until the Argentines withdrew
Again showing your ignorance. Re our frigates and destroyers over 50% were hit. As per my previous reference frome some who actually knew what he was talking about if just 6 of the 13 bombs that failed to explode had done so we would have lost. So not highly unlikely at all, but nearly happened. Bizarrely we were lucky that the very brave Argentine Hawk pilots got too low. As it was 4 did sink.
So 50% were not and most were not sunk and our carriers survived.
Even if all 13 bombs had not gone off that did not mean we would have lost as we had nuclear weapons and Argentina did not.
As I said we could have parked subs armed with nuclear missiles off the Argentine Coast and refused to remove them until Argentine forces withdrew from the Falkland Islands
Again completely missed the point. All I objected to was you saying it was easy. Go on finally admit it wasn't easy. The US Navy thought it impossible. The head of the RAF thought that we would have lost if 6 of those ,13 bombs had exploded. If they had of exploded we would have lost over half our frigates and destroyers.
Under no circumstances can that be described as easy.
Go on admit it wasn't easy. That is all I am after. Be a man at admit you were wrong to say tha.
Nope. That was absolutely the point. You were willing to concede defeat.
Defeat never needed to be conceded as we had a bigger military than Argentina and nuclear weapons unlike them. Thatcher knew that hence she went to war.
You could have gone through every war in history as to hypotheticals which might have given it a different course, so what.
Bonkers. I never said we should concede defeat. Don't know where you got that from. Once we were committed, we were committed. And I was in favour of us doing so. You just make stuff up.
I have objected to one thing, you saying 3 times that the Falklands war was easy and you are so weak you can't admit that was a mistake. Pathetic.
You are so feeble and weak that you are happy to insult the memory of those that fought and the government of the day than admit you were wrong.
Shame on you.
Yes you did.
You were not prepared to use all methods at our disposal to free the Falklands. You effectively said if the war had started to go against our conventional forces we would automatically have lost.
You restarted this debate not me, so stop whinging if you can't take the heat
And I said you are polite the other day !!!!!
Your whole commentary on the Falklands was error strewn, fake, and frankly an unbelievable ascertain we would nuke Buenos Aires
I was discussing the Falklands war in detail with constituents in the1983 election, were you? - because if you had said half of what you have said you would have had a very angry response
Had you effectively handed over the Falklands to Argentina had the conventional war not started to go in our favour I am sure you too would have met with an angry response
How did you explain it when you canvassed in the 1983 election ?
I am increasingly.convimced one poster is a 25-year old transgender Dadaist performance artist from Hoxton, carefully curating our reactions to their nonsense for an upcoming multimedia exhibition.
Without wanting to go over the last thread all over again I looked up some stuff on the Falklands War regarding @HYUFD comment on it being easy.
The US Navy assessed that a successful counter invasion was impossible
Lord Craig stated that if just 6 of the 13 bomb fuses that failed because the Argentine Hawks were flying too low had detonated we would have lost
And that is ignoring the threat of the exocets getting past the destroyers and frigates which suffered badly protecting the carriers.
But hey ho just a cake walk.
Right you want to restart this I can go on all evening and all night now if needed.
None of that changes whatsoever my point that Thatcher was prepared to fight to retake the Falklands as Argentina did not have nuclear weapons unlike us and had a far weaker military like us. Hence we won the war and she would have continued to fight the war no matter what the cost.
Sending a no fly zone into Ukraine against a Russia armed with nuclear weapons is however a totally different ball game
Even had all our carriers been sunk and most of our destroyers and frigates been sunk (which they weren't and was highly unlikely) we could still have placed submarines armed with nuclear weapons off the coast off Argentina and refused to remove them until the Argentines withdrew
Again showing your ignorance. Re our frigates and destroyers over 50% were hit. As per my previous reference frome some who actually knew what he was talking about if just 6 of the 13 bombs that failed to explode had done so we would have lost. So not highly unlikely at all, but nearly happened. Bizarrely we were lucky that the very brave Argentine Hawk pilots got too low. As it was 4 did sink.
In the end @HYUFD is incapable of ever conceding he is wrong and here you are near 24 hours later calling him out and still he talks garbage
Indeed he has upset quite a few by his total lack of empathy and is in direct contrast to his claim he is a Christian
I have decided to believe that HY doesn’t actually exist, in the real world. Since that is my strongly held faith, it is now a fact. HY is no more.
I think he does a shift in the morning as Heathener, just for the shitz n gigglez. The casual use of nukes is the giveaway.
Without wanting to go over the last thread all over again I looked up some stuff on the Falklands War regarding @HYUFD comment on it being easy.
The US Navy assessed that a successful counter invasion was impossible
Lord Craig stated that if just 6 of the 13 bomb fuses that failed because the Argentine Hawks were flying too low had detonated we would have lost
And that is ignoring the threat of the exocets getting past the destroyers and frigates which suffered badly protecting the carriers.
But hey ho just a cake walk.
Right you want to restart this I can go on all evening and all night now if needed.
None of that changes whatsoever my point that Thatcher was prepared to fight to retake the Falklands as Argentina did not have nuclear weapons unlike us and had a far weaker military like us. Hence we won the war and she would have continued to fight the war no matter what the cost.
Sending a no fly zone into Ukraine against a Russia armed with nuclear weapons is however a totally different ball game
Even had all our carriers been sunk and most of our destroyers and frigates been sunk (which they weren't and was highly unlikely) we could still have placed submarines armed with nuclear weapons off the coast off Argentina and refused to remove them until the Argentines withdrew
Again showing your ignorance. Re our frigates and destroyers over 50% were hit. As per my previous reference frome some who actually knew what he was talking about if just 6 of the 13 bombs that failed to explode had done so we would have lost. So not highly unlikely at all, but nearly happened. Bizarrely we were lucky that the very brave Argentine Hawk pilots got too low. As it was 4 did sink.
So 50% were not and most were not sunk and our carriers survived.
Even if all 13 bombs had not gone off that did not mean we would have lost as we had nuclear weapons and Argentina did not.
As I said we could have parked subs armed with nuclear missiles off the Argentine Coast and refused to remove them until Argentine forces withdrew from the Falkland Islands
Again completely missed the point. All I objected to was you saying it was easy. Go on finally admit it wasn't easy. The US Navy thought it impossible. The head of the RAF thought that we would have lost if 6 of those ,13 bombs had exploded. If they had of exploded we would have lost over half our frigates and destroyers.
Under no circumstances can that be described as easy.
Go on admit it wasn't easy. That is all I am after. Be a man at admit you were wrong to say tha.
Nope. That was absolutely the point. You were willing to concede defeat.
Defeat never needed to be conceded as we had a bigger military than Argentina and nuclear weapons unlike them. Thatcher knew that hence she went to war.
You could have gone through every war in history as to hypotheticals which might have given it a different course, so what.
Bonkers. I never said we should concede defeat. Don't know where you got that from. Once we were committed, we were committed. And I was in favour of us doing so. You just make stuff up.
I have objected to one thing, you saying 3 times that the Falklands war was easy and you are so weak you can't admit that was a mistake. Pathetic.
You are so feeble and weak that you are happy to insult the memory of those that fought and the government of the day than admit you were wrong.
Shame on you.
Yes you did.
You were not prepared to use all methods at our disposal to free the Falklands. You effectively said if the war had started to go against our conventional forces we would automatically have lost.
You restarted this debate not me, so stop whinging if you can't take the heat
And I said you are polite the other day !!!!!
Your whole commentary on the Falklands was error strewn, fake, and frankly an unbelievable ascertain we would nuke Buenos Aires
I was discussing the Falklands war in detail with constituents in the1983 election, were you? - because if you had said half of what you have said you would have had a very angry response
Had you effectively handed over the Falklands to Argentina had the conventional war not started to go in our favour I am sure you too would have met with an angry response
But the Thatcher Government was well started on handing them over to Argentina. Secret talks, running down the forces both locally and more generally ... the V-bombers, the assault ships, much else was being closed down, including Portsmouth Dockyard. If General Galtieri had been a little more patient ...
Without wanting to go over the last thread all over again I looked up some stuff on the Falklands War regarding @HYUFD comment on it being easy.
The US Navy assessed that a successful counter invasion was impossible
Lord Craig stated that if just 6 of the 13 bomb fuses that failed because the Argentine Hawks were flying too low had detonated we would have lost
And that is ignoring the threat of the exocets getting past the destroyers and frigates which suffered badly protecting the carriers.
But hey ho just a cake walk.
Right you want to restart this I can go on all evening and all night now if needed.
None of that changes whatsoever my point that Thatcher was prepared to fight to retake the Falklands as Argentina did not have nuclear weapons unlike us and had a far weaker military like us. Hence we won the war and she would have continued to fight the war no matter what the cost.
Sending a no fly zone into Ukraine against a Russia armed with nuclear weapons is however a totally different ball game
Even had all our carriers been sunk and most of our destroyers and frigates been sunk (which they weren't and was highly unlikely) we could still have placed submarines armed with nuclear weapons off the coast off Argentina and refused to remove them until the Argentines withdrew
Again showing your ignorance. Re our frigates and destroyers over 50% were hit. As per my previous reference frome some who actually knew what he was talking about if just 6 of the 13 bombs that failed to explode had done so we would have lost. So not highly unlikely at all, but nearly happened. Bizarrely we were lucky that the very brave Argentine Hawk pilots got too low. As it was 4 did sink.
So 50% were not and most were not sunk and our carriers survived.
Even if all 13 bombs had not gone off that did not mean we would have lost as we had nuclear weapons and Argentina did not.
As I said we could have parked subs armed with nuclear missiles off the Argentine Coast and refused to remove them until Argentine forces withdrew from the Falkland Islands
Again completely missed the point. All I objected to was you saying it was easy. Go on finally admit it wasn't easy. The US Navy thought it impossible. The head of the RAF thought that we would have lost if 6 of those ,13 bombs had exploded. If they had of exploded we would have lost over half our frigates and destroyers.
Under no circumstances can that be described as easy.
Go on admit it wasn't easy. That is all I am after. Be a man at admit you were wrong to say tha.
Nope. That was absolutely the point. You were willing to concede defeat.
Defeat never needed to be conceded as we had a bigger military than Argentina and nuclear weapons unlike them. Thatcher knew that hence she went to war.
You could have gone through every war in history as to hypotheticals which might have given it a different course, so what.
Bonkers. I never said we should concede defeat. Don't know where you got that from. Once we were committed, we were committed. And I was in favour of us doing so. You just make stuff up.
I have objected to one thing, you saying 3 times that the Falklands war was easy and you are so weak you can't admit that was a mistake. Pathetic.
You are so feeble and weak that you are happy to insult the memory of those that fought and the government of the day than admit you were wrong.
Shame on you.
Yes you did.
You were not prepared to use all methods at our disposal to free the Falklands. You effectively said if the war had started to go against our conventional forces we would automatically have lost.
You restarted this debate not me, so stop whinging if you can't take the heat
Go on stop keep avoiding the point. Admit you were wrong in saying the , Falklands war was easy.
Stop being a pathetic whimp and man up.
I am not ever going to concede to you so tough.
My original point stands absolutely we would in the end win the war with Argentina as we had a bigger and more effective military than them and nuclear weapons unlike them.
Intervening against a nuclear armed Russia over Ukraine however is a different matter
You don't have to concede. Not your call.
You lost. Your point on it being easy and a dead cert was clearly wrong. And insulting to many people.
The Black Knight couldn't call it a win or even a draw.
$6K/each. 23Kg and can be deployed from a backpack. Can travel out 25 miles and then loiter before launching themselves at armoured targets. Controlled using a tablet. Seem to me very much like an aerial NLAW. Very easy to setup and use but very destructive.
There's going to be a lot of rethinking about defence in the light of this horrible war. Armed drones, portable surface-to-air missiles and the latest anti-tank weapons make any military convoy a pretty easy target for a defender, and extremely difficult to detect and protect against.
OTOH, there's also the alarming prospect of a few $6K armed drones getting into the hands of domestic terrorists.
Lots of money for whoever can come up with ways to defend against drones.
Ilya Matveev, political scientist based in St Petersburg.
"I have collected some thoughts on the immediate impact of sanctions on the Russian economy (a long 🧵). TL; DR: 30 years of economic development thrown into the bin."
Without wanting to go over the last thread all over again I looked up some stuff on the Falklands War regarding @HYUFD comment on it being easy.
The US Navy assessed that a successful counter invasion was impossible
Lord Craig stated that if just 6 of the 13 bomb fuses that failed because the Argentine Hawks were flying too low had detonated we would have lost
And that is ignoring the threat of the exocets getting past the destroyers and frigates which suffered badly protecting the carriers.
But hey ho just a cake walk.
Right you want to restart this I can go on all evening and all night now if needed.
None of that changes whatsoever my point that Thatcher was prepared to fight to retake the Falklands as Argentina did not have nuclear weapons unlike us and had a far weaker military like us. Hence we won the war and she would have continued to fight the war no matter what the cost.
Sending a no fly zone into Ukraine against a Russia armed with nuclear weapons is however a totally different ball game
Even had all our carriers been sunk and most of our destroyers and frigates been sunk (which they weren't and was highly unlikely) we could still have placed submarines armed with nuclear weapons off the coast off Argentina and refused to remove them until the Argentines withdrew
Again showing your ignorance. Re our frigates and destroyers over 50% were hit. As per my previous reference frome some who actually knew what he was talking about if just 6 of the 13 bombs that failed to explode had done so we would have lost. So not highly unlikely at all, but nearly happened. Bizarrely we were lucky that the very brave Argentine Hawk pilots got too low. As it was 4 did sink.
So 50% were not and most were not sunk and our carriers survived.
Even if all 13 bombs had not gone off that did not mean we would have lost as we had nuclear weapons and Argentina did not.
As I said we could have parked subs armed with nuclear missiles off the Argentine Coast and refused to remove them until Argentine forces withdrew from the Falkland Islands
Again completely missed the point. All I objected to was you saying it was easy. Go on finally admit it wasn't easy. The US Navy thought it impossible. The head of the RAF thought that we would have lost if 6 of those ,13 bombs had exploded. If they had of exploded we would have lost over half our frigates and destroyers.
Under no circumstances can that be described as easy.
Go on admit it wasn't easy. That is all I am after. Be a man at admit you were wrong to say tha.
Nope. That was absolutely the point. You were willing to concede defeat.
Defeat never needed to be conceded as we had a bigger military than Argentina and nuclear weapons unlike them. Thatcher knew that hence she went to war.
You could have gone through every war in history as to hypotheticals which might have given it a different course, so what.
Bonkers. I never said we should concede defeat. Don't know where you got that from. Once we were committed, we were committed. And I was in favour of us doing so. You just make stuff up.
I have objected to one thing, you saying 3 times that the Falklands war was easy and you are so weak you can't admit that was a mistake. Pathetic.
You are so feeble and weak that you are happy to insult the memory of those that fought and the government of the day than admit you were wrong.
Shame on you.
Yes you did.
You were not prepared to use all methods at our disposal to free the Falklands. You effectively said if the war had started to go against our conventional forces we would automatically have lost.
You restarted this debate not me, so stop whinging if you can't take the heat
Go on stop keep avoiding the point. Admit you were wrong in saying the , Falklands war was easy.
Stop being a pathetic whimp and man up.
I am not ever going to concede to you so tough.
My original point stands absolutely we would in the end win the war with Argentina as we had a bigger and more effective military than them and nuclear weapons unlike them.
Intervening against a nuclear armed Russia over Ukraine however is a different matter
So you stick by your 3 statements that the Falklands War was easy.
You are an absolute disgrace. I can't imagine any Tory would support your view.
Ilya Matveev, political scientist based in St Petersburg.
"I have collected some thoughts on the immediate impact of sanctions on the Russian economy (a long 🧵). TL; DR: 30 years of economic development thrown into the bin."
30 years of economic development thrown into the bin
Even assuming Putin underestimated the severity of the response, he must have essentially calculated that, say, throwing 15 years of economic development into the bin was worth it, which is scary enough.
Lawrence Freedman @LawDavF · 3h At some point it is going to occur to Moldova and Georgia that if the Russian army continues on its current self- destructive path some currently frozen conflicts might get unfrozen.
Fast tracking Moldova into NATO seems to me to be an obvious move. Along with Sweden and Finland. Georgia is more problematic given their geographic location although they do share a border with a NATO country.
However that runs the risk of Putin invading Moldova too, maybe even Finland, if he gets wind of such a plan to fast track them into NATO
Putin's supply lines struggle to get to Kyiv. He won't be able to wage war against Moldova or Finland.
Moldova is less than 10% the size of Ukraine, even if he made the same progress there as he has so far in Ukraine, that would see pretty much all of Moldova fall to the Russians
Moldova would be a logistical nightmare for the Russians, and if Ukraine has shown anything, is that logistics are the weakest link in many, many Russian military weak links.
Russia seems to have an army fit only for fighting civilians who don't fight back.
Kinda hoping they break out the vodka - and end up fighting each other.....
Nope. That was absolutely the point. You were willing to concede defeat.
Defeat never needed to be conceded as we had a bigger military than Argentina and nuclear weapons unlike them. Thatcher knew that hence she went to war.
You could have gone through every war in history as to hypotheticals which might have given it a different course, so what.
Do you think the Americans would have "allowed" us to strike a city like Cordoba with a nuclear weapon?
The Americans would have suffered an appalling political backlash throughout Latin America and I'm quite sure Reagan, for all his Anglophilia, would have been strongly advised by his administration the nuclear destruction of a Latin American city would be a catastrophe.
I suspect, had we got to that point, American political and economic pressure would have been applied to BOTH London and Buenos Aires to broker a diplomatic solution.
Who cares what the Americans did. We defend our territory at all costs, the Falklands was our territory.
If the Americans refused to respect that they were not true allies anyway.
Of course the UN did pressure both sides for a diplomatic solution and if the Argentines had withdrawn their forces from the Falklands one could have been found without further escalation
Just so I'm clear - if Washington had told us in the event of launching a nuclear attack on Argentina, they (Washington) would impose punitive economic sanctions on the UK, you would still have incinerated Cordoba.
The worldwide economic and diplomatic consequences of such a course of action would have been extreme - we might well have been thrown out of both NATO and the EEC. The pictures of the incinerated ruins of Cordoba would have been broadcast round the world and would have led to huge sympathy for the Argentines.
The economic impact would have been no less severe with a run on sterling and capital flight from the UK leaving us exposed to inflation and renewed unemployment.
Have you forgotten the extent to which American economic pressure forced both us and the French to stand down in Suez in 1956?
Thatcher's Britain would have been as much a pariah state as Putin's Russia is now.
Yes that threat had to remain as a last resort if conventional forces were losing the war and the Argentines still refused to withdraw (which fortunately they were not and unlikely ever to be).
Because you defend your territory at all costs no matter what the cost.
Because the moment you don't you are opening your country and overseas territories to the risk of future invasion as you have demonstrated your weakness and pathetic uselessness to the world.
The only exception would be for a superpower like China but even then if the Chinese invaded the mainland UK we would have had to defend our island at all costs.
Suez was never British territory in the way the Falklands was just we had some shares in the Canal, totally different.
So once Argentina invaded the Falklands we would have used all methods to force then out at all costs
Nope. That was absolutely the point. You were willing to concede defeat.
Defeat never needed to be conceded as we had a bigger military than Argentina and nuclear weapons unlike them. Thatcher knew that hence she went to war.
You could have gone through every war in history as to hypotheticals which might have given it a different course, so what.
Do you think the Americans would have "allowed" us to strike a city like Cordoba with a nuclear weapon?
The Americans would have suffered an appalling political backlash throughout Latin America and I'm quite sure Reagan, for all his Anglophilia, would have been strongly advised by his administration the nuclear destruction of a Latin American city would be a catastrophe.
I suspect, had we got to that point, American political and economic pressure would have been applied to BOTH London and Buenos Aires to broker a diplomatic solution.
Who cares what the Americans did. We defend our territory at all costs, the Falklands was our territory.
If the Americans refused to respect that they were not true allies anyway.
Of course the UN did pressure both sides for a diplomatic solution and if the Argentines had withdrawn their forces from the Falklands one could have been found without further escalation
Just so I'm clear - if Washington had told us in the event of launching a nuclear attack on Argentina, they (Washington) would impose punitive economic sanctions on the UK, you would still have incinerated Cordoba.
The worldwide economic and diplomatic consequences of such a course of action would have been extreme - we might well have been thrown out of both NATO and the EEC. The pictures of the incinerated ruins of Cordoba would have been broadcast round the world and would have led to huge sympathy for the Argentines.
The economic impact would have been no less severe with a run on sterling and capital flight from the UK leaving us exposed to inflation and renewed unemployment.
Have you forgotten the extent to which American economic pressure forced both us and the French to stand down in Suez in 1956?
Thatcher's Britain would have been as much a pariah state as Putin's Russia is now.
As someone who was in the FCO at the time, I'd just like to say that even a UK threat of nuclear weapons use against a non-nuclear state, let alone their actual use, was unthinkable in 1982.
Nope. That was absolutely the point. You were willing to concede defeat.
Defeat never needed to be conceded as we had a bigger military than Argentina and nuclear weapons unlike them. Thatcher knew that hence she went to war.
You could have gone through every war in history as to hypotheticals which might have given it a different course, so what.
Do you think the Americans would have "allowed" us to strike a city like Cordoba with a nuclear weapon?
The Americans would have suffered an appalling political backlash throughout Latin America and I'm quite sure Reagan, for all his Anglophilia, would have been strongly advised by his administration the nuclear destruction of a Latin American city would be a catastrophe.
I suspect, had we got to that point, American political and economic pressure would have been applied to BOTH London and Buenos Aires to broker a diplomatic solution.
Who cares what the Americans did. We defend our territory at all costs, the Falklands was our territory.
If the Americans refused to respect that they were not true allies anyway.
Of course the UN did pressure both sides for a diplomatic solution and if the Argentines had withdrawn their forces from the Falklands one could have been found without further escalation
Is Ukraine - and is the West - willing to let Russia normalise those grotesque annexations for the greater good?
Dead Putin is the key.
Sadly, not on the negotiating table.
Although there is something in the idea that we should push the Russians into agreeing the sort of humiliation that cannot go unanswered by malcontents in Moscow.
Both vindictive and ineffective. Muscovite malcontents lack the power to take out Putin either by ballot or bullet. And in 20s Germany the effect of humiliation was to make people get behind the leader. The danger is of reinforcing the belief in Putin that a majority of Russians currently have
Yes, we need to be serious. "Humiliating" Putin is stupid, as long as he remains in charge and as long as he has nukes.
Don't corner the rat. Give him an exit. It would be nice if we could eliminate him from global politics, at some point and in some way, but right now the world just needs to step back from the abyss, and end the war. Then we re-arm and wait, and hope that Russia mends itself
We don't need to punish Russia further, not right now. It is already quite humbled and the sanctions have already done serious longterm damage
I am afraid you are misreading the nature of the regime. We have been talking about off ramps for months now, and the reality is that the Kremlin does not want an off ramp. Indeed continuing to discuss even fig leaf concessions is counter productive. Literally the only thing that is understood in the mafia state is the naked use of power. In fact you should increase the pressure and upgrade the Ukrainian military capabilities to the point where they can successfully go on the offensive. This rat must be cornered before he recognises that he has no choice but to make whatever peace he can. To let him off the hook leaves him like Saddam Hussein after Desert Storm, when actually the defeat needs to be sufficiently comprehensive to ensure regime change.
Few governments make the kind of mistake that Putin has and survive. The West has been threatened with nuclear anhillation. If there is any way to ensure the removal of the tyrant as quickly as possible, then it should be taken now. Leaving him in place is simply too dangerous.
We established upthread that Charles xii of Sweden, Hitler, Napoleon and ancient Athens survived for years after equivalent mistakes. What are your counter examples?
Wars of aggression where the aggressor lost and there was a subsequent change or major modification of regime? Germany WWI, Germany WW2, Japan WW2, USSR Afghanistan 1979-89 , French occupation of the Ruhr 1923, Arab Israeli wars of 1948 and 1967, West Pakistan versus East Pakistan 1971. Falklands War 1982, there are others.
Given Karl XII was exiled for five years after his defeat at Poltava we should also note that Sweden abandoned absolutism and established Parliamentary rule in his absence, so I could claim him for the aggressors who failed list too.
In the long run, but then all regimes fail in the long run. The implication of your claim was that we can get Putin now while he is especially vulnerable. None of those examples supports that timescale.
Well History doesn´t repeat but it rhymes... I think the Russian army could mutiny and if it does, how long do you give Putin then?
15 years? 20?
Putin has a Praetorian guard, the FSO, not part of the army but geared up and equipped to fight an army. 20,000 strong and has its own tanks and artillery.
But why would they fight? I'd cautiously suggest, I the spirit of testing an idea, that civil wars tend to happen when you have a battle of ideas. A reason to fight. There is no battle of ideas here: if the writing is in the wall for a despot, why will people fight for him? This is why coups happen more often than civil wars.
Let us assume that the peace deal is signed, and the world steps back from nuclear apocalypse. (Which would be a positive.)
Does Putin survive?
I mean, sure, he'll spin this as a victory. But it will be obvious to all but the most deluded that he will have spent an awful lot of money and lives on achieving the enmity of most of the world. Russian firms will probably continue to be under sanctions for some time. And Europe will continue to pivot away from Russian energy.
Plus, of course, all but the most loony of his foreign "useful idiots" will have deserted him.
I guess there are no obvious successors to him, and he runs a fairly vicious police state, so maybe he can continue. But he will have been dramatically weakened.
Nord Stream 2 will still be dead. The US has always opposed it.
Even if the Germans demand it is re-instated (and they may well not), why would the US unwind the sanctions that make it impossible?
Nord Stream 2 ain't coming back.
The Germans thought they had entered into a pact with Russia: money for being (vaguely) compliant with the world order, and no threat to supplies.
Over the winter, the Russians started to renege on this: they deliberately reduced supplies to Europe with the intention that the continent in general (and Germany in particular) would be very short gas come February.
And then they invaded Ukraine.
Suddenly, two things that the Germans thought they could rely on disappeared*.
And you can't put that back in the box. Irrespective of what happens in Ukraine, Germany is rearming and is diversifying its energy supplies.
* It turns out though, that they can still rely on the treachery of Gerhard Schroder
The Russians will demand Nord Stream 2
Wait for the little voices to pipe-up about how being against Nord Stream 2 is to be Against Peace.
My own view is that any deal between Russia and Ukraine should not include lifting Western sanctions. The Russians need to be punished and Putin needs to be gone or at some point in the very near future he will just do the same thing again. I would be very worried if I were one of the 'Stans if Putin gets out of this ahead of where he went in.
We impose sanctions on various Middle Eastern countries because of the threat they pose rather than because they are actively invading someone. The same should apply to Russia. Lifting them just because they decide they can't win and so look for a painless way out should not be on the table.
How much do you want to bet?
- Russia will demand it. - Stop The War will be protesting about the sanctions 10 minutes after.
I'm thinking that Stop the War have perhaps irrevocably pokered their backside on this one.
They seem to be back to the lunatic core.
There are some kooks in STW but it's not a sign of lunacy to want to be part of a global peace movement. It's very much needed, I'd say. More than ever.
I think that "lunatic" is very fair for Nineham, German, Murray, Corbyn axis.
STWC has been an SWP front, and is now back to being organised around SWP / ex-SWP or similar figures. ISTR that German left.
SWP has always been parasitic on the Left/ Far Left and as such does not, I think. help the causes they seek to exploit.
Did you listen to their rally? Including the parts where they base their case on fictional claims?
There is however a certain irony in the fact that destabilisation of electricity supplies by gradual detachment from the European Grid is one of the levers currently being used by Brussels to try and force Switzerland to do what the EuCo wants it to do.
Perhap Switzerland should ask Putin to invade?
But his amphibious units are all in the Black Sea, so none left for Antwerp
Without wanting to go over the last thread all over again I looked up some stuff on the Falklands War regarding @HYUFD comment on it being easy.
The US Navy assessed that a successful counter invasion was impossible
Lord Craig stated that if just 6 of the 13 bomb fuses that failed because the Argentine Hawks were flying too low had detonated we would have lost
And that is ignoring the threat of the exocets getting past the destroyers and frigates which suffered badly protecting the carriers.
But hey ho just a cake walk.
Right you want to restart this I can go on all evening and all night now if needed.
None of that changes whatsoever my point that Thatcher was prepared to fight to retake the Falklands as Argentina did not have nuclear weapons unlike us and had a far weaker military like us. Hence we won the war and she would have continued to fight the war no matter what the cost.
Sending a no fly zone into Ukraine against a Russia armed with nuclear weapons is however a totally different ball game
Even had all our carriers been sunk and most of our destroyers and frigates been sunk (which they weren't and was highly unlikely) we could still have placed submarines armed with nuclear weapons off the coast off Argentina and refused to remove them until the Argentines withdrew
Again showing your ignorance. Re our frigates and destroyers over 50% were hit. As per my previous reference frome some who actually knew what he was talking about if just 6 of the 13 bombs that failed to explode had done so we would have lost. So not highly unlikely at all, but nearly happened. Bizarrely we were lucky that the very brave Argentine Hawk pilots got too low. As it was 4 did sink.
In the end @HYUFD is incapable of ever conceding he is wrong and here you are near 24 hours later calling him out and still he talks garbage
Indeed he has upset quite a few by his total lack of empathy and is in direct contrast to his claim he is a Christian
I have decided to believe that HY doesn’t actually exist, in the real world. Since that is my strongly held faith, it is now a fact. HY is no more.
HY's just enjoying himself being PB's controversialist. It's just a bit of personal branding. He reminds me of British people who move to America and end up saying things like 'Gor Blimey Guvnah' or coming over like Princess Margaret because it seems to be expected of them. People shouldn't get so incensed by it. I'm always surprised when otherwise sensible posters let themselves get so frustrated by him.
Everyone has their own limit, even when they can see its deliberate frustration.
Well, when someone like so normally calm like Carynx loses it over a chauvanistic comment by HY, I always think he's scraping the barrel of things to try and inflame his nationalist passions.
I find this epistemologically fascinating, unless I mean historiographically. Many/most of us here were of the age to vote and get a mortgage in 1982. HYUFD was still, literally, in nappies. And he illustrates how extra spectacularly wrong you can be about stuff simply by not having been there or thereabouts when the stuff happened. I will always remember this in future when reading histories and biographies.
Without wanting to go over the last thread all over again I looked up some stuff on the Falklands War regarding @HYUFD comment on it being easy.
The US Navy assessed that a successful counter invasion was impossible
Lord Craig stated that if just 6 of the 13 bomb fuses that failed because the Argentine Hawks were flying too low had detonated we would have lost
And that is ignoring the threat of the exocets getting past the destroyers and frigates which suffered badly protecting the carriers.
But hey ho just a cake walk.
Right you want to restart this I can go on all evening and all night now if needed.
None of that changes whatsoever my point that Thatcher was prepared to fight to retake the Falklands as Argentina did not have nuclear weapons unlike us and had a far weaker military like us. Hence we won the war and she would have continued to fight the war no matter what the cost.
Sending a no fly zone into Ukraine against a Russia armed with nuclear weapons is however a totally different ball game
Even had all our carriers been sunk and most of our destroyers and frigates been sunk (which they weren't and was highly unlikely) we could still have placed submarines armed with nuclear weapons off the coast off Argentina and refused to remove them until the Argentines withdrew
Again showing your ignorance. Re our frigates and destroyers over 50% were hit. As per my previous reference frome some who actually knew what he was talking about if just 6 of the 13 bombs that failed to explode had done so we would have lost. So not highly unlikely at all, but nearly happened. Bizarrely we were lucky that the very brave Argentine Hawk pilots got too low. As it was 4 did sink.
So 50% were not and most were not sunk and our carriers survived.
Even if all 13 bombs had not gone off that did not mean we would have lost as we had nuclear weapons and Argentina did not.
As I said we could have parked subs armed with nuclear missiles off the Argentine Coast and refused to remove them until Argentine forces withdrew from the Falkland Islands
Again completely missed the point. All I objected to was you saying it was easy. Go on finally admit it wasn't easy. The US Navy thought it impossible. The head of the RAF thought that we would have lost if 6 of those ,13 bombs had exploded. If they had of exploded we would have lost over half our frigates and destroyers.
Under no circumstances can that be described as easy.
Go on admit it wasn't easy. That is all I am after. Be a man at admit you were wrong to say tha.
Nope. That was absolutely the point. You were willing to concede defeat.
Defeat never needed to be conceded as we had a bigger military than Argentina and nuclear weapons unlike them. Thatcher knew that hence she went to war.
You could have gone through every war in history as to hypotheticals which might have given it a different course, so what.
Bonkers. I never said we should concede defeat. Don't know where you got that from. Once we were committed, we were committed. And I was in favour of us doing so. You just make stuff up.
I have objected to one thing, you saying 3 times that the Falklands war was easy and you are so weak you can't admit that was a mistake. Pathetic.
You are so feeble and weak that you are happy to insult the memory of those that fought and the government of the day than admit you were wrong.
Shame on you.
Yes you did.
You were not prepared to use all methods at our disposal to free the Falklands. You effectively said if the war had started to go against our conventional forces we would automatically have lost.
You restarted this debate not me, so stop whinging if you can't take the heat
And I said you are polite the other day !!!!!
Your whole commentary on the Falklands was error strewn, fake, and frankly an unbelievable ascertain we would nuke Buenos Aires
I was discussing the Falklands war in detail with constituents in the1983 election, were you? - because if you had said half of what you have said you would have had a very angry response
Ilya Matveev, political scientist based in St Petersburg.
"I have collected some thoughts on the immediate impact of sanctions on the Russian economy (a long 🧵). TL; DR: 30 years of economic development thrown into the bin."
30 years of economic development thrown into the bin
Even assuming Putin underestimated the severity of the response, he must have essentially calculated that, say, throwing 15 years of economic development into the bin was worth it, which is scary enough.
Again, the Brexit parallels are intriguing.
As David Frost said last night, “we knew Brexit couldn’t be achieved without a short-run economic cost”.
Nope. That was absolutely the point. You were willing to concede defeat.
Defeat never needed to be conceded as we had a bigger military than Argentina and nuclear weapons unlike them. Thatcher knew that hence she went to war.
You could have gone through every war in history as to hypotheticals which might have given it a different course, so what.
Do you think the Americans would have "allowed" us to strike a city like Cordoba with a nuclear weapon?
The Americans would have suffered an appalling political backlash throughout Latin America and I'm quite sure Reagan, for all his Anglophilia, would have been strongly advised by his administration the nuclear destruction of a Latin American city would be a catastrophe.
I suspect, had we got to that point, American political and economic pressure would have been applied to BOTH London and Buenos Aires to broker a diplomatic solution.
Who cares what the Americans did. We defend our territory at all costs, the Falklands was our territory.
If the Americans refused to respect that they were not true allies anyway.
Of course the UN did pressure both sides for a diplomatic solution and if the Argentines had withdrawn their forces from the Falklands one could have been found without further escalation
Is Ukraine - and is the West - willing to let Russia normalise those grotesque annexations for the greater good?
Dead Putin is the key.
Sadly, not on the negotiating table.
Although there is something in the idea that we should push the Russians into agreeing the sort of humiliation that cannot go unanswered by malcontents in Moscow.
Both vindictive and ineffective. Muscovite malcontents lack the power to take out Putin either by ballot or bullet. And in 20s Germany the effect of humiliation was to make people get behind the leader. The danger is of reinforcing the belief in Putin that a majority of Russians currently have
Yes, we need to be serious. "Humiliating" Putin is stupid, as long as he remains in charge and as long as he has nukes.
Don't corner the rat. Give him an exit. It would be nice if we could eliminate him from global politics, at some point and in some way, but right now the world just needs to step back from the abyss, and end the war. Then we re-arm and wait, and hope that Russia mends itself
We don't need to punish Russia further, not right now. It is already quite humbled and the sanctions have already done serious longterm damage
I am afraid you are misreading the nature of the regime. We have been talking about off ramps for months now, and the reality is that the Kremlin does not want an off ramp. Indeed continuing to discuss even fig leaf concessions is counter productive. Literally the only thing that is understood in the mafia state is the naked use of power. In fact you should increase the pressure and upgrade the Ukrainian military capabilities to the point where they can successfully go on the offensive. This rat must be cornered before he recognises that he has no choice but to make whatever peace he can. To let him off the hook leaves him like Saddam Hussein after Desert Storm, when actually the defeat needs to be sufficiently comprehensive to ensure regime change.
Few governments make the kind of mistake that Putin has and survive. The West has been threatened with nuclear anhillation. If there is any way to ensure the removal of the tyrant as quickly as possible, then it should be taken now. Leaving him in place is simply too dangerous.
We established upthread that Charles xii of Sweden, Hitler, Napoleon and ancient Athens survived for years after equivalent mistakes. What are your counter examples?
Wars of aggression where the aggressor lost and there was a subsequent change or major modification of regime? Germany WWI, Germany WW2, Japan WW2, USSR Afghanistan 1979-89 , French occupation of the Ruhr 1923, Arab Israeli wars of 1948 and 1967, West Pakistan versus East Pakistan 1971. Falklands War 1982, there are others.
Given Karl XII was exiled for five years after his defeat at Poltava we should also note that Sweden abandoned absolutism and established Parliamentary rule in his absence, so I could claim him for the aggressors who failed list too.
In the long run, but then all regimes fail in the long run. The implication of your claim was that we can get Putin now while he is especially vulnerable. None of those examples supports that timescale.
Well History doesn´t repeat but it rhymes... I think the Russian army could mutiny and if it does, how long do you give Putin then?
15 years? 20?
Putin has a Praetorian guard, the FSO, not part of the army but geared up and equipped to fight an army. 20,000 strong and has its own tanks and artillery.
But why would they fight? I'd cautiously suggest, I the spirit of testing an idea, that civil wars tend to happen when you have a battle of ideas. A reason to fight. There is no battle of ideas here: if the writing is in the wall for a despot, why will people fight for him? This is why coups happen more often than civil wars.
Money. Loyalty. Efficient built-in mechanism for dealing with non-fighters.
Nope. That was absolutely the point. You were willing to concede defeat.
Defeat never needed to be conceded as we had a bigger military than Argentina and nuclear weapons unlike them. Thatcher knew that hence she went to war.
You could have gone through every war in history as to hypotheticals which might have given it a different course, so what.
Do you think the Americans would have "allowed" us to strike a city like Cordoba with a nuclear weapon?
The Americans would have suffered an appalling political backlash throughout Latin America and I'm quite sure Reagan, for all his Anglophilia, would have been strongly advised by his administration the nuclear destruction of a Latin American city would be a catastrophe.
I suspect, had we got to that point, American political and economic pressure would have been applied to BOTH London and Buenos Aires to broker a diplomatic solution.
Who cares what the Americans did. We defend our territory at all costs, the Falklands was our territory.
If the Americans refused to respect that they were not true allies anyway.
Of course the UN did pressure both sides for a diplomatic solution and if the Argentines had withdrawn their forces from the Falklands one could have been found without further escalation
Just so I'm clear - if Washington had told us in the event of launching a nuclear attack on Argentina, they (Washington) would impose punitive economic sanctions on the UK, you would still have incinerated Cordoba.
The worldwide economic and diplomatic consequences of such a course of action would have been extreme - we might well have been thrown out of both NATO and the EEC. The pictures of the incinerated ruins of Cordoba would have been broadcast round the world and would have led to huge sympathy for the Argentines.
The economic impact would have been no less severe with a run on sterling and capital flight from the UK leaving us exposed to inflation and renewed unemployment.
Have you forgotten the extent to which American economic pressure forced both us and the French to stand down in Suez in 1956?
Thatcher's Britain would have been as much a pariah state as Putin's Russia is now.
As someone who was in the FCO at the time, I'd just like to say that even a UK threat of nuclear weapons use against a non-nuclear state, let alone their actual use, was unthinkable in 1982.
How do you know what Thatcher would have done had British conventional forces started to lose the War and her premiership then been at risk of ending in humiliation and British territory lost to invasion without using all means of defence at our disposal?
I am increasingly.convimced one poster is a 25-year old transgender Dadaist performance artist from Hoxton, carefully curating our reactions to their nonsense for an upcoming multimedia exhibition.
Without wanting to go over the last thread all over again I looked up some stuff on the Falklands War regarding @HYUFD comment on it being easy.
The US Navy assessed that a successful counter invasion was impossible
Lord Craig stated that if just 6 of the 13 bomb fuses that failed because the Argentine Hawks were flying too low had detonated we would have lost
And that is ignoring the threat of the exocets getting past the destroyers and frigates which suffered badly protecting the carriers.
But hey ho just a cake walk.
Right you want to restart this I can go on all evening and all night now if needed.
None of that changes whatsoever my point that Thatcher was prepared to fight to retake the Falklands as Argentina did not have nuclear weapons unlike us and had a far weaker military like us. Hence we won the war and she would have continued to fight the war no matter what the cost.
Sending a no fly zone into Ukraine against a Russia armed with nuclear weapons is however a totally different ball game
Even had all our carriers been sunk and most of our destroyers and frigates been sunk (which they weren't and was highly unlikely) we could still have placed submarines armed with nuclear weapons off the coast off Argentina and refused to remove them until the Argentines withdrew
Again showing your ignorance. Re our frigates and destroyers over 50% were hit. As per my previous reference frome some who actually knew what he was talking about if just 6 of the 13 bombs that failed to explode had done so we would have lost. So not highly unlikely at all, but nearly happened. Bizarrely we were lucky that the very brave Argentine Hawk pilots got too low. As it was 4 did sink.
So 50% were not and most were not sunk and our carriers survived.
Even if all 13 bombs had not gone off that did not mean we would have lost as we had nuclear weapons and Argentina did not.
As I said we could have parked subs armed with nuclear missiles off the Argentine Coast and refused to remove them until Argentine forces withdrew from the Falkland Islands
Again completely missed the point. All I objected to was you saying it was easy. Go on finally admit it wasn't easy. The US Navy thought it impossible. The head of the RAF thought that we would have lost if 6 of those ,13 bombs had exploded. If they had of exploded we would have lost over half our frigates and destroyers.
Under no circumstances can that be described as easy.
Go on admit it wasn't easy. That is all I am after. Be a man at admit you were wrong to say tha.
Nope. That was absolutely the point. You were willing to concede defeat.
Defeat never needed to be conceded as we had a bigger military than Argentina and nuclear weapons unlike them. Thatcher knew that hence she went to war.
You could have gone through every war in history as to hypotheticals which might have given it a different course, so what.
Bonkers. I never said we should concede defeat. Don't know where you got that from. Once we were committed, we were committed. And I was in favour of us doing so. You just make stuff up.
I have objected to one thing, you saying 3 times that the Falklands war was easy and you are so weak you can't admit that was a mistake. Pathetic.
You are so feeble and weak that you are happy to insult the memory of those that fought and the government of the day than admit you were wrong.
Shame on you.
Yes you did.
You were not prepared to use all methods at our disposal to free the Falklands. You effectively said if the war had started to go against our conventional forces we would automatically have lost.
You restarted this debate not me, so stop whinging if you can't take the heat
And I said you are polite the other day !!!!!
Your whole commentary on the Falklands was error strewn, fake, and frankly an unbelievable ascertain we would nuke Buenos Aires
I was discussing the Falklands war in detail with constituents in the1983 election, were you? - because if you had said half of what you have said you would have had a very angry response
Had you effectively handed over the Falklands to Argentina had the conventional war not started to go in our favour I am sure you too would have met with an angry response
But the Thatcher Government was well started on handing them over to Argentina. Secret talks, running down the forces both locally and more generally ... the V-bombers, the assault ships, much else was being closed down, including Portsmouth Dockyard. If General Galtieri had been a little more patient ...
Many of us lived through those days and as I have said it was a very real issue in our campaign for Wyn Roberts in 1983
I do not know but I suspect @HYUFD was barely at primary school in those days and has little knowledge of the military campaign in real time and this may account for his somewhat inaccurate reading of history
Given that we have spent much of the last decade complaining about the inability of England openers to keep their wickets, a little slow scoring is entirely welcome. Openers are supposed to be slow. The point is not to score runs, it is to blunt the attack.
Run rate is over 2.5 now. Lawrence 44 off 51 including a six.
Nope. That was absolutely the point. You were willing to concede defeat.
Defeat never needed to be conceded as we had a bigger military than Argentina and nuclear weapons unlike them. Thatcher knew that hence she went to war.
You could have gone through every war in history as to hypotheticals which might have given it a different course, so what.
Do you think the Americans would have "allowed" us to strike a city like Cordoba with a nuclear weapon?
The Americans would have suffered an appalling political backlash throughout Latin America and I'm quite sure Reagan, for all his Anglophilia, would have been strongly advised by his administration the nuclear destruction of a Latin American city would be a catastrophe.
I suspect, had we got to that point, American political and economic pressure would have been applied to BOTH London and Buenos Aires to broker a diplomatic solution.
Who cares what the Americans did. We defend our territory at all costs, the Falklands was our territory.
If the Americans refused to respect that they were not true allies anyway.
Of course the UN did pressure both sides for a diplomatic solution and if the Argentines had withdrawn their forces from the Falklands one could have been found without further escalation
Just so I'm clear - if Washington had told us in the event of launching a nuclear attack on Argentina, they (Washington) would impose punitive economic sanctions on the UK, you would still have incinerated Cordoba.
The worldwide economic and diplomatic consequences of such a course of action would have been extreme - we might well have been thrown out of both NATO and the EEC. The pictures of the incinerated ruins of Cordoba would have been broadcast round the world and would have led to huge sympathy for the Argentines.
The economic impact would have been no less severe with a run on sterling and capital flight from the UK leaving us exposed to inflation and renewed unemployment.
Have you forgotten the extent to which American economic pressure forced both us and the French to stand down in Suez in 1956?
Thatcher's Britain would have been as much a pariah state as Putin's Russia is now.
As someone who was in the FCO at the time, I'd just like to say that even a UK threat of nuclear weapons use against a non-nuclear state, let alone their actual use, was unthinkable in 1982.
How do you know what Thatcher would have done had British conventional forces started to lose the War and her premiership then been at risk of ending in humiliation and British territory lost to invasion without using all means if defence at our disposal?
I'm fairly sure that Thatcher was sane enough not to risk a nuclear war on the grounds that her premiership was at risk. You're supposed to be a fan of hers!
Without wanting to go over the last thread all over again I looked up some stuff on the Falklands War regarding @HYUFD comment on it being easy.
The US Navy assessed that a successful counter invasion was impossible
Lord Craig stated that if just 6 of the 13 bomb fuses that failed because the Argentine Hawks were flying too low had detonated we would have lost
And that is ignoring the threat of the exocets getting past the destroyers and frigates which suffered badly protecting the carriers.
But hey ho just a cake walk.
Right you want to restart this I can go on all evening and all night now if needed.
None of that changes whatsoever my point that Thatcher was prepared to fight to retake the Falklands as Argentina did not have nuclear weapons unlike us and had a far weaker military like us. Hence we won the war and she would have continued to fight the war no matter what the cost.
Sending a no fly zone into Ukraine against a Russia armed with nuclear weapons is however a totally different ball game
Even had all our carriers been sunk and most of our destroyers and frigates been sunk (which they weren't and was highly unlikely) we could still have placed submarines armed with nuclear weapons off the coast off Argentina and refused to remove them until the Argentines withdrew
Again showing your ignorance. Re our frigates and destroyers over 50% were hit. As per my previous reference frome some who actually knew what he was talking about if just 6 of the 13 bombs that failed to explode had done so we would have lost. So not highly unlikely at all, but nearly happened. Bizarrely we were lucky that the very brave Argentine Hawk pilots got too low. As it was 4 did sink.
So 50% were not and most were not sunk and our carriers survived.
Even if all 13 bombs had not gone off that did not mean we would have lost as we had nuclear weapons and Argentina did not.
As I said we could have parked subs armed with nuclear missiles off the Argentine Coast and refused to remove them until Argentine forces withdrew from the Falkland Islands
Again completely missed the point. All I objected to was you saying it was easy. Go on finally admit it wasn't easy. The US Navy thought it impossible. The head of the RAF thought that we would have lost if 6 of those ,13 bombs had exploded. If they had of exploded we would have lost over half our frigates and destroyers.
Under no circumstances can that be described as easy.
Go on admit it wasn't easy. That is all I am after. Be a man at admit you were wrong to say tha.
Nope. That was absolutely the point. You were willing to concede defeat.
Defeat never needed to be conceded as we had a bigger military than Argentina and nuclear weapons unlike them. Thatcher knew that hence she went to war.
You could have gone through every war in history as to hypotheticals which might have given it a different course, so what.
Bonkers. I never said we should concede defeat. Don't know where you got that from. Once we were committed, we were committed. And I was in favour of us doing so. You just make stuff up.
I have objected to one thing, you saying 3 times that the Falklands war was easy and you are so weak you can't admit that was a mistake. Pathetic.
You are so feeble and weak that you are happy to insult the memory of those that fought and the government of the day than admit you were wrong.
Shame on you.
Yes you did.
You were not prepared to use all methods at our disposal to free the Falklands. You effectively said if the war had started to go against our conventional forces we would automatically have lost.
You restarted this debate not me, so stop whinging if you can't take the heat
Go on stop keep avoiding the point. Admit you were wrong in saying the , Falklands war was easy.
Stop being a pathetic whimp and man up.
I am not ever going to concede to you so tough.
My original point stands absolutely we would in the end win the war with Argentina as we had a bigger and more effective military than them and nuclear weapons unlike them.
Intervening against a nuclear armed Russia over Ukraine however is a different matter
So you stick by your 3 statements that the Falklands War was easy.
You are an absolute disgrace. I can't imagine any Tory would support your view.
Without wanting to go over the last thread all over again I looked up some stuff on the Falklands War regarding @HYUFD comment on it being easy.
The US Navy assessed that a successful counter invasion was impossible
Lord Craig stated that if just 6 of the 13 bomb fuses that failed because the Argentine Hawks were flying too low had detonated we would have lost
And that is ignoring the threat of the exocets getting past the destroyers and frigates which suffered badly protecting the carriers.
But hey ho just a cake walk.
Right you want to restart this I can go on all evening and all night now if needed.
None of that changes whatsoever my point that Thatcher was prepared to fight to retake the Falklands as Argentina did not have nuclear weapons unlike us and had a far weaker military like us. Hence we won the war and she would have continued to fight the war no matter what the cost.
Sending a no fly zone into Ukraine against a Russia armed with nuclear weapons is however a totally different ball game
Even had all our carriers been sunk and most of our destroyers and frigates been sunk (which they weren't and was highly unlikely) we could still have placed submarines armed with nuclear weapons off the coast off Argentina and refused to remove them until the Argentines withdrew
Again showing your ignorance. Re our frigates and destroyers over 50% were hit. As per my previous reference frome some who actually knew what he was talking about if just 6 of the 13 bombs that failed to explode had done so we would have lost. So not highly unlikely at all, but nearly happened. Bizarrely we were lucky that the very brave Argentine Hawk pilots got too low. As it was 4 did sink.
So 50% were not and most were not sunk and our carriers survived.
Even if all 13 bombs had not gone off that did not mean we would have lost as we had nuclear weapons and Argentina did not.
As I said we could have parked subs armed with nuclear missiles off the Argentine Coast and refused to remove them until Argentine forces withdrew from the Falkland Islands
Again completely missed the point. All I objected to was you saying it was easy. Go on finally admit it wasn't easy. The US Navy thought it impossible. The head of the RAF thought that we would have lost if 6 of those ,13 bombs had exploded. If they had of exploded we would have lost over half our frigates and destroyers.
Under no circumstances can that be described as easy.
Go on admit it wasn't easy. That is all I am after. Be a man at admit you were wrong to say tha.
Nope. That was absolutely the point. You were willing to concede defeat.
Defeat never needed to be conceded as we had a bigger military than Argentina and nuclear weapons unlike them. Thatcher knew that hence she went to war.
You could have gone through every war in history as to hypotheticals which might have given it a different course, so what.
Bonkers. I never said we should concede defeat. Don't know where you got that from. Once we were committed, we were committed. And I was in favour of us doing so. You just make stuff up.
I have objected to one thing, you saying 3 times that the Falklands war was easy and you are so weak you can't admit that was a mistake. Pathetic.
You are so feeble and weak that you are happy to insult the memory of those that fought and the government of the day than admit you were wrong.
Shame on you.
Yes you did.
You were not prepared to use all methods at our disposal to free the Falklands. You effectively said if the war had started to go against our conventional forces we would automatically have lost.
You restarted this debate not me, so stop whinging if you can't take the heat
Go on stop keep avoiding the point. Admit you were wrong in saying the , Falklands war was easy.
Stop being a pathetic whimp and man up.
I am not ever going to concede to you so tough.
My original point stands absolutely we would in the end win the war with Argentina as we had a bigger and more effective military than them and nuclear weapons unlike them.
Intervening against a nuclear armed Russia over Ukraine however is a different matter
So you stick by your 3 statements that the Falklands War was easy.
You are an absolute disgrace. I can't imagine any Tory would support your view.
Not only on this issue but many other of his views
No Nato membership or foreign military bases. That seems a decent offer but could Putin really sell that as a win?
Presumably they are yielding Crimea forever, and maybe the separatist bits in the East?
Which is not unjustifiable. Crimea is more "Russian" than "Ukrainian"
From my perspective it certainly is unjustifiable. Crimea has been Ukrainian since 1954. It voted to leave the Soviet Union. Ukraine surrendered its nuclear weapons in return for a commitment by the US/UK/Russia to respect its territorial integrity. It's territory has been taken by force and its citizens held hostage by a terrorist state. A referendum on its future could be held with proper international oversight.
Now maybe 'realism' suggests you sometimes have to appease terror and violence. But that's what it would be.
A plebiscite in Crimea - which would be assumed to be won by pro-Russians - is perhaps the fig leaf we need to overlook the sordid nature of its annexation by Russia.
Ukraine has $1trn of aid and $1trn more of international goodwill coming down the line.
Russia has several years of crippling sanctions and a broken economy to look forward to.
Without wanting to go over the last thread all over again I looked up some stuff on the Falklands War regarding @HYUFD comment on it being easy.
The US Navy assessed that a successful counter invasion was impossible
Lord Craig stated that if just 6 of the 13 bomb fuses that failed because the Argentine Hawks were flying too low had detonated we would have lost
And that is ignoring the threat of the exocets getting past the destroyers and frigates which suffered badly protecting the carriers.
But hey ho just a cake walk.
Right you want to restart this I can go on all evening and all night now if needed.
None of that changes whatsoever my point that Thatcher was prepared to fight to retake the Falklands as Argentina did not have nuclear weapons unlike us and had a far weaker military like us. Hence we won the war and she would have continued to fight the war no matter what the cost.
Sending a no fly zone into Ukraine against a Russia armed with nuclear weapons is however a totally different ball game
Even had all our carriers been sunk and most of our destroyers and frigates been sunk (which they weren't and was highly unlikely) we could still have placed submarines armed with nuclear weapons off the coast off Argentina and refused to remove them until the Argentines withdrew
Again showing your ignorance. Re our frigates and destroyers over 50% were hit. As per my previous reference frome some who actually knew what he was talking about if just 6 of the 13 bombs that failed to explode had done so we would have lost. So not highly unlikely at all, but nearly happened. Bizarrely we were lucky that the very brave Argentine Hawk pilots got too low. As it was 4 did sink.
So 50% were not and most were not sunk and our carriers survived.
Even if all 13 bombs had not gone off that did not mean we would have lost as we had nuclear weapons and Argentina did not.
As I said we could have parked subs armed with nuclear missiles off the Argentine Coast and refused to remove them until Argentine forces withdrew from the Falkland Islands
Again completely missed the point. All I objected to was you saying it was easy. Go on finally admit it wasn't easy. The US Navy thought it impossible. The head of the RAF thought that we would have lost if 6 of those ,13 bombs had exploded. If they had of exploded we would have lost over half our frigates and destroyers.
Under no circumstances can that be described as easy.
Go on admit it wasn't easy. That is all I am after. Be a man at admit you were wrong to say tha.
Nope. That was absolutely the point. You were willing to concede defeat.
Defeat never needed to be conceded as we had a bigger military than Argentina and nuclear weapons unlike them. Thatcher knew that hence she went to war.
You could have gone through every war in history as to hypotheticals which might have given it a different course, so what.
Bonkers. I never said we should concede defeat. Don't know where you got that from. Once we were committed, we were committed. And I was in favour of us doing so. You just make stuff up.
I have objected to one thing, you saying 3 times that the Falklands war was easy and you are so weak you can't admit that was a mistake. Pathetic.
You are so feeble and weak that you are happy to insult the memory of those that fought and the government of the day than admit you were wrong.
Shame on you.
Yes you did.
You were not prepared to use all methods at our disposal to free the Falklands. You effectively said if the war had started to go against our conventional forces we would automatically have lost.
You restarted this debate not me, so stop whinging if you can't take the heat
And I said you are polite the other day !!!!!
Your whole commentary on the Falklands was error strewn, fake, and frankly an unbelievable ascertain we would nuke Buenos Aires
I was discussing the Falklands war in detail with constituents in the1983 election, were you? - because if you had said half of what you have said you would have had a very angry response
Had you effectively handed over the Falklands to Argentina had the conventional war not started to go in our favour I am sure you too would have met with an angry response
But the Thatcher Government was well started on handing them over to Argentina. Secret talks, running down the forces both locally and more generally ... the V-bombers, the assault ships, much else was being closed down, including Portsmouth Dockyard. If General Galtieri had been a little more patient ...
There were talks, so what, at most they would have involved some powersharing and even that unlikely. Not wholesale handing of British territory to Argentina
Without wanting to go over the last thread all over again I looked up some stuff on the Falklands War regarding @HYUFD comment on it being easy.
The US Navy assessed that a successful counter invasion was impossible
Lord Craig stated that if just 6 of the 13 bomb fuses that failed because the Argentine Hawks were flying too low had detonated we would have lost
And that is ignoring the threat of the exocets getting past the destroyers and frigates which suffered badly protecting the carriers.
But hey ho just a cake walk.
Right you want to restart this I can go on all evening and all night now if needed.
None of that changes whatsoever my point that Thatcher was prepared to fight to retake the Falklands as Argentina did not have nuclear weapons unlike us and had a far weaker military like us. Hence we won the war and she would have continued to fight the war no matter what the cost.
Sending a no fly zone into Ukraine against a Russia armed with nuclear weapons is however a totally different ball game
Even had all our carriers been sunk and most of our destroyers and frigates been sunk (which they weren't and was highly unlikely) we could still have placed submarines armed with nuclear weapons off the coast off Argentina and refused to remove them until the Argentines withdrew
Again showing your ignorance. Re our frigates and destroyers over 50% were hit. As per my previous reference frome some who actually knew what he was talking about if just 6 of the 13 bombs that failed to explode had done so we would have lost. So not highly unlikely at all, but nearly happened. Bizarrely we were lucky that the very brave Argentine Hawk pilots got too low. As it was 4 did sink.
So 50% were not and most were not sunk and our carriers survived.
Even if all 13 bombs had not gone off that did not mean we would have lost as we had nuclear weapons and Argentina did not.
As I said we could have parked subs armed with nuclear missiles off the Argentine Coast and refused to remove them until Argentine forces withdrew from the Falkland Islands
Again completely missed the point. All I objected to was you saying it was easy. Go on finally admit it wasn't easy. The US Navy thought it impossible. The head of the RAF thought that we would have lost if 6 of those ,13 bombs had exploded. If they had of exploded we would have lost over half our frigates and destroyers.
Under no circumstances can that be described as easy.
Go on admit it wasn't easy. That is all I am after. Be a man at admit you were wrong to say tha.
Nope. That was absolutely the point. You were willing to concede defeat.
Defeat never needed to be conceded as we had a bigger military than Argentina and nuclear weapons unlike them. Thatcher knew that hence she went to war.
You could have gone through every war in history as to hypotheticals which might have given it a different course, so what.
Bonkers. I never said we should concede defeat. Don't know where you got that from. Once we were committed, we were committed. And I was in favour of us doing so. You just make stuff up.
I have objected to one thing, you saying 3 times that the Falklands war was easy and you are so weak you can't admit that was a mistake. Pathetic.
You are so feeble and weak that you are happy to insult the memory of those that fought and the government of the day than admit you were wrong.
Shame on you.
Yes you did.
You were not prepared to use all methods at our disposal to free the Falklands. You effectively said if the war had started to go against our conventional forces we would automatically have lost.
You restarted this debate not me, so stop whinging if you can't take the heat
Go on stop keep avoiding the point. Admit you were wrong in saying the , Falklands war was easy.
Stop being a pathetic whimp and man up.
I am not ever going to concede to you so tough.
My original point stands absolutely we would in the end win the war with Argentina as we had a bigger and more effective military than them and nuclear weapons unlike them.
Intervening against a nuclear armed Russia over Ukraine however is a different matter
So you stick by your 3 statements that the Falklands War was easy.
You are an absolute disgrace. I can't imagine any Tory would support your view.
Without wanting to go over the last thread all over again I looked up some stuff on the Falklands War regarding @HYUFD comment on it being easy.
The US Navy assessed that a successful counter invasion was impossible
Lord Craig stated that if just 6 of the 13 bomb fuses that failed because the Argentine Hawks were flying too low had detonated we would have lost
And that is ignoring the threat of the exocets getting past the destroyers and frigates which suffered badly protecting the carriers.
But hey ho just a cake walk.
Right you want to restart this I can go on all evening and all night now if needed.
None of that changes whatsoever my point that Thatcher was prepared to fight to retake the Falklands as Argentina did not have nuclear weapons unlike us and had a far weaker military like us. Hence we won the war and she would have continued to fight the war no matter what the cost.
Sending a no fly zone into Ukraine against a Russia armed with nuclear weapons is however a totally different ball game
Even had all our carriers been sunk and most of our destroyers and frigates been sunk (which they weren't and was highly unlikely) we could still have placed submarines armed with nuclear weapons off the coast off Argentina and refused to remove them until the Argentines withdrew
Again showing your ignorance. Re our frigates and destroyers over 50% were hit. As per my previous reference frome some who actually knew what he was talking about if just 6 of the 13 bombs that failed to explode had done so we would have lost. So not highly unlikely at all, but nearly happened. Bizarrely we were lucky that the very brave Argentine Hawk pilots got too low. As it was 4 did sink.
In the end @HYUFD is incapable of ever conceding he is wrong and here you are near 24 hours later calling him out and still he talks garbage
Indeed he has upset quite a few by his total lack of empathy and is in direct contrast to his claim he is a Christian
I have decided to believe that HY doesn’t actually exist, in the real world. Since that is my strongly held faith, it is now a fact. HY is no more.
HY's just enjoying himself being PB's controversialist. It's just a bit of personal branding. He reminds me of British people who move to America and end up saying things like 'Gor Blimey Guvnah' or coming over like Princess Margaret because it seems to be expected of them. People shouldn't get so incensed by it. I'm always surprised when otherwise sensible posters let themselves get so frustrated by him.
Everyone has their own limit, even when they can see its deliberate frustration.
Well, when someone like so normally calm like Carynx loses it over a chauvanistic comment by HY, I always think he's scraping the barrel of things to try and inflame his nationalist passions.
I find this epistemologically fascinating, unless I mean historiographically. Many/most of us here were of the age to vote and get a mortgage in 1982. HYUFD was still, literally, in nappies. And he illustrates how extra spectacularly wrong you can be about stuff simply by not having been there or thereabouts when the stuff happened. I will always remember this in future when reading histories and biographies.
Is there any evidence that HYUFD has graduated beyond nappies?
Nope. That was absolutely the point. You were willing to concede defeat.
Defeat never needed to be conceded as we had a bigger military than Argentina and nuclear weapons unlike them. Thatcher knew that hence she went to war.
You could have gone through every war in history as to hypotheticals which might have given it a different course, so what.
Do you think the Americans would have "allowed" us to strike a city like Cordoba with a nuclear weapon?
The Americans would have suffered an appalling political backlash throughout Latin America and I'm quite sure Reagan, for all his Anglophilia, would have been strongly advised by his administration the nuclear destruction of a Latin American city would be a catastrophe.
I suspect, had we got to that point, American political and economic pressure would have been applied to BOTH London and Buenos Aires to broker a diplomatic solution.
Who cares what the Americans did. We defend our territory at all costs, the Falklands was our territory.
If the Americans refused to respect that they were not true allies anyway.
Of course the UN did pressure both sides for a diplomatic solution and if the Argentines had withdrawn their forces from the Falklands one could have been found without further escalation
Is Ukraine - and is the West - willing to let Russia normalise those grotesque annexations for the greater good?
Dead Putin is the key.
Sadly, not on the negotiating table.
Although there is something in the idea that we should push the Russians into agreeing the sort of humiliation that cannot go unanswered by malcontents in Moscow.
Both vindictive and ineffective. Muscovite malcontents lack the power to take out Putin either by ballot or bullet. And in 20s Germany the effect of humiliation was to make people get behind the leader. The danger is of reinforcing the belief in Putin that a majority of Russians currently have
Yes, we need to be serious. "Humiliating" Putin is stupid, as long as he remains in charge and as long as he has nukes.
Don't corner the rat. Give him an exit. It would be nice if we could eliminate him from global politics, at some point and in some way, but right now the world just needs to step back from the abyss, and end the war. Then we re-arm and wait, and hope that Russia mends itself
We don't need to punish Russia further, not right now. It is already quite humbled and the sanctions have already done serious longterm damage
I am afraid you are misreading the nature of the regime. We have been talking about off ramps for months now, and the reality is that the Kremlin does not want an off ramp. Indeed continuing to discuss even fig leaf concessions is counter productive. Literally the only thing that is understood in the mafia state is the naked use of power. In fact you should increase the pressure and upgrade the Ukrainian military capabilities to the point where they can successfully go on the offensive. This rat must be cornered before he recognises that he has no choice but to make whatever peace he can. To let him off the hook leaves him like Saddam Hussein after Desert Storm, when actually the defeat needs to be sufficiently comprehensive to ensure regime change.
Few governments make the kind of mistake that Putin has and survive. The West has been threatened with nuclear anhillation. If there is any way to ensure the removal of the tyrant as quickly as possible, then it should be taken now. Leaving him in place is simply too dangerous.
We established upthread that Charles xii of Sweden, Hitler, Napoleon and ancient Athens survived for years after equivalent mistakes. What are your counter examples?
Wars of aggression where the aggressor lost and there was a subsequent change or major modification of regime? Germany WWI, Germany WW2, Japan WW2, USSR Afghanistan 1979-89 , French occupation of the Ruhr 1923, Arab Israeli wars of 1948 and 1967, West Pakistan versus East Pakistan 1971. Falklands War 1982, there are others.
Given Karl XII was exiled for five years after his defeat at Poltava we should also note that Sweden abandoned absolutism and established Parliamentary rule in his absence, so I could claim him for the aggressors who failed list too.
In the long run, but then all regimes fail in the long run. The implication of your claim was that we can get Putin now while he is especially vulnerable. None of those examples supports that timescale.
Well History doesn´t repeat but it rhymes... I think the Russian army could mutiny and if it does, how long do you give Putin then?
15 years? 20?
Putin has a Praetorian guard, the FSO, not part of the army but geared up and equipped to fight an army. 20,000 strong and has its own tanks and artillery.
But why would they fight? I'd cautiously suggest, I the spirit of testing an idea, that civil wars tend to happen when you have a battle of ideas. A reason to fight. There is no battle of ideas here: if the writing is in the wall for a despot, why will people fight for him? This is why coups happen more often than civil wars.
Money. Loyalty. Efficient built-in mechanism for dealing with non-fighters.
Fair points. The third of those is the most relevant. Money is only relevant if you are already you are going to be on the winning side. And if your patron will be in a position to deliver.
Nope. That was absolutely the point. You were willing to concede defeat.
Defeat never needed to be conceded as we had a bigger military than Argentina and nuclear weapons unlike them. Thatcher knew that hence she went to war.
You could have gone through every war in history as to hypotheticals which might have given it a different course, so what.
Do you think the Americans would have "allowed" us to strike a city like Cordoba with a nuclear weapon?
The Americans would have suffered an appalling political backlash throughout Latin America and I'm quite sure Reagan, for all his Anglophilia, would have been strongly advised by his administration the nuclear destruction of a Latin American city would be a catastrophe.
I suspect, had we got to that point, American political and economic pressure would have been applied to BOTH London and Buenos Aires to broker a diplomatic solution.
Who cares what the Americans did. We defend our territory at all costs, the Falklands was our territory.
If the Americans refused to respect that they were not true allies anyway.
Of course the UN did pressure both sides for a diplomatic solution and if the Argentines had withdrawn their forces from the Falklands one could have been found without further escalation
Just so I'm clear - if Washington had told us in the event of launching a nuclear attack on Argentina, they (Washington) would impose punitive economic sanctions on the UK, you would still have incinerated Cordoba.
The worldwide economic and diplomatic consequences of such a course of action would have been extreme - we might well have been thrown out of both NATO and the EEC. The pictures of the incinerated ruins of Cordoba would have been broadcast round the world and would have led to huge sympathy for the Argentines.
The economic impact would have been no less severe with a run on sterling and capital flight from the UK leaving us exposed to inflation and renewed unemployment.
Have you forgotten the extent to which American economic pressure forced both us and the French to stand down in Suez in 1956?
Thatcher's Britain would have been as much a pariah state as Putin's Russia is now.
As someone who was in the FCO at the time, I'd just like to say that even a UK threat of nuclear weapons use against a non-nuclear state, let alone their actual use, was unthinkable in 1982.
How do you know what Thatcher would have done had British conventional forces started to lose the War and her premiership then been at risk of ending in humiliation and British territory lost to invasion without using all means if defence at our disposal?
I'm fairly sure that Thatcher was sane enough not to risk a nuclear war on the grounds that her premiership was at risk. You're supposed to be a fan of hers!
Argentina did not have nuclear weapons, there was no risk from a UK perspective.
Only from an Argentine perspective if the UK used its nuclear weapons.
The Argentines took that risk when they invaded the Falklands
Nope. That was absolutely the point. You were willing to concede defeat.
Defeat never needed to be conceded as we had a bigger military than Argentina and nuclear weapons unlike them. Thatcher knew that hence she went to war.
You could have gone through every war in history as to hypotheticals which might have given it a different course, so what.
Do you think the Americans would have "allowed" us to strike a city like Cordoba with a nuclear weapon?
The Americans would have suffered an appalling political backlash throughout Latin America and I'm quite sure Reagan, for all his Anglophilia, would have been strongly advised by his administration the nuclear destruction of a Latin American city would be a catastrophe.
I suspect, had we got to that point, American political and economic pressure would have been applied to BOTH London and Buenos Aires to broker a diplomatic solution.
Who cares what the Americans did. We defend our territory at all costs, the Falklands was our territory.
If the Americans refused to respect that they were not true allies anyway.
Of course the UN did pressure both sides for a diplomatic solution and if the Argentines had withdrawn their forces from the Falklands one could have been found without further escalation
Just so I'm clear - if Washington had told us in the event of launching a nuclear attack on Argentina, they (Washington) would impose punitive economic sanctions on the UK, you would still have incinerated Cordoba.
The worldwide economic and diplomatic consequences of such a course of action would have been extreme - we might well have been thrown out of both NATO and the EEC. The pictures of the incinerated ruins of Cordoba would have been broadcast round the world and would have led to huge sympathy for the Argentines.
The economic impact would have been no less severe with a run on sterling and capital flight from the UK leaving us exposed to inflation and renewed unemployment.
Have you forgotten the extent to which American economic pressure forced both us and the French to stand down in Suez in 1956?
Thatcher's Britain would have been as much a pariah state as Putin's Russia is now.
As someone who was in the FCO at the time, I'd just like to say that even a UK threat of nuclear weapons use against a non-nuclear state, let alone their actual use, was unthinkable in 1982.
How do you know what Thatcher would have done had British conventional forces started to lose the War and her premiership then been at risk of ending in humiliation and British territory lost to invasion without using all means of defence at our disposal?
I knew what Thatcher would do as I and many others lived the campaign daily
Someone upthread was literally in the FCO during the Falklands War.
I feel like I’m talking to those proverbial civil war widows who can remember playing a bit of how’s-your-father with Ulysses S Grant behind a haystack at Valley Forge.
Lawrence Freedman @LawDavF · 3h At some point it is going to occur to Moldova and Georgia that if the Russian army continues on its current self- destructive path some currently frozen conflicts might get unfrozen.
Fast tracking Moldova into NATO seems to me to be an obvious move. Along with Sweden and Finland. Georgia is more problematic given their geographic location although they do share a border with a NATO country.
However that runs the risk of Putin invading Moldova too, maybe even Finland, if he gets wind of such a plan to fast track them into NATO
Putin's supply lines struggle to get to Kyiv. He won't be able to wage war against Moldova or Finland.
Moldova is less than 10% the size of Ukraine, even if he made the same progress there as he has so far in Ukraine, that would see pretty much all of Moldova fall to the Russians
Moldova would be a logistical nightmare for the Russians, and if Ukraine has shown anything, is that logistics are the weakest link in many, many Russian military weak links.
Russia seems to have an army fit only for fighting civilians who don't fight back.
Kinda hoping they break out the vodka - and end up fighting each other.....
"Moldova would be a logistical nightmare for the Russians"
I don't he can do it without Odessa. And so far that is not going well. iirc the Ukr have mined the sea and the RU don't like it.
Nope. That was absolutely the point. You were willing to concede defeat.
Defeat never needed to be conceded as we had a bigger military than Argentina and nuclear weapons unlike them. Thatcher knew that hence she went to war.
You could have gone through every war in history as to hypotheticals which might have given it a different course, so what.
Do you think the Americans would have "allowed" us to strike a city like Cordoba with a nuclear weapon?
The Americans would have suffered an appalling political backlash throughout Latin America and I'm quite sure Reagan, for all his Anglophilia, would have been strongly advised by his administration the nuclear destruction of a Latin American city would be a catastrophe.
I suspect, had we got to that point, American political and economic pressure would have been applied to BOTH London and Buenos Aires to broker a diplomatic solution.
Who cares what the Americans did. We defend our territory at all costs, the Falklands was our territory.
If the Americans refused to respect that they were not true allies anyway.
Of course the UN did pressure both sides for a diplomatic solution and if the Argentines had withdrawn their forces from the Falklands one could have been found without further escalation
Just so I'm clear - if Washington had told us in the event of launching a nuclear attack on Argentina, they (Washington) would impose punitive economic sanctions on the UK, you would still have incinerated Cordoba.
The worldwide economic and diplomatic consequences of such a course of action would have been extreme - we might well have been thrown out of both NATO and the EEC. The pictures of the incinerated ruins of Cordoba would have been broadcast round the world and would have led to huge sympathy for the Argentines.
The economic impact would have been no less severe with a run on sterling and capital flight from the UK leaving us exposed to inflation and renewed unemployment.
Have you forgotten the extent to which American economic pressure forced both us and the French to stand down in Suez in 1956?
Thatcher's Britain would have been as much a pariah state as Putin's Russia is now.
As someone who was in the FCO at the time, I'd just like to say that even a UK threat of nuclear weapons use against a non-nuclear state, let alone their actual use, was unthinkable in 1982.
How do you know what Thatcher would have done had British conventional forces started to lose the War and her premiership then been at risk of ending in humiliation and British territory lost to invasion without using all means of defence at our disposal?
He was in the FCO for goodness sake and his statement is factual as you would understand had you been around at the time
Without wanting to go over the last thread all over again I looked up some stuff on the Falklands War regarding @HYUFD comment on it being easy.
The US Navy assessed that a successful counter invasion was impossible
Lord Craig stated that if just 6 of the 13 bomb fuses that failed because the Argentine Hawks were flying too low had detonated we would have lost
And that is ignoring the threat of the exocets getting past the destroyers and frigates which suffered badly protecting the carriers.
But hey ho just a cake walk.
Right you want to restart this I can go on all evening and all night now if needed.
None of that changes whatsoever my point that Thatcher was prepared to fight to retake the Falklands as Argentina did not have nuclear weapons unlike us and had a far weaker military like us. Hence we won the war and she would have continued to fight the war no matter what the cost.
Sending a no fly zone into Ukraine against a Russia armed with nuclear weapons is however a totally different ball game
Even had all our carriers been sunk and most of our destroyers and frigates been sunk (which they weren't and was highly unlikely) we could still have placed submarines armed with nuclear weapons off the coast off Argentina and refused to remove them until the Argentines withdrew
Again showing your ignorance. Re our frigates and destroyers over 50% were hit. As per my previous reference frome some who actually knew what he was talking about if just 6 of the 13 bombs that failed to explode had done so we would have lost. So not highly unlikely at all, but nearly happened. Bizarrely we were lucky that the very brave Argentine Hawk pilots got too low. As it was 4 did sink.
In the end @HYUFD is incapable of ever conceding he is wrong and here you are near 24 hours later calling him out and still he talks garbage
Indeed he has upset quite a few by his total lack of empathy and is in direct contrast to his claim he is a Christian
I have decided to believe that HY doesn’t actually exist, in the real world. Since that is my strongly held faith, it is now a fact. HY is no more.
HY's just enjoying himself being PB's controversialist. It's just a bit of personal branding. He reminds me of British people who move to America and end up saying things like 'Gor Blimey Guvnah' or coming over like Princess Margaret because it seems to be expected of them. People shouldn't get so incensed by it. I'm always surprised when otherwise sensible posters let themselves get so frustrated by him.
Everyone has their own limit, even when they can see its deliberate frustration.
Well, when someone like so normally calm like Carynx loses it over a chauvanistic comment by HY, I always think he's scraping the barrel of things to try and inflame his nationalist passions.
I find this epistemologically fascinating, unless I mean historiographically. Many/most of us here were of the age to vote and get a mortgage in 1982. HYUFD was still, literally, in nappies. And he illustrates how extra spectacularly wrong you can be about stuff simply by not having been there or thereabouts when the stuff happened. I will always remember this in future when reading histories and biographies.
Funny you should mention 1982 because that's the last time anyone in my family bought a property (with a mortgage).
Ilya Matveev, political scientist based in St Petersburg.
"I have collected some thoughts on the immediate impact of sanctions on the Russian economy (a long 🧵). TL; DR: 30 years of economic development thrown into the bin."
30 years of economic development thrown into the bin
Even assuming Putin underestimated the severity of the response, he must have essentially calculated that, say, throwing 15 years of economic development into the bin was worth it, which is scary enough.
Nah. I suspect Putin thought: the West will fold, as will Ukraine, all over by the end of the week, nothing to see, move along.
Nope. That was absolutely the point. You were willing to concede defeat.
Defeat never needed to be conceded as we had a bigger military than Argentina and nuclear weapons unlike them. Thatcher knew that hence she went to war.
You could have gone through every war in history as to hypotheticals which might have given it a different course, so what.
Do you think the Americans would have "allowed" us to strike a city like Cordoba with a nuclear weapon?
The Americans would have suffered an appalling political backlash throughout Latin America and I'm quite sure Reagan, for all his Anglophilia, would have been strongly advised by his administration the nuclear destruction of a Latin American city would be a catastrophe.
I suspect, had we got to that point, American political and economic pressure would have been applied to BOTH London and Buenos Aires to broker a diplomatic solution.
Who cares what the Americans did. We defend our territory at all costs, the Falklands was our territory.
If the Americans refused to respect that they were not true allies anyway.
Of course the UN did pressure both sides for a diplomatic solution and if the Argentines had withdrawn their forces from the Falklands one could have been found without further escalation
Just so I'm clear - if Washington had told us in the event of launching a nuclear attack on Argentina, they (Washington) would impose punitive economic sanctions on the UK, you would still have incinerated Cordoba.
The worldwide economic and diplomatic consequences of such a course of action would have been extreme - we might well have been thrown out of both NATO and the EEC. The pictures of the incinerated ruins of Cordoba would have been broadcast round the world and would have led to huge sympathy for the Argentines.
The economic impact would have been no less severe with a run on sterling and capital flight from the UK leaving us exposed to inflation and renewed unemployment.
Have you forgotten the extent to which American economic pressure forced both us and the French to stand down in Suez in 1956?
Thatcher's Britain would have been as much a pariah state as Putin's Russia is now.
As someone who was in the FCO at the time, I'd just like to say that even a UK threat of nuclear weapons use against a non-nuclear state, let alone their actual use, was unthinkable in 1982.
How do you know what Thatcher would have done had British conventional forces started to lose the War and her premiership then been at risk of ending in humiliation and British territory lost to invasion without using all means of defence at our disposal?
He was in the FCO for goodness sake and his statement is factual as you would understand had you been around at the time
He was not Thatcher was he and Thatcher would have decided not the FCO
Forgive me if I haven't quite got this right, but are we at the stage of the argument where Maggie should be seen as a feeble pussy-footing Lib because she didn't nuke Buenos Aires?
Without wanting to go over the last thread all over again I looked up some stuff on the Falklands War regarding @HYUFD comment on it being easy.
The US Navy assessed that a successful counter invasion was impossible
Lord Craig stated that if just 6 of the 13 bomb fuses that failed because the Argentine Hawks were flying too low had detonated we would have lost
And that is ignoring the threat of the exocets getting past the destroyers and frigates which suffered badly protecting the carriers.
But hey ho just a cake walk.
What do the US Navy or a Marshall of the Royal Air Force know when put up against the intellectual might of a Parish Councillor from Epping who's never seen a rifle or looked at any war in history?
But, that's true of all military campaigns. They'd all fail, if everything that could go wrong did go wrong.
The main thrust of this is that it would have taken very little of the array of things that went wrong for the Argentinians not going wrong (for example, if the officers piloting the aircraft had spoken to the enlisted men setting the bomb fuzes) for things to have got fatally sticky for us.
Achieving a contested landing against a prepared enemy is really hard.
Chap who led our tour round Orford Ness was very forthcoming about the Vulcan raid. I can't remember the actual details but it was something like 8 planes left the UK, 6 had to turn back at Ascension, the remaining two managed to plant four sticks of bombs across the airfield, of which one actually made a hole in the tarmac, which the Argies patched up overnight. Rejoice.
Operation Black Buck.
Each mission started with *seventeen* planes leaving Stanley, including the two Vulcan bombers, one of which was a spare.
There were I think six Vulcans in Stanley, from a lot more than that that tried to get out there.
Was the longest and most complex bombing run ever attempted at the time, most of the planes were overdue retirement, and the pilots had forgotten how to do refuelling and had to be re-trained. The Vulcan was refuelled eight times during each mission.
Nope. That was absolutely the point. You were willing to concede defeat.
Defeat never needed to be conceded as we had a bigger military than Argentina and nuclear weapons unlike them. Thatcher knew that hence she went to war.
You could have gone through every war in history as to hypotheticals which might have given it a different course, so what.
Do you think the Americans would have "allowed" us to strike a city like Cordoba with a nuclear weapon?
The Americans would have suffered an appalling political backlash throughout Latin America and I'm quite sure Reagan, for all his Anglophilia, would have been strongly advised by his administration the nuclear destruction of a Latin American city would be a catastrophe.
I suspect, had we got to that point, American political and economic pressure would have been applied to BOTH London and Buenos Aires to broker a diplomatic solution.
Who cares what the Americans did. We defend our territory at all costs, the Falklands was our territory.
If the Americans refused to respect that they were not true allies anyway.
Of course the UN did pressure both sides for a diplomatic solution and if the Argentines had withdrawn their forces from the Falklands one could have been found without further escalation
Is Ukraine - and is the West - willing to let Russia normalise those grotesque annexations for the greater good?
Dead Putin is the key.
Sadly, not on the negotiating table.
Although there is something in the idea that we should push the Russians into agreeing the sort of humiliation that cannot go unanswered by malcontents in Moscow.
Both vindictive and ineffective. Muscovite malcontents lack the power to take out Putin either by ballot or bullet. And in 20s Germany the effect of humiliation was to make people get behind the leader. The danger is of reinforcing the belief in Putin that a majority of Russians currently have
Yes, we need to be serious. "Humiliating" Putin is stupid, as long as he remains in charge and as long as he has nukes.
Don't corner the rat. Give him an exit. It would be nice if we could eliminate him from global politics, at some point and in some way, but right now the world just needs to step back from the abyss, and end the war. Then we re-arm and wait, and hope that Russia mends itself
We don't need to punish Russia further, not right now. It is already quite humbled and the sanctions have already done serious longterm damage
I am afraid you are misreading the nature of the regime. We have been talking about off ramps for months now, and the reality is that the Kremlin does not want an off ramp. Indeed continuing to discuss even fig leaf concessions is counter productive. Literally the only thing that is understood in the mafia state is the naked use of power. In fact you should increase the pressure and upgrade the Ukrainian military capabilities to the point where they can successfully go on the offensive. This rat must be cornered before he recognises that he has no choice but to make whatever peace he can. To let him off the hook leaves him like Saddam Hussein after Desert Storm, when actually the defeat needs to be sufficiently comprehensive to ensure regime change.
Few governments make the kind of mistake that Putin has and survive. The West has been threatened with nuclear anhillation. If there is any way to ensure the removal of the tyrant as quickly as possible, then it should be taken now. Leaving him in place is simply too dangerous.
We established upthread that Charles xii of Sweden, Hitler, Napoleon and ancient Athens survived for years after equivalent mistakes. What are your counter examples?
Wars of aggression where the aggressor lost and there was a subsequent change or major modification of regime? Germany WWI, Germany WW2, Japan WW2, USSR Afghanistan 1979-89 , French occupation of the Ruhr 1923, Arab Israeli wars of 1948 and 1967, West Pakistan versus East Pakistan 1971. Falklands War 1982, there are others.
Given Karl XII was exiled for five years after his defeat at Poltava we should also note that Sweden abandoned absolutism and established Parliamentary rule in his absence, so I could claim him for the aggressors who failed list too.
In the long run, but then all regimes fail in the long run. The implication of your claim was that we can get Putin now while he is especially vulnerable. None of those examples supports that timescale.
Well History doesn´t repeat but it rhymes... I think the Russian army could mutiny and if it does, how long do you give Putin then?
15 years? 20?
Putin has a Praetorian guard, the FSO, not part of the army but geared up and equipped to fight an army. 20,000 strong and has its own tanks and artillery.
But why would they fight? I'd cautiously suggest, I the spirit of testing an idea, that civil wars tend to happen when you have a battle of ideas. A reason to fight. There is no battle of ideas here: if the writing is in the wall for a despot, why will people fight for him? This is why coups happen more often than civil wars.
The general theory of repressive dictators is that you survive by making those around you not only dependent on you for their wealth and privilege, but also complicit in your crimes, so that they know that when you go, not only do they lose that wealth and privilege, but that their necks are also on the line.
PS At least that's what I am doing when I become dictator of the world.
Just a superb piece @Cyclefree , if deeply depressing. Would the 2 or 3 officers in the Met who are not bad apples please stand up? It would certainly be easier.
Cressida Dick was in charge of this absolute shambles for years and still had her contract renewed. Surely one of the most bizarre and inexplicable decisions of recent years. Anyone without the brass neck of Priti would have resigned in shame.
Life comes at you pretty hard at times, I would have loved to have seen Steve Gibson's reaction to this news.
Chelsea are set to play any remaining home Champions League fixtures behind closed doors after owner Roman Abramovich was sanctioned by the EU, The Athletic understands.
Nope. That was absolutely the point. You were willing to concede defeat.
Defeat never needed to be conceded as we had a bigger military than Argentina and nuclear weapons unlike them. Thatcher knew that hence she went to war.
You could have gone through every war in history as to hypotheticals which might have given it a different course, so what.
Do you think the Americans would have "allowed" us to strike a city like Cordoba with a nuclear weapon?
The Americans would have suffered an appalling political backlash throughout Latin America and I'm quite sure Reagan, for all his Anglophilia, would have been strongly advised by his administration the nuclear destruction of a Latin American city would be a catastrophe.
I suspect, had we got to that point, American political and economic pressure would have been applied to BOTH London and Buenos Aires to broker a diplomatic solution.
Who cares what the Americans did. We defend our territory at all costs, the Falklands was our territory.
If the Americans refused to respect that they were not true allies anyway.
Of course the UN did pressure both sides for a diplomatic solution and if the Argentines had withdrawn their forces from the Falklands one could have been found without further escalation
Just so I'm clear - if Washington had told us in the event of launching a nuclear attack on Argentina, they (Washington) would impose punitive economic sanctions on the UK, you would still have incinerated Cordoba.
The worldwide economic and diplomatic consequences of such a course of action would have been extreme - we might well have been thrown out of both NATO and the EEC. The pictures of the incinerated ruins of Cordoba would have been broadcast round the world and would have led to huge sympathy for the Argentines.
The economic impact would have been no less severe with a run on sterling and capital flight from the UK leaving us exposed to inflation and renewed unemployment.
Have you forgotten the extent to which American economic pressure forced both us and the French to stand down in Suez in 1956?
Thatcher's Britain would have been as much a pariah state as Putin's Russia is now.
As someone who was in the FCO at the time, I'd just like to say that even a UK threat of nuclear weapons use against a non-nuclear state, let alone their actual use, was unthinkable in 1982.
How do you know what Thatcher would have done had British conventional forces started to lose the War and her premiership then been at risk of ending in humiliation and British territory lost to invasion without using all means of defence at our disposal?
I knew what Thatcher would do as I and many others lived the campaign daily
Did you ?
No you don't, you cannot say Thatcher would have allowed the British territory of the Falklands to be lost to Argentina without using all military resources at our disposal given how weak that would have made our position in the world not to mention our own premiership ended
Without wanting to go over the last thread all over again I looked up some stuff on the Falklands War regarding @HYUFD comment on it being easy.
The US Navy assessed that a successful counter invasion was impossible
Lord Craig stated that if just 6 of the 13 bomb fuses that failed because the Argentine Hawks were flying too low had detonated we would have lost
And that is ignoring the threat of the exocets getting past the destroyers and frigates which suffered badly protecting the carriers.
But hey ho just a cake walk.
Right you want to restart this I can go on all evening and all night now if needed.
None of that changes whatsoever my point that Thatcher was prepared to fight to retake the Falklands as Argentina did not have nuclear weapons unlike us and had a far weaker military like us. Hence we won the war and she would have continued to fight the war no matter what the cost.
Sending a no fly zone into Ukraine against a Russia armed with nuclear weapons is however a totally different ball game
Even had all our carriers been sunk and most of our destroyers and frigates been sunk (which they weren't and was highly unlikely) we could still have placed submarines armed with nuclear weapons off the coast off Argentina and refused to remove them until the Argentines withdrew
Again showing your ignorance. Re our frigates and destroyers over 50% were hit. As per my previous reference frome some who actually knew what he was talking about if just 6 of the 13 bombs that failed to explode had done so we would have lost. So not highly unlikely at all, but nearly happened. Bizarrely we were lucky that the very brave Argentine Hawk pilots got too low. As it was 4 did sink.
So 50% were not and most were not sunk and our carriers survived.
Even if all 13 bombs had not gone off that did not mean we would have lost as we had nuclear weapons and Argentina did not.
As I said we could have parked subs armed with nuclear missiles off the Argentine Coast and refused to remove them until Argentine forces withdrew from the Falkland Islands
Again completely missed the point. All I objected to was you saying it was easy. Go on finally admit it wasn't easy. The US Navy thought it impossible. The head of the RAF thought that we would have lost if 6 of those ,13 bombs had exploded. If they had of exploded we would have lost over half our frigates and destroyers.
Under no circumstances can that be described as easy.
Go on admit it wasn't easy. That is all I am after. Be a man at admit you were wrong to say tha.
Nope. That was absolutely the point. You were willing to concede defeat.
Defeat never needed to be conceded as we had a bigger military than Argentina and nuclear weapons unlike them. Thatcher knew that hence she went to war.
You could have gone through every war in history as to hypotheticals which might have given it a different course, so what.
Bonkers. I never said we should concede defeat. Don't know where you got that from. Once we were committed, we were committed. And I was in favour of us doing so. You just make stuff up.
I have objected to one thing, you saying 3 times that the Falklands war was easy and you are so weak you can't admit that was a mistake. Pathetic.
You are so feeble and weak that you are happy to insult the memory of those that fought and the government of the day than admit you were wrong.
Shame on you.
Yes you did.
You were not prepared to use all methods at our disposal to free the Falklands. You effectively said if the war had started to go against our conventional forces we would automatically have lost.
You restarted this debate not me, so stop whinging if you can't take the heat
Go on stop keep avoiding the point. Admit you were wrong in saying the , Falklands war was easy.
Stop being a pathetic whimp and man up.
I am not ever going to concede to you so tough.
My original point stands absolutely we would in the end win the war with Argentina as we had a bigger and more effective military than them and nuclear weapons unlike them.
Intervening against a nuclear armed Russia over Ukraine however is a different matter
So you stick by your 3 statements that the Falklands War was easy.
You are an absolute disgrace. I can't imagine any Tory would support your view.
You are not even a Tory but a wet Liberal
So what and I'm certainly not wet, but my position is not relevant here.
For a Tory you have shown a complete lack of patriotism by throwing the servicemen and govt of the day under a bus. You have also shown a willingness to kill innocent civilians. You are unwilling to admit you said the war was easy let alone retract yet we can all see your posts so add lying to the list.
Nope. That was absolutely the point. You were willing to concede defeat.
Defeat never needed to be conceded as we had a bigger military than Argentina and nuclear weapons unlike them. Thatcher knew that hence she went to war.
You could have gone through every war in history as to hypotheticals which might have given it a different course, so what.
Do you think the Americans would have "allowed" us to strike a city like Cordoba with a nuclear weapon?
The Americans would have suffered an appalling political backlash throughout Latin America and I'm quite sure Reagan, for all his Anglophilia, would have been strongly advised by his administration the nuclear destruction of a Latin American city would be a catastrophe.
I suspect, had we got to that point, American political and economic pressure would have been applied to BOTH London and Buenos Aires to broker a diplomatic solution.
Who cares what the Americans did. We defend our territory at all costs, the Falklands was our territory.
If the Americans refused to respect that they were not true allies anyway.
Of course the UN did pressure both sides for a diplomatic solution and if the Argentines had withdrawn their forces from the Falklands one could have been found without further escalation
Just so I'm clear - if Washington had told us in the event of launching a nuclear attack on Argentina, they (Washington) would impose punitive economic sanctions on the UK, you would still have incinerated Cordoba.
The worldwide economic and diplomatic consequences of such a course of action would have been extreme - we might well have been thrown out of both NATO and the EEC. The pictures of the incinerated ruins of Cordoba would have been broadcast round the world and would have led to huge sympathy for the Argentines.
The economic impact would have been no less severe with a run on sterling and capital flight from the UK leaving us exposed to inflation and renewed unemployment.
Have you forgotten the extent to which American economic pressure forced both us and the French to stand down in Suez in 1956?
Thatcher's Britain would have been as much a pariah state as Putin's Russia is now.
As someone who was in the FCO at the time, I'd just like to say that even a UK threat of nuclear weapons use against a non-nuclear state, let alone their actual use, was unthinkable in 1982.
How do you know what Thatcher would have done had British conventional forces started to lose the War and her premiership then been at risk of ending in humiliation and British territory lost to invasion without using all means if defence at our disposal?
I'm fairly sure that Thatcher was sane enough not to risk a nuclear war on the grounds that her premiership was at risk. You're supposed to be a fan of hers!
Argentina did not have nuclear weapons, there was no risk from a UK perspective.
Only from an Argentine perspective if the UK used its nuclear weapons.
The Argentines took that risk when they invaded the Falklands
I don't think even the hawkiest of hawks tend to think there is no risk of firing a nuclear weapon. And if you're viewing it solely through the lens of her electoral fortunes, well, starting nuclear wars isn't always viewed in an unambiguously positive light by electorates.
Without wanting to go over the last thread all over again I looked up some stuff on the Falklands War regarding @HYUFD comment on it being easy.
The US Navy assessed that a successful counter invasion was impossible
Lord Craig stated that if just 6 of the 13 bomb fuses that failed because the Argentine Hawks were flying too low had detonated we would have lost
And that is ignoring the threat of the exocets getting past the destroyers and frigates which suffered badly protecting the carriers.
But hey ho just a cake walk.
Right you want to restart this I can go on all evening and all night now if needed.
None of that changes whatsoever my point that Thatcher was prepared to fight to retake the Falklands as Argentina did not have nuclear weapons unlike us and had a far weaker military like us. Hence we won the war and she would have continued to fight the war no matter what the cost.
Sending a no fly zone into Ukraine against a Russia armed with nuclear weapons is however a totally different ball game
Even had all our carriers been sunk and most of our destroyers and frigates been sunk (which they weren't and was highly unlikely) we could still have placed submarines armed with nuclear weapons off the coast off Argentina and refused to remove them until the Argentines withdrew
Again showing your ignorance. Re our frigates and destroyers over 50% were hit. As per my previous reference frome some who actually knew what he was talking about if just 6 of the 13 bombs that failed to explode had done so we would have lost. So not highly unlikely at all, but nearly happened. Bizarrely we were lucky that the very brave Argentine Hawk pilots got too low. As it was 4 did sink.
In the end @HYUFD is incapable of ever conceding he is wrong and here you are near 24 hours later calling him out and still he talks garbage
Indeed he has upset quite a few by his total lack of empathy and is in direct contrast to his claim he is a Christian
I have decided to believe that HY doesn’t actually exist, in the real world. Since that is my strongly held faith, it is now a fact. HY is no more.
HY's just enjoying himself being PB's controversialist. It's just a bit of personal branding. He reminds me of British people who move to America and end up saying things like 'Gor Blimey Guvnah' or coming over like Princess Margaret because it seems to be expected of them. People shouldn't get so incensed by it. I'm always surprised when otherwise sensible posters let themselves get so frustrated by him.
Everyone has their own limit, even when they can see its deliberate frustration.
Well, when someone like so normally calm like Carynx loses it over a chauvanistic comment by HY, I always think he's scraping the barrel of things to try and inflame his nationalist passions.
I find this epistemologically fascinating, unless I mean historiographically. Many/most of us here were of the age to vote and get a mortgage in 1982. HYUFD was still, literally, in nappies. And he illustrates how extra spectacularly wrong you can be about stuff simply by not having been there or thereabouts when the stuff happened. I will always remember this in future when reading histories and biographies.
Yes indeed. History by those who were there is very different to looking back. Each can be wrong in different ways. Distance sometimes brings objectivity, but sometimes just shows lack of understanding.
Without wanting to go over the last thread all over again I looked up some stuff on the Falklands War regarding @HYUFD comment on it being easy.
The US Navy assessed that a successful counter invasion was impossible
Lord Craig stated that if just 6 of the 13 bomb fuses that failed because the Argentine Hawks were flying too low had detonated we would have lost
And that is ignoring the threat of the exocets getting past the destroyers and frigates which suffered badly protecting the carriers.
But hey ho just a cake walk.
Right you want to restart this I can go on all evening and all night now if needed.
None of that changes whatsoever my point that Thatcher was prepared to fight to retake the Falklands as Argentina did not have nuclear weapons unlike us and had a far weaker military like us. Hence we won the war and she would have continued to fight the war no matter what the cost.
Sending a no fly zone into Ukraine against a Russia armed with nuclear weapons is however a totally different ball game
Even had all our carriers been sunk and most of our destroyers and frigates been sunk (which they weren't and was highly unlikely) we could still have placed submarines armed with nuclear weapons off the coast off Argentina and refused to remove them until the Argentines withdrew
Again showing your ignorance. Re our frigates and destroyers over 50% were hit. As per my previous reference frome some who actually knew what he was talking about if just 6 of the 13 bombs that failed to explode had done so we would have lost. So not highly unlikely at all, but nearly happened. Bizarrely we were lucky that the very brave Argentine Hawk pilots got too low. As it was 4 did sink.
So 50% were not and most were not sunk and our carriers survived.
Even if all 13 bombs had not gone off that did not mean we would have lost as we had nuclear weapons and Argentina did not.
As I said we could have parked subs armed with nuclear missiles off the Argentine Coast and refused to remove them until Argentine forces withdrew from the Falkland Islands
Again completely missed the point. All I objected to was you saying it was easy. Go on finally admit it wasn't easy. The US Navy thought it impossible. The head of the RAF thought that we would have lost if 6 of those ,13 bombs had exploded. If they had of exploded we would have lost over half our frigates and destroyers.
Under no circumstances can that be described as easy.
Go on admit it wasn't easy. That is all I am after. Be a man at admit you were wrong to say tha.
Nope. That was absolutely the point. You were willing to concede defeat.
Defeat never needed to be conceded as we had a bigger military than Argentina and nuclear weapons unlike them. Thatcher knew that hence she went to war.
You could have gone through every war in history as to hypotheticals which might have given it a different course, so what.
Bonkers. I never said we should concede defeat. Don't know where you got that from. Once we were committed, we were committed. And I was in favour of us doing so. You just make stuff up.
I have objected to one thing, you saying 3 times that the Falklands war was easy and you are so weak you can't admit that was a mistake. Pathetic.
You are so feeble and weak that you are happy to insult the memory of those that fought and the government of the day than admit you were wrong.
Shame on you.
Yes you did.
You were not prepared to use all methods at our disposal to free the Falklands. You effectively said if the war had started to go against our conventional forces we would automatically have lost.
You restarted this debate not me, so stop whinging if you can't take the heat
Go on stop keep avoiding the point. Admit you were wrong in saying the , Falklands war was easy.
Stop being a pathetic whimp and man up.
I am not ever going to concede to you so tough.
My original point stands absolutely we would in the end win the war with Argentina as we had a bigger and more effective military than them and nuclear weapons unlike them.
Intervening against a nuclear armed Russia over Ukraine however is a different matter
So you stick by your 3 statements that the Falklands War was easy.
You are an absolute disgrace. I can't imagine any Tory would support your view.
You are not even a Tory but a wet Liberal
So what and I'm certainly not wet, but my position is not relevant here.
For a Tory you have shown a complete lack of patriotism by throwing the servicemen and govt of the day under a bus. You have also shown a willingness to kill innocent civilians. You are unwilling to admit you said the war was easy let alone retract yet we can all see your posts so add lying to the list.
And you call yourself a Christian.
No I didn't. It is you who ruled out all defences to protect the Falklands making their sacrifices in vain, not me.
Nope. That was absolutely the point. You were willing to concede defeat.
Defeat never needed to be conceded as we had a bigger military than Argentina and nuclear weapons unlike them. Thatcher knew that hence she went to war.
You could have gone through every war in history as to hypotheticals which might have given it a different course, so what.
Do you think the Americans would have "allowed" us to strike a city like Cordoba with a nuclear weapon?
The Americans would have suffered an appalling political backlash throughout Latin America and I'm quite sure Reagan, for all his Anglophilia, would have been strongly advised by his administration the nuclear destruction of a Latin American city would be a catastrophe.
I suspect, had we got to that point, American political and economic pressure would have been applied to BOTH London and Buenos Aires to broker a diplomatic solution.
Who cares what the Americans did. We defend our territory at all costs, the Falklands was our territory.
If the Americans refused to respect that they were not true allies anyway.
Of course the UN did pressure both sides for a diplomatic solution and if the Argentines had withdrawn their forces from the Falklands one could have been found without further escalation
Just so I'm clear - if Washington had told us in the event of launching a nuclear attack on Argentina, they (Washington) would impose punitive economic sanctions on the UK, you would still have incinerated Cordoba.
The worldwide economic and diplomatic consequences of such a course of action would have been extreme - we might well have been thrown out of both NATO and the EEC. The pictures of the incinerated ruins of Cordoba would have been broadcast round the world and would have led to huge sympathy for the Argentines.
The economic impact would have been no less severe with a run on sterling and capital flight from the UK leaving us exposed to inflation and renewed unemployment.
Have you forgotten the extent to which American economic pressure forced both us and the French to stand down in Suez in 1956?
Thatcher's Britain would have been as much a pariah state as Putin's Russia is now.
As someone who was in the FCO at the time, I'd just like to say that even a UK threat of nuclear weapons use against a non-nuclear state, let alone their actual use, was unthinkable in 1982.
How do you know what Thatcher would have done had British conventional forces started to lose the War and her premiership then been at risk of ending in humiliation and British territory lost to invasion without using all means of defence at our disposal?
He was in the FCO for goodness sake and his statement is factual as you would understand had you been around at the time
Forgive me if I haven't quite got this right, but are we at the stage of the argument where Maggie should be seen as a feeble pussy-footing Lib because she didn't nuke Buenos Aires?
Only in HYUFDworld; an alternative unreality universe.
Nope. That was absolutely the point. You were willing to concede defeat.
Defeat never needed to be conceded as we had a bigger military than Argentina and nuclear weapons unlike them. Thatcher knew that hence she went to war.
You could have gone through every war in history as to hypotheticals which might have given it a different course, so what.
Do you think the Americans would have "allowed" us to strike a city like Cordoba with a nuclear weapon?
The Americans would have suffered an appalling political backlash throughout Latin America and I'm quite sure Reagan, for all his Anglophilia, would have been strongly advised by his administration the nuclear destruction of a Latin American city would be a catastrophe.
I suspect, had we got to that point, American political and economic pressure would have been applied to BOTH London and Buenos Aires to broker a diplomatic solution.
Who cares what the Americans did. We defend our territory at all costs, the Falklands was our territory.
If the Americans refused to respect that they were not true allies anyway.
Of course the UN did pressure both sides for a diplomatic solution and if the Argentines had withdrawn their forces from the Falklands one could have been found without further escalation
Just so I'm clear - if Washington had told us in the event of launching a nuclear attack on Argentina, they (Washington) would impose punitive economic sanctions on the UK, you would still have incinerated Cordoba.
The worldwide economic and diplomatic consequences of such a course of action would have been extreme - we might well have been thrown out of both NATO and the EEC. The pictures of the incinerated ruins of Cordoba would have been broadcast round the world and would have led to huge sympathy for the Argentines.
The economic impact would have been no less severe with a run on sterling and capital flight from the UK leaving us exposed to inflation and renewed unemployment.
Have you forgotten the extent to which American economic pressure forced both us and the French to stand down in Suez in 1956?
Thatcher's Britain would have been as much a pariah state as Putin's Russia is now.
As someone who was in the FCO at the time, I'd just like to say that even a UK threat of nuclear weapons use against a non-nuclear state, let alone their actual use, was unthinkable in 1982.
How do you know what Thatcher would have done had British conventional forces started to lose the War and her premiership then been at risk of ending in humiliation and British territory lost to invasion without using all means if defence at our disposal?
I'm fairly sure that Thatcher was sane enough not to risk a nuclear war on the grounds that her premiership was at risk. You're supposed to be a fan of hers!
Argentina did not have nuclear weapons, there was no risk from a UK perspective.
Only from an Argentine perspective if the UK used its nuclear weapons.
The Argentines took that risk when they invaded the Falklands
I don't think even the hawkiest of hawks tend to think there is no risk of firing a nuclear weapon. And if you're viewing it solely through the lens of her electoral fortunes, well, starting nuclear wars isn't always viewed in an unambiguously positive light by electorates.
Nor is losing British territory.
It was Argentina who started it, they invaded the Falklands.
If you don't want a brutal response don't invade territory of other nations.
In any case Argentina had no nukes, it was them taking the risk, not us
He has seen a grainy archival clip of noted activist Kenny Everett suggesting we nuke Russia and the standing ovation given by the Tory faithful — and drawn the wrong conclusion.
Nope. That was absolutely the point. You were willing to concede defeat.
Defeat never needed to be conceded as we had a bigger military than Argentina and nuclear weapons unlike them. Thatcher knew that hence she went to war.
You could have gone through every war in history as to hypotheticals which might have given it a different course, so what.
Do you think the Americans would have "allowed" us to strike a city like Cordoba with a nuclear weapon?
The Americans would have suffered an appalling political backlash throughout Latin America and I'm quite sure Reagan, for all his Anglophilia, would have been strongly advised by his administration the nuclear destruction of a Latin American city would be a catastrophe.
I suspect, had we got to that point, American political and economic pressure would have been applied to BOTH London and Buenos Aires to broker a diplomatic solution.
Who cares what the Americans did. We defend our territory at all costs, the Falklands was our territory.
If the Americans refused to respect that they were not true allies anyway.
Of course the UN did pressure both sides for a diplomatic solution and if the Argentines had withdrawn their forces from the Falklands one could have been found without further escalation
Just so I'm clear - if Washington had told us in the event of launching a nuclear attack on Argentina, they (Washington) would impose punitive economic sanctions on the UK, you would still have incinerated Cordoba.
The worldwide economic and diplomatic consequences of such a course of action would have been extreme - we might well have been thrown out of both NATO and the EEC. The pictures of the incinerated ruins of Cordoba would have been broadcast round the world and would have led to huge sympathy for the Argentines.
The economic impact would have been no less severe with a run on sterling and capital flight from the UK leaving us exposed to inflation and renewed unemployment.
Have you forgotten the extent to which American economic pressure forced both us and the French to stand down in Suez in 1956?
Thatcher's Britain would have been as much a pariah state as Putin's Russia is now.
As someone who was in the FCO at the time, I'd just like to say that even a UK threat of nuclear weapons use against a non-nuclear state, let alone their actual use, was unthinkable in 1982.
How do you know what Thatcher would have done had British conventional forces started to lose the War and her premiership then been at risk of ending in humiliation and British territory lost to invasion without using all means of defence at our disposal?
He was in the FCO for goodness sake and his statement is factual as you would understand had you been around at the time
He was not Thatcher was he and Thatcher would have decided not the FCO
Nor are you, but you seem to know exactly how she would have reacted to hypothetical situations, but you think that nobody else can know.
Nope. That was absolutely the point. You were willing to concede defeat.
Defeat never needed to be conceded as we had a bigger military than Argentina and nuclear weapons unlike them. Thatcher knew that hence she went to war.
You could have gone through every war in history as to hypotheticals which might have given it a different course, so what.
Do you think the Americans would have "allowed" us to strike a city like Cordoba with a nuclear weapon?
The Americans would have suffered an appalling political backlash throughout Latin America and I'm quite sure Reagan, for all his Anglophilia, would have been strongly advised by his administration the nuclear destruction of a Latin American city would be a catastrophe.
I suspect, had we got to that point, American political and economic pressure would have been applied to BOTH London and Buenos Aires to broker a diplomatic solution.
Who cares what the Americans did. We defend our territory at all costs, the Falklands was our territory.
If the Americans refused to respect that they were not true allies anyway.
Of course the UN did pressure both sides for a diplomatic solution and if the Argentines had withdrawn their forces from the Falklands one could have been found without further escalation
Just so I'm clear - if Washington had told us in the event of launching a nuclear attack on Argentina, they (Washington) would impose punitive economic sanctions on the UK, you would still have incinerated Cordoba.
The worldwide economic and diplomatic consequences of such a course of action would have been extreme - we might well have been thrown out of both NATO and the EEC. The pictures of the incinerated ruins of Cordoba would have been broadcast round the world and would have led to huge sympathy for the Argentines.
The economic impact would have been no less severe with a run on sterling and capital flight from the UK leaving us exposed to inflation and renewed unemployment.
Have you forgotten the extent to which American economic pressure forced both us and the French to stand down in Suez in 1956?
Thatcher's Britain would have been as much a pariah state as Putin's Russia is now.
As someone who was in the FCO at the time, I'd just like to say that even a UK threat of nuclear weapons use against a non-nuclear state, let alone their actual use, was unthinkable in 1982.
How do you know what Thatcher would have done had British conventional forces started to lose the War and her premiership then been at risk of ending in humiliation and British territory lost to invasion without using all means of defence at our disposal?
I knew what Thatcher would do as I and many others lived the campaign daily
Did you ?
No you don't, you cannot say Thatcher would have allowed the British territory of the Falklands to be lost to Argentina without using all military resources at our disposal given how weak that would have made our position in the world not to mention our own premiership ended
Of course I can as that was the risk we took and I was very much aware of every nuance of the campaign
I suspect you were not even born at the time but correct me if I am wrong
He has seen a grainy archival clip of noted activist Kenny Everett suggesting we nuke Russia and the standing ovation given by the Tory faithful — and drawn the wrong conclusion.
My comments would have been mild compared to those of most Tory delegates at Tory conferences, certainly in the 1980s
Without wanting to go over the last thread all over again I looked up some stuff on the Falklands War regarding @HYUFD comment on it being easy.
The US Navy assessed that a successful counter invasion was impossible
Lord Craig stated that if just 6 of the 13 bomb fuses that failed because the Argentine Hawks were flying too low had detonated we would have lost
And that is ignoring the threat of the exocets getting past the destroyers and frigates which suffered badly protecting the carriers.
But hey ho just a cake walk.
Right you want to restart this I can go on all evening and all night now if needed.
None of that changes whatsoever my point that Thatcher was prepared to fight to retake the Falklands as Argentina did not have nuclear weapons unlike us and had a far weaker military like us. Hence we won the war and she would have continued to fight the war no matter what the cost.
Sending a no fly zone into Ukraine against a Russia armed with nuclear weapons is however a totally different ball game
Even had all our carriers been sunk and most of our destroyers and frigates been sunk (which they weren't and was highly unlikely) we could still have placed submarines armed with nuclear weapons off the coast off Argentina and refused to remove them until the Argentines withdrew
Again showing your ignorance. Re our frigates and destroyers over 50% were hit. As per my previous reference frome some who actually knew what he was talking about if just 6 of the 13 bombs that failed to explode had done so we would have lost. So not highly unlikely at all, but nearly happened. Bizarrely we were lucky that the very brave Argentine Hawk pilots got too low. As it was 4 did sink.
So 50% were not and most were not sunk and our carriers survived.
Even if all 13 bombs had not gone off that did not mean we would have lost as we had nuclear weapons and Argentina did not.
As I said we could have parked subs armed with nuclear missiles off the Argentine Coast and refused to remove them until Argentine forces withdrew from the Falkland Islands
Again completely missed the point. All I objected to was you saying it was easy. Go on finally admit it wasn't easy. The US Navy thought it impossible. The head of the RAF thought that we would have lost if 6 of those ,13 bombs had exploded. If they had of exploded we would have lost over half our frigates and destroyers.
Under no circumstances can that be described as easy.
Go on admit it wasn't easy. That is all I am after. Be a man at admit you were wrong to say tha.
Nope. That was absolutely the point. You were willing to concede defeat.
Defeat never needed to be conceded as we had a bigger military than Argentina and nuclear weapons unlike them. Thatcher knew that hence she went to war.
You could have gone through every war in history as to hypotheticals which might have given it a different course, so what.
Bonkers. I never said we should concede defeat. Don't know where you got that from. Once we were committed, we were committed. And I was in favour of us doing so. You just make stuff up.
I have objected to one thing, you saying 3 times that the Falklands war was easy and you are so weak you can't admit that was a mistake. Pathetic.
You are so feeble and weak that you are happy to insult the memory of those that fought and the government of the day than admit you were wrong.
Shame on you.
Yes you did.
You were not prepared to use all methods at our disposal to free the Falklands. You effectively said if the war had started to go against our conventional forces we would automatically have lost.
You restarted this debate not me, so stop whinging if you can't take the heat
And I said you are polite the other day !!!!!
Your whole commentary on the Falklands was error strewn, fake, and frankly an unbelievable ascertain we would nuke Buenos Aires
I was discussing the Falklands war in detail with constituents in the1983 election, were you? - because if you had said half of what you have said you would have had a very angry response
Yep. Very much not the way I remember it at the time. We were content to fight a limited war within defined rules. Somewhat different from the Russian savages in Ukraine.
Nope. That was absolutely the point. You were willing to concede defeat.
Defeat never needed to be conceded as we had a bigger military than Argentina and nuclear weapons unlike them. Thatcher knew that hence she went to war.
You could have gone through every war in history as to hypotheticals which might have given it a different course, so what.
Do you think the Americans would have "allowed" us to strike a city like Cordoba with a nuclear weapon?
The Americans would have suffered an appalling political backlash throughout Latin America and I'm quite sure Reagan, for all his Anglophilia, would have been strongly advised by his administration the nuclear destruction of a Latin American city would be a catastrophe.
I suspect, had we got to that point, American political and economic pressure would have been applied to BOTH London and Buenos Aires to broker a diplomatic solution.
Who cares what the Americans did. We defend our territory at all costs, the Falklands was our territory.
If the Americans refused to respect that they were not true allies anyway.
Of course the UN did pressure both sides for a diplomatic solution and if the Argentines had withdrawn their forces from the Falklands one could have been found without further escalation
Is Ukraine - and is the West - willing to let Russia normalise those grotesque annexations for the greater good?
Dead Putin is the key.
Sadly, not on the negotiating table.
Although there is something in the idea that we should push the Russians into agreeing the sort of humiliation that cannot go unanswered by malcontents in Moscow.
Both vindictive and ineffective. Muscovite malcontents lack the power to take out Putin either by ballot or bullet. And in 20s Germany the effect of humiliation was to make people get behind the leader. The danger is of reinforcing the belief in Putin that a majority of Russians currently have
Yes, we need to be serious. "Humiliating" Putin is stupid, as long as he remains in charge and as long as he has nukes.
Don't corner the rat. Give him an exit. It would be nice if we could eliminate him from global politics, at some point and in some way, but right now the world just needs to step back from the abyss, and end the war. Then we re-arm and wait, and hope that Russia mends itself
We don't need to punish Russia further, not right now. It is already quite humbled and the sanctions have already done serious longterm damage
I am afraid you are misreading the nature of the regime. We have been talking about off ramps for months now, and the reality is that the Kremlin does not want an off ramp. Indeed continuing to discuss even fig leaf concessions is counter productive. Literally the only thing that is understood in the mafia state is the naked use of power. In fact you should increase the pressure and upgrade the Ukrainian military capabilities to the point where they can successfully go on the offensive. This rat must be cornered before he recognises that he has no choice but to make whatever peace he can. To let him off the hook leaves him like Saddam Hussein after Desert Storm, when actually the defeat needs to be sufficiently comprehensive to ensure regime change.
Few governments make the kind of mistake that Putin has and survive. The West has been threatened with nuclear anhillation. If there is any way to ensure the removal of the tyrant as quickly as possible, then it should be taken now. Leaving him in place is simply too dangerous.
We established upthread that Charles xii of Sweden, Hitler, Napoleon and ancient Athens survived for years after equivalent mistakes. What are your counter examples?
Wars of aggression where the aggressor lost and there was a subsequent change or major modification of regime? Germany WWI, Germany WW2, Japan WW2, USSR Afghanistan 1979-89 , French occupation of the Ruhr 1923, Arab Israeli wars of 1948 and 1967, West Pakistan versus East Pakistan 1971. Falklands War 1982, there are others.
Given Karl XII was exiled for five years after his defeat at Poltava we should also note that Sweden abandoned absolutism and established Parliamentary rule in his absence, so I could claim him for the aggressors who failed list too.
In the long run, but then all regimes fail in the long run. The implication of your claim was that we can get Putin now while he is especially vulnerable. None of those examples supports that timescale.
Well History doesn´t repeat but it rhymes... I think the Russian army could mutiny and if it does, how long do you give Putin then?
15 years? 20?
Putin has a Praetorian guard, the FSO, not part of the army but geared up and equipped to fight an army. 20,000 strong and has its own tanks and artillery.
But why would they fight? I'd cautiously suggest, I the spirit of testing an idea, that civil wars tend to happen when you have a battle of ideas. A reason to fight. There is no battle of ideas here: if the writing is in the wall for a despot, why will people fight for him? This is why coups happen more often than civil wars.
Money. Loyalty. Efficient built-in mechanism for dealing with non-fighters.
Fair points. The third of those is the most relevant. Money is only relevant if you are already you are going to be on the winning side. And if your patron will be in a position to deliver.
Yes. The history of the Roman Empire in the 2-300s is largely a history of the Praetorian guard selling the Empire to the highest bidder, over and over again.
I feel like being on PB has aged me and my political opinions about 25 years. Given it has been 12 years that is concerning.
I hope you are properly appreciative of that free education.
I think by keeping me off the streets or other more mainstream forums PB is performing a public service. Most people glaze over if I say I think electoral maps are cool.
Cheers. Had like a severe cold plus headache plus no energy for 3 days but just starting to improve. Although I'll probably have a psychosomatic relapse now I've done the test and discovered I have it.
Best wishes and get well soon. I need you well again so we can resume our arguments about trans rights. And if that doesn't give you the strength to recover, nothing will! 😉
Cheers. Had like a severe cold plus headache plus no energy for 3 days but just starting to improve. Although I'll probably have a psychosomatic relapse now I've done the test and discovered I have it.
Nah - the worst is over for you now.
I've not had covid yet, despite it being all round. I have had a stinky cold last week that left a lingering productive cough, but thats on its way out.
You do start to wonder when your turn is though...
I read a guesstimate somewhere that 90% of Brits have had Covid?
If that is the case, anyone who hasn't had it yet is likely one of the people who are naturally resistant, and they will never get it. So you might be truly lucky
Despite being at high risk I have so far, touch wood etc, managed to avoid it. I hope this continues. I really hope I have not nixed this by saying something now ......
Just a superb piece @Cyclefree , if deeply depressing. Would the 2 or 3 officers in the Met who are not bad apples please stand up? It would certainly be easier.
Cressida Dick was in charge of this absolute shambles for years and still had her contract renewed. Surely one of the most bizarre and inexplicable decisions of recent years. Anyone without the brass neck of Priti would have resigned in shame.
He has seen a grainy archival clip of noted activist Kenny Everett suggesting we nuke Russia and the standing ovation given by the Tory faithful — and drawn the wrong conclusion.
My comments would have been mild compared to those of most Tory delegates at Tory conferences, certainly in the 1980s
Given that we have spent much of the last decade complaining about the inability of England openers to keep their wickets, a little slow scoring is entirely welcome. Openers are supposed to be slow. The point is not to score runs, it is to blunt the attack.
Openers do need to blunt the attack but they need to score runs too. England are now up to an acceptable run rate after a painfully slow start. The pitch, however, is looking another bore fest with a 5 day draw looking favourite. The game needs something in it for the bowlers. I am not seeing it here.
Nope. That was absolutely the point. You were willing to concede defeat.
Defeat never needed to be conceded as we had a bigger military than Argentina and nuclear weapons unlike them. Thatcher knew that hence she went to war.
You could have gone through every war in history as to hypotheticals which might have given it a different course, so what.
Do you think the Americans would have "allowed" us to strike a city like Cordoba with a nuclear weapon?
The Americans would have suffered an appalling political backlash throughout Latin America and I'm quite sure Reagan, for all his Anglophilia, would have been strongly advised by his administration the nuclear destruction of a Latin American city would be a catastrophe.
I suspect, had we got to that point, American political and economic pressure would have been applied to BOTH London and Buenos Aires to broker a diplomatic solution.
Who cares what the Americans did. We defend our territory at all costs, the Falklands was our territory.
If the Americans refused to respect that they were not true allies anyway.
Of course the UN did pressure both sides for a diplomatic solution and if the Argentines had withdrawn their forces from the Falklands one could have been found without further escalation
Just so I'm clear - if Washington had told us in the event of launching a nuclear attack on Argentina, they (Washington) would impose punitive economic sanctions on the UK, you would still have incinerated Cordoba.
The worldwide economic and diplomatic consequences of such a course of action would have been extreme - we might well have been thrown out of both NATO and the EEC. The pictures of the incinerated ruins of Cordoba would have been broadcast round the world and would have led to huge sympathy for the Argentines.
The economic impact would have been no less severe with a run on sterling and capital flight from the UK leaving us exposed to inflation and renewed unemployment.
Have you forgotten the extent to which American economic pressure forced both us and the French to stand down in Suez in 1956?
Thatcher's Britain would have been as much a pariah state as Putin's Russia is now.
As someone who was in the FCO at the time, I'd just like to say that even a UK threat of nuclear weapons use against a non-nuclear state, let alone their actual use, was unthinkable in 1982.
How do you know what Thatcher would have done had British conventional forces started to lose the War and her premiership then been at risk of ending in humiliation and British territory lost to invasion without using all means of defence at our disposal?
He was in the FCO for goodness sake and his statement is factual as you would understand had you been around at the time
He was not Thatcher was he and Thatcher would have decided not the FCO
I absolutely would have not had any input into that decision, but you seem oblivious of the fact that the US only just supported our effort to retake the Falklands - we persuaded them by the skin of our teeth. We would have lost all US support for the war had we even hinted at using NW. And without the US helicopter and logistics support, our troops would not even have made it to the Falklands.
Nope. That was absolutely the point. You were willing to concede defeat.
Defeat never needed to be conceded as we had a bigger military than Argentina and nuclear weapons unlike them. Thatcher knew that hence she went to war.
You could have gone through every war in history as to hypotheticals which might have given it a different course, so what.
Do you think the Americans would have "allowed" us to strike a city like Cordoba with a nuclear weapon?
The Americans would have suffered an appalling political backlash throughout Latin America and I'm quite sure Reagan, for all his Anglophilia, would have been strongly advised by his administration the nuclear destruction of a Latin American city would be a catastrophe.
I suspect, had we got to that point, American political and economic pressure would have been applied to BOTH London and Buenos Aires to broker a diplomatic solution.
Who cares what the Americans did. We defend our territory at all costs, the Falklands was our territory.
If the Americans refused to respect that they were not true allies anyway.
Of course the UN did pressure both sides for a diplomatic solution and if the Argentines had withdrawn their forces from the Falklands one could have been found without further escalation
Just so I'm clear - if Washington had told us in the event of launching a nuclear attack on Argentina, they (Washington) would impose punitive economic sanctions on the UK, you would still have incinerated Cordoba.
The worldwide economic and diplomatic consequences of such a course of action would have been extreme - we might well have been thrown out of both NATO and the EEC. The pictures of the incinerated ruins of Cordoba would have been broadcast round the world and would have led to huge sympathy for the Argentines.
The economic impact would have been no less severe with a run on sterling and capital flight from the UK leaving us exposed to inflation and renewed unemployment.
Have you forgotten the extent to which American economic pressure forced both us and the French to stand down in Suez in 1956?
Thatcher's Britain would have been as much a pariah state as Putin's Russia is now.
As someone who was in the FCO at the time, I'd just like to say that even a UK threat of nuclear weapons use against a non-nuclear state, let alone their actual use, was unthinkable in 1982.
How do you know what Thatcher would have done had British conventional forces started to lose the War and her premiership then been at risk of ending in humiliation and British territory lost to invasion without using all means if defence at our disposal?
I'm fairly sure that Thatcher was sane enough not to risk a nuclear war on the grounds that her premiership was at risk. You're supposed to be a fan of hers!
Argentina did not have nuclear weapons, there was no risk from a UK perspective.
Only from an Argentine perspective if the UK used its nuclear weapons.
The Argentines took that risk when they invaded the Falklands
I don't think even the hawkiest of hawks tend to think there is no risk of firing a nuclear weapon. And if you're viewing it solely through the lens of her electoral fortunes, well, starting nuclear wars isn't always viewed in an unambiguously positive light by electorates.
Nor is losing British territory.
It was Argentina who started it, they invaded the Falklands.
If you don't want a brutal response don't invade territory of other nations.
In any case Argentina had no nukes, it was them taking the risk, not us
I'm not trying to exonerate Argentina. Of course they started it. I'm just suggesting that a) Thatcher wouldn't have escalated it into nuclear war to save her premiership, and b) doing so probably wouldn't have been electorally positive. Killing enemy soldiers tends to be approved of by electorates. Killing millions and millions of civilians and rendering large chunks of their country uninhabitable is less popular.
Cheers. Had like a severe cold plus headache plus no energy for 3 days but just starting to improve. Although I'll probably have a psychosomatic relapse now I've done the test and discovered I have it.
Best wishes and get well soon. I need you well again so we can resume our arguments about trans rights. And if that doesn't give you the strength to recover, nothing will! 😉
Cheers. Had like a severe cold plus headache plus no energy for 3 days but just starting to improve. Although I'll probably have a psychosomatic relapse now I've done the test and discovered I have it.
Nah - the worst is over for you now.
I've not had covid yet, despite it being all round. I have had a stinky cold last week that left a lingering productive cough, but thats on its way out.
You do start to wonder when your turn is though...
I read a guesstimate somewhere that 90% of Brits have had Covid?
If that is the case, anyone who hasn't had it yet is likely one of the people who are naturally resistant, and they will never get it. So you might be truly lucky
Despite being at high risk I have so far, touch wood etc, managed to avoid it. I hope this continues. I really hope I have not nixed this by saying something now ......
A friend of mine with recent chemo caught it the other week, along with teenage daughter and husband. As a high risk case she got the antivirals and sailed through, both other family members were in bed for the week. Omicron B2 seems quite a nasty one. Quite a few at work off again with it.
This is what "living with covid" requires, speedy diagnostic testing and rapid distribution of antivirals to those at risk.
Someone upthread was literally in the FCO during the Falklands War.
I feel like I’m talking to those proverbial civil war widows who can remember playing a bit of how’s-your-father with Ulysses S Grant behind a haystack at Valley Forge.
In the FCO at the time isn't old. Old is POTUS and SOTHOR who were approaching normal retirement age at the time.
Nope. That was absolutely the point. You were willing to concede defeat.
Defeat never needed to be conceded as we had a bigger military than Argentina and nuclear weapons unlike them. Thatcher knew that hence she went to war.
You could have gone through every war in history as to hypotheticals which might have given it a different course, so what.
Do you think the Americans would have "allowed" us to strike a city like Cordoba with a nuclear weapon?
The Americans would have suffered an appalling political backlash throughout Latin America and I'm quite sure Reagan, for all his Anglophilia, would have been strongly advised by his administration the nuclear destruction of a Latin American city would be a catastrophe.
I suspect, had we got to that point, American political and economic pressure would have been applied to BOTH London and Buenos Aires to broker a diplomatic solution.
Who cares what the Americans did. We defend our territory at all costs, the Falklands was our territory.
If the Americans refused to respect that they were not true allies anyway.
Of course the UN did pressure both sides for a diplomatic solution and if the Argentines had withdrawn their forces from the Falklands one could have been found without further escalation
Just so I'm clear - if Washington had told us in the event of launching a nuclear attack on Argentina, they (Washington) would impose punitive economic sanctions on the UK, you would still have incinerated Cordoba.
The worldwide economic and diplomatic consequences of such a course of action would have been extreme - we might well have been thrown out of both NATO and the EEC. The pictures of the incinerated ruins of Cordoba would have been broadcast round the world and would have led to huge sympathy for the Argentines.
The economic impact would have been no less severe with a run on sterling and capital flight from the UK leaving us exposed to inflation and renewed unemployment.
Have you forgotten the extent to which American economic pressure forced both us and the French to stand down in Suez in 1956?
Thatcher's Britain would have been as much a pariah state as Putin's Russia is now.
As someone who was in the FCO at the time, I'd just like to say that even a UK threat of nuclear weapons use against a non-nuclear state, let alone their actual use, was unthinkable in 1982.
How do you know what Thatcher would have done had British conventional forces started to lose the War and her premiership then been at risk of ending in humiliation and British territory lost to invasion without using all means if defence at our disposal?
I'm fairly sure that Thatcher was sane enough not to risk a nuclear war on the grounds that her premiership was at risk. You're supposed to be a fan of hers!
Argentina did not have nuclear weapons, there was no risk from a UK perspective.
Only from an Argentine perspective if the UK used its nuclear weapons.
The Argentines took that risk when they invaded the Falklands
This is one massive hatchet job you're doing on Maggie. Hats off.
Nope. That was absolutely the point. You were willing to concede defeat.
Defeat never needed to be conceded as we had a bigger military than Argentina and nuclear weapons unlike them. Thatcher knew that hence she went to war.
You could have gone through every war in history as to hypotheticals which might have given it a different course, so what.
Do you think the Americans would have "allowed" us to strike a city like Cordoba with a nuclear weapon?
The Americans would have suffered an appalling political backlash throughout Latin America and I'm quite sure Reagan, for all his Anglophilia, would have been strongly advised by his administration the nuclear destruction of a Latin American city would be a catastrophe.
I suspect, had we got to that point, American political and economic pressure would have been applied to BOTH London and Buenos Aires to broker a diplomatic solution.
Who cares what the Americans did. We defend our territory at all costs, the Falklands was our territory.
If the Americans refused to respect that they were not true allies anyway.
Of course the UN did pressure both sides for a diplomatic solution and if the Argentines had withdrawn their forces from the Falklands one could have been found without further escalation
Just so I'm clear - if Washington had told us in the event of launching a nuclear attack on Argentina, they (Washington) would impose punitive economic sanctions on the UK, you would still have incinerated Cordoba.
The worldwide economic and diplomatic consequences of such a course of action would have been extreme - we might well have been thrown out of both NATO and the EEC. The pictures of the incinerated ruins of Cordoba would have been broadcast round the world and would have led to huge sympathy for the Argentines.
The economic impact would have been no less severe with a run on sterling and capital flight from the UK leaving us exposed to inflation and renewed unemployment.
Have you forgotten the extent to which American economic pressure forced both us and the French to stand down in Suez in 1956?
Thatcher's Britain would have been as much a pariah state as Putin's Russia is now.
As someone who was in the FCO at the time, I'd just like to say that even a UK threat of nuclear weapons use against a non-nuclear state, let alone their actual use, was unthinkable in 1982.
How do you know what Thatcher would have done had British conventional forces started to lose the War and her premiership then been at risk of ending in humiliation and British territory lost to invasion without using all means if defence at our disposal?
I'm fairly sure that Thatcher was sane enough not to risk a nuclear war on the grounds that her premiership was at risk. You're supposed to be a fan of hers!
Argentina did not have nuclear weapons, there was no risk from a UK perspective.
Only from an Argentine perspective if the UK used its nuclear weapons.
The Argentines took that risk when they invaded the Falklands
I don't think even the hawkiest of hawks tend to think there is no risk of firing a nuclear weapon. And if you're viewing it solely through the lens of her electoral fortunes, well, starting nuclear wars isn't always viewed in an unambiguously positive light by electorates.
Nor is losing British territory.
It was Argentina who started it, they invaded the Falklands.
If you don't want a brutal response don't invade territory of other nations.
In any case Argentina had no nukes, it was them taking the risk, not us
I'm not trying to exonerate Argentina. Of course they started it. I'm just suggesting that a) Thatcher wouldn't have escalated it into nuclear war to save her premiership, and b) doing so probably wouldn't have been electorally positive. Killing enemy soldiers tends to be approved of by electorates. Killing millions and millions of civilians and rendering large chunks of their country uninhabitable is less popular.
If he had been around in those days he would have understood the attitude to nuclear weapons at the time as already posted i.e. UK threat of nuclear weapons use against a non-nuclear state, let alone their actual use, was unthinkable in 1982.
Another good header, @Cyclefree . I was struck by how little reaction the story about what was effectively sexual assault of a schoolgirl by Met police, with the reported acquiescence of her school, got here.
Though the fact that we’re teetering, and possibly edging away from the brink of armageddon does provide something of a distraction, it’s still distinctly uncomfortable.
The school's behaviour was a disgrace. The teachers involved seem to have had no understanding of what safeguarding actually means or involves.
He has seen a grainy archival clip of noted activist Kenny Everett suggesting we nuke Russia and the standing ovation given by the Tory faithful — and drawn the wrong conclusion.
My comments would have been mild compared to those of most Tory delegates at Tory conferences, certainly in the 1980s
I went to the conferences at the time, did you
If HYUFD is representative of the current Tory party I'm glad I left it 10 years ago. It is a very strange perspective on what the party was, and how Margaret Thatcher and her cabinet prosecuted the Falklands war, but, I think, illuminating.
Another good header, @Cyclefree . I was struck by how little reaction the story about what was effectively sexual assault of a schoolgirl by Met police, with the reported acquiescence of her school, got here.
Though the fact that we’re teetering, and possibly edging away from the brink of armageddon does provide something of a distraction, it’s still distinctly uncomfortable.
The school's behaviour was a disgrace. The teachers involved seem to have had no understanding of what safeguarding actually means or involves.
It's that thing you say you have thought about so you can tick a box on a form, right?
Cheers. Had like a severe cold plus headache plus no energy for 3 days but just starting to improve. Although I'll probably have a psychosomatic relapse now I've done the test and discovered I have it.
Best wishes and get well soon. I need you well again so we can resume our arguments about trans rights. And if that doesn't give you the strength to recover, nothing will! 😉
Cheers. Had like a severe cold plus headache plus no energy for 3 days but just starting to improve. Although I'll probably have a psychosomatic relapse now I've done the test and discovered I have it.
Nah - the worst is over for you now.
I've not had covid yet, despite it being all round. I have had a stinky cold last week that left a lingering productive cough, but thats on its way out.
You do start to wonder when your turn is though...
I read a guesstimate somewhere that 90% of Brits have had Covid?
If that is the case, anyone who hasn't had it yet is likely one of the people who are naturally resistant, and they will never get it. So you might be truly lucky
Despite being at high risk I have so far, touch wood etc, managed to avoid it. I hope this continues. I really hope I have not nixed this by saying something now ......
My wife and I have now gone through 2 kids living with us being infected and neither of us have caught it. I also wander around Edinburgh almost daily, I am in a restaurant there right now. I have stayed in loads of hotels in that time with mixed bio security.
It’s possible my wife and I have had it symptomless but we have never tested positive. Anecdotal in the extreme but 90% sounds far too high to me.
Someone upthread was literally in the FCO during the Falklands War.
I feel like I’m talking to those proverbial civil war widows who can remember playing a bit of how’s-your-father with Ulysses S Grant behind a haystack at Valley Forge.
That's me. I was 21 years old joining the FCO in 1980; 63 y.o. now. Strangely, my concept of old keeps receding.
Without wanting to go over the last thread all over again I looked up some stuff on the Falklands War regarding @HYUFD comment on it being easy.
The US Navy assessed that a successful counter invasion was impossible
Lord Craig stated that if just 6 of the 13 bomb fuses that failed because the Argentine Hawks were flying too low had detonated we would have lost
And that is ignoring the threat of the exocets getting past the destroyers and frigates which suffered badly protecting the carriers.
But hey ho just a cake walk.
Right you want to restart this I can go on all evening and all night now if needed.
None of that changes whatsoever my point that Thatcher was prepared to fight to retake the Falklands as Argentina did not have nuclear weapons unlike us and had a far weaker military like us. Hence we won the war and she would have continued to fight the war no matter what the cost.
Sending a no fly zone into Ukraine against a Russia armed with nuclear weapons is however a totally different ball game
Even had all our carriers been sunk and most of our destroyers and frigates been sunk (which they weren't and was highly unlikely) we could still have placed submarines armed with nuclear weapons off the coast off Argentina and refused to remove them until the Argentines withdrew
Again showing your ignorance. Re our frigates and destroyers over 50% were hit. As per my previous reference frome some who actually knew what he was talking about if just 6 of the 13 bombs that failed to explode had done so we would have lost. So not highly unlikely at all, but nearly happened. Bizarrely we were lucky that the very brave Argentine Hawk pilots got too low. As it was 4 did sink.
So 50% were not and most were not sunk and our carriers survived.
Even if all 13 bombs had not gone off that did not mean we would have lost as we had nuclear weapons and Argentina did not.
As I said we could have parked subs armed with nuclear missiles off the Argentine Coast and refused to remove them until Argentine forces withdrew from the Falkland Islands
Again completely missed the point. All I objected to was you saying it was easy. Go on finally admit it wasn't easy. The US Navy thought it impossible. The head of the RAF thought that we would have lost if 6 of those ,13 bombs had exploded. If they had of exploded we would have lost over half our frigates and destroyers.
Under no circumstances can that be described as easy.
Go on admit it wasn't easy. That is all I am after. Be a man at admit you were wrong to say tha.
Nope. That was absolutely the point. You were willing to concede defeat.
Defeat never needed to be conceded as we had a bigger military than Argentina and nuclear weapons unlike them. Thatcher knew that hence she went to war.
You could have gone through every war in history as to hypotheticals which might have given it a different course, so what.
Bonkers. I never said we should concede defeat. Don't know where you got that from. Once we were committed, we were committed. And I was in favour of us doing so. You just make stuff up.
I have objected to one thing, you saying 3 times that the Falklands war was easy and you are so weak you can't admit that was a mistake. Pathetic.
You are so feeble and weak that you are happy to insult the memory of those that fought and the government of the day than admit you were wrong.
Shame on you.
Yes you did.
You were not prepared to use all methods at our disposal to free the Falklands. You effectively said if the war had started to go against our conventional forces we would automatically have lost.
You restarted this debate not me, so stop whinging if you can't take the heat
Go on stop keep avoiding the point. Admit you were wrong in saying the , Falklands war was easy.
Stop being a pathetic whimp and man up.
I am not ever going to concede to you so tough.
My original point stands absolutely we would in the end win the war with Argentina as we had a bigger and more effective military than them and nuclear weapons unlike them.
Intervening against a nuclear armed Russia over Ukraine however is a different matter
So you stick by your 3 statements that the Falklands War was easy.
You are an absolute disgrace. I can't imagine any Tory would support your view.
You are not even a Tory but a wet Liberal
So what and I'm certainly not wet, but my position is not relevant here.
For a Tory you have shown a complete lack of patriotism by throwing the servicemen and govt of the day under a bus. You have also shown a willingness to kill innocent civilians. You are unwilling to admit you said the war was easy let alone retract yet we can all see your posts so add lying to the list.
And you call yourself a Christian.
No I didn't. It is you who ruled out all defences to protect the Falklands making their sacrifices in vain, not me.
Did you say the Falklands War was easy or not? A yes or no will do. It is not like we can't all see what you said.
I'll admit I didn't expect Vlad to invade. Three weeks today when he did, I was in a pub with a keen Corbynite and I asked him what Vlad's endgame was. He reckoned he'd have a cunning plan, but I doubted it. The whole scheme reminded me of an old Adge Cutller song ... 'Thees gotten where thee casn't backen hasn't.' or something like that, but it fitted. Even more now.
Comments
My original point stands absolutely we would in the end win the war with Argentina as we had a bigger and more effective military than them and nuclear weapons unlike them.
Intervening against a nuclear armed Russia over Ukraine however is a different matter
The worldwide economic and diplomatic consequences of such a course of action would have been extreme - we might well have been thrown out of both NATO and the EEC. The pictures of the incinerated ruins of Cordoba would have been broadcast round the world and would have led to huge sympathy for the Argentines.
The economic impact would have been no less severe with a run on sterling and capital flight from the UK leaving us exposed to inflation and renewed unemployment.
Have you forgotten the extent to which American economic pressure forced both us and the French to stand down in Suez in 1956?
Thatcher's Britain would have been as much a pariah state as Putin's Russia is now.
Putin has a Praetorian guard, the FSO, not part of the army but geared up and equipped to fight an army. 20,000 strong and has its own tanks and artillery.
Your whole commentary on the Falklands was error strewn, fake, and frankly an unbelievable ascertain we would nuke Buenos Aires
I was discussing the Falklands war in detail with constituents in the1983 election, were you? - because if you had said half of what you have said you would have had a very angry response
The point was to correct the misleading method (that others have made in the past).
All you had to do was say, "Oops; good point. Still, even when the right method's used, it's very low."
Instead, you started accusing people of hating freedom and wanting to lockdown, and that they'd always wanted that.
When no-one had said that, no-one wanted that, and, I believe, the person you were accusing of that had been saying for bloody ages that we didn't need any restrictions now. And even had been illustrating that with amusing memes daily.
How do you think it looks to always refuse to admit error, even when blatantly caught in one, and to instead attack the people pointing it out?
Spoiler: it doesn't make you look strong, or clever, or right.
Russia seems to have an army fit only for fighting civilians who don't fight back.
You lost. Your point on it being easy and a dead cert was clearly wrong. And insulting to many people.
The Black Knight couldn't call it a win or even a draw.
Ilya Matveev, political scientist based in St Petersburg.
"I have collected some thoughts on the immediate impact of sanctions on the Russian economy (a long 🧵). TL; DR: 30 years of economic development thrown into the bin."
https://twitter.com/IlyaMatveev_/status/1503789373069877248?s=20&t=U4-6gCoxltD7tf8PZRbiGw
It’s terrifying we should allow a piece of AI to assume power over a parish council. Truly dystopian stuff.
You are an absolute disgrace. I can't imagine any Tory would support your view.
Even assuming Putin underestimated the severity of the response, he must have essentially calculated that, say, throwing 15 years of economic development into the bin was worth it, which is scary enough.
Because you defend your territory at all costs no matter what the cost.
Because the moment you don't you are opening your country and overseas territories to the risk of future invasion as you have demonstrated your weakness and pathetic uselessness to the world.
The only exception would be for a superpower like China but even then if the Chinese invaded the mainland UK we would have had to defend our island at all costs.
Suez was never British territory in the way the Falklands was just we had some shares in the Canal, totally different.
So once Argentina invaded the Falklands we would have used all methods to force then out at all costs
I'd cautiously suggest, I the spirit of testing an idea, that civil wars tend to happen when you have a battle of ideas. A reason to fight. There is no battle of ideas here: if the writing is in the wall for a despot, why will people fight for him? This is why coups happen more often than civil wars.
STWC has been an SWP front, and is now back to being organised around SWP / ex-SWP or similar figures. ISTR that German left.
SWP has always been parasitic on the Left/ Far Left and as such does not, I think. help the causes they seek to exploit.
Did you listen to their rally? Including the parts where they base their case on fictional claims? But his amphibious units are all in the Black Sea, so none left for Antwerp
As David Frost said last night, “we knew Brexit couldn’t be achieved without a short-run economic cost”.
Did we?
I do not know but I suspect @HYUFD was barely at primary school in those days and has little knowledge of the military campaign in real time and this may account for his somewhat inaccurate reading of history
You're supposed to be a fan of hers!
Russia has several years of crippling sanctions and a broken economy to look forward to.
Your call, Crimea.
The third of those is the most relevant.
Money is only relevant if you are already you are going to be on the winning side. And if your patron will be in a position to deliver.
Only from an Argentine perspective if the UK used its nuclear weapons.
The Argentines took that risk when they invaded the Falklands
Did you ?
Someone upthread was literally in the FCO during the Falklands War.
I feel like I’m talking to those proverbial civil war widows who can remember playing a bit of how’s-your-father with Ulysses S Grant behind a haystack at Valley Forge.
I don't he can do it without Odessa. And so far that is not going well. iirc the Ukr have mined the sea and the RU don't like it.
Could get messy.
Tbh, that's what I feared would happen too.
Each mission started with *seventeen* planes leaving Stanley, including the two Vulcan bombers, one of which was a spare.
There were I think six Vulcans in Stanley, from a lot more than that that tried to get out there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Black_Buck
Was the longest and most complex bombing run ever attempted at the time, most of the planes were overdue retirement, and the pilots had forgotten how to do refuelling and had to be re-trained. The Vulcan was refuelled eight times during each mission.
PS At least that's what I am doing when I become dictator of the world.
Cressida Dick was in charge of this absolute shambles for years and still had her contract renewed. Surely one of the most bizarre and inexplicable decisions of recent years. Anyone without the brass neck of Priti would have resigned in shame.
For a Tory you have shown a complete lack of patriotism by throwing the servicemen and govt of the day under a bus. You have also shown a willingness to kill innocent civilians. You are unwilling to admit you said the war was easy let alone retract yet we can all see your posts so add lying to the list.
And you call yourself a Christian.
And if you're viewing it solely through the lens of her electoral fortunes, well, starting nuclear wars isn't always viewed in an unambiguously positive light by electorates.
It was Argentina who started it, they invaded the Falklands.
If you don't want a brutal response don't invade territory of other nations.
In any case Argentina had no nukes, it was them taking the risk, not us
He has seen a grainy archival clip of noted activist Kenny Everett suggesting we nuke Russia and the standing ovation given by the Tory faithful — and drawn the wrong conclusion.
I suspect you were not even born at the time but correct me if I am wrong
https://www.coe.int/en/web/portal/-/the-russian-federation-is-excluded-from-the-council-of-europe
Note, however, that 98% of all sexual offences in this country are carried out by men. 98%. Despite being at high risk I have so far, touch wood etc, managed to avoid it. I hope this continues. I really hope I have not nixed this by saying something now ......
So its time to put your ignorant arse on ignore.
Graham Stringer is joining Nigel Farage at a speaking event next week calling for a referendum on Net Zero
https://twitter.com/electpoliticsuk/status/1504145028800729096?t=kQfckmT45wtcvPOuqU-AvA&s=19
Killing enemy soldiers tends to be approved of by electorates. Killing millions and millions of civilians and rendering large chunks of their country uninhabitable is less popular.
This is what "living with covid" requires, speedy diagnostic testing and rapid distribution of antivirals to those at risk.
Root and Lawrence reached a 100 partnership
Lawrence reached 50
Root reached 100
It’s possible my wife and I have had it symptomless but we have never tested positive. Anecdotal in the extreme but 90% sounds far too high to me.
So are you going to lie or admit it?