@TLDRNewsUK 🇦🇷 Argentina has told the UK that it wants to start new talks over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands and has pulled out of a 2016 cooperation pact.
Could a Sunak Falklands moment save his chances of reelection?
Bloody hell not again. The Argentinians need to give this a rest.
Of course national fervour doesn't make sense, we have our own examples of that, but the Argentinian passion on this issue really doesn't seem to make sense to me when it's noted their claim to the islands is a rather technical one based on inheriting rights from former Spanish sovereignty, and talk about natives who don't exist. Yes there are other complexities, but the point being it's actually a rather arcane legal dispute, yet it's talked about in terms of colonialism as if someone seized Buenos Aires 2 years ago.
There is nothing Argentina can do about it anyway. The UK has a veto on any UN decision as a permanent member of the UN Security Council unlike them.
The UK also has a bigger navy and army and airforce than Argentina now
Have a look at an atlas. It's not the Persian Gulf.
Since the Falklands War there is also a bigger permanent British garrison on the islands, a Royal Navy ship on patrol there at all times and a Royal Navy nuclear submarine patrols regularly nearby (though the exact times and location of the latter are obviously classified)
"ship" is a posh way to describe a patrol boat. And the forces, at the far end of a long supply line, are very small.
I remember 1981 - you obviously don't.
Yes, Argentina has cut its armed forces back to far fewer than they were in Galtieri's day.
The UK does not have an army of 153,000. That is the total size of our armed forces - Army, Navy and Airforce - including reservists. Our regular army is just over 80,000 and there are another 30,000 reservists. And gven our other commitments, not least on the Eastern flank of NATO, how many of those do you seriously think we could deploy?
We are much stronger on the ground in the Falklands than we were in 1982 but at the same time much weaker overall. So I could see our forces putting up a reasonable defence but I am certainly not confident they could hold. And if they did fall then we have no chance at all of reclaiming the islands as we did in 1982.
Our commitments on the Eastern flank of NATO would obviously be temporarily abandoned given British sovereign territory had been invaded.
We have a bigger armed forces than Argentina's which are also far weaker than they were in 1982
I am sorry but you really are deluded. What we did in 1982 was extraordinary but we could do it now. We simply don't have the ships.
As an example in 1982 we sent 8 destroyers and 16 frigates as part of the task force (and that was not our entire contingent of those vessel types in the navy). The entire Royal Navy only has 6 destroyers and 12 frigates. And we don't have the crews even for all of those.
Yes we do. we have 10 times the submarines Argentina do, enough to sink most of the Argentine navy alone for starters.
We also have more surface ships too, Argentina now literally has just 1 destroyer and not a single frigate!
You do realise that the size of their navy is pretty much immaterial given they wouldn't be the ones trying to mount a recapture 8000 miles away? What mattered in 1982 was our ability to get men to the South Atlantic and retake the islands. We no longer have the capability to do that. As I said you are deluded. I will add remarkably ignorant as well.
Whilst correct that recapturing would be a Herculean effort, and we did it before, the planning has been that recapture is not necessary as the air defence is such that it’s a dead zone for the Argentinian airforce, their ships are vulnerable to south Atlantic subs and landing bays are covered in planning so a small force can repel successfully.
@francis_scarr In his latest anti-British rant, Igor Korotchenko alleges London’s involvement in the murky incident in Bryansk Region and calls for the UK’s ambassador to be "kicked out of Moscow on camera"
He says the US may have more resources, but that "the Anglo-Saxon brain is in London!"
@TLDRNewsUK 🇦🇷 Argentina has told the UK that it wants to start new talks over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands and has pulled out of a 2016 cooperation pact.
Could a Sunak Falklands moment save his chances of reelection?
Bloody hell not again. The Argentinians need to give this a rest.
Of course national fervour doesn't make sense, we have our own examples of that, but the Argentinian passion on this issue really doesn't seem to make sense to me when it's noted their claim to the islands is a rather technical one based on inheriting rights from former Spanish sovereignty, and talk about natives who don't exist. Yes there are other complexities, but the point being it's actually a rather arcane legal dispute, yet it's talked about in terms of colonialism as if someone seized Buenos Aires 2 years ago.
There is nothing Argentina can do about it anyway. The UK has a veto on any UN decision as a permanent member of the UN Security Council unlike them.
The UK also has a bigger navy and army and airforce than Argentina now
Have a look at an atlas. It's not the Persian Gulf.
Since the Falklands War there is also a bigger permanent British garrison on the islands, a Royal Navy ship on patrol there at all times and a Royal Navy nuclear submarine patrols regularly nearby (though the exact times and location of the latter are obviously classified)
"ship" is a posh way to describe a patrol boat. And the forces, at the far end of a long supply line, are very small.
I remember 1981 - you obviously don't.
Yes, Argentina has cut its armed forces back to far fewer than they were in Galtieri's day.
The UK does not have an army of 153,000. That is the total size of our armed forces - Army, Navy and Airforce - including reservists. Our regular army is just over 80,000 and there are another 30,000 reservists. And gven our other commitments, not least on the Eastern flank of NATO, how many of those do you seriously think we could deploy?
We are much stronger on the ground in the Falklands than we were in 1982 but at the same time much weaker overall. So I could see our forces putting up a reasonable defence but I am certainly not confident they could hold. And if they did fall then we have no chance at all of reclaiming the islands as we did in 1982.
Our commitments on the Eastern flank of NATO would obviously be temporarily abandoned given British sovereign territory had been invaded.
We have a bigger armed forces than Argentina's which are also far weaker than they were in 1982
I am sorry but you really are deluded. What we did in 1982 was extraordinary but we could do it now. We simply don't have the ships.
As an example in 1982 we sent 8 destroyers and 16 frigates as part of the task force (and that was not our entire contingent of those vessel types in the navy). The entire Royal Navy only has 6 destroyers and 12 frigates. And we don't have the crews even for all of those.
Yes we do. we have 10 times the submarines Argentina do, enough to sink most of the Argentine navy alone for starters.
We also have more surface ships too, Argentina now literally has just 1 destroyer and not a single frigate!
You do realise that the size of their navy is pretty much immaterial given they wouldn't be the ones trying to mount a recapture 8000 miles away? What mattered in 1982 was our ability to get men to the South Atlantic and retake the islands. We no longer have the capability to do that. As I said you are deluded. I will add remarkably ignorant as well.
Yes it is, we could sink their entire fleet whether in port in Buenos Aires or Falklands waters within a week.
Once that is done we then send the aircraft carriers to quickly recapture the Islands, using submarines to send missiles on any Argentine troops still on the islands in the meantime
Fucking hell.
Any missile strike on the Falklands is likely to wipe out the Islanders as well.
Has any PB-er tried this miracle weight loss drug Ozempic?
As avowed by Jez Clarkson, most of Hollywood, and now David Aaronovitch in today’s Times?
It sounds amazing. And I’ve just discovered that a chunky female relative of mine has been on it for 5 weeks and has lost 10 pounds (without trying). And she has struggled with weight all of her life
I’ve got 12 pounds of Covid lard that will not shift. I’m gonna try this
I have a colleague who has taken it for a while, he said it's been great for getting the weight down but it has taken all of the enjoyment of food out of life for him. I think for someone like you where going to a great restaurant and enjoying the food it will probably be a big hit to your life quality vs doing a bit of extra exercise.
My relative says this is not her experience
She still really enjoys food, she just eats less
But I hear you: I will do a short term experiment
Given that you are based in Inner London and spend time there - in perhaps the best patch of cycling infrastructure in the entire country - I'd suggest taking a look at getting a Brompton folder for your local travel, which you can fold down in 20s and take anywhere you need to go.
IMO far better than flapping about will pill-rollers.
If you want to have a tryout, see if they will lend you one or hire one for £5 a day for a couple of weeks from a railway station such as St Pancras.
With respect, why the flaming flatulent fuck would I want to do that?
I eat very healthily and well. I walk daily. I go to the gym daily. I am fit. I don’t smoke. I drink too much
But as I’ve aged I find I can’t shift that last 10-15 pounds of chunk like I used to do (with ease)
Maybe god wants me a stone heavier? If so, fair enough
But I am intrigued enough by this medication to give it a go. At the very least it will be interesting
I bought a Brompton just before lockdown. On the days I go into that Leeds I go to a park and ride and cycle the last four miles into the city centre. I love riding that thing. Tons of the things in Leeds but when I ride it in my manor - I’ve got one of the bags that goes in the front so I can nip to the supermarket on it - I do get some funny looks. I do look like a right middle-class wanker like. My right-leaning friend mocks me for betraying my working-class roots. Calls it my bourgeois bike.
Wouldn’t be without it though, it’s a great bit of kit. Helps keep the gut manageable. You do feel like a right smug twat folding it up and putting in a shopping trolley. Went to a pub last night on it, got some funny looks walking in with it all folded up. Love it.
Given the price I would constantly worry about it getting nicked. Do you always carry it round in the bag when not riding it?
The good thing with it is that you don’t need to leave it, so there’s no chance for it to be nicked.
You can leave the seat post extended and push it along on tiny wheels attached to the frame when it’s folded, which is quite nifty but I wouldn’t want to do it for too long because it is a bit unwieldy.
The only time I leave it unattended is at work, where it’s tucked under a desk, and no-one will nick it there. If I go to a supermarket it goes in a trolley. I don’t have a bag to carry it in but I’d get one if I wanted to take it on a flight, but I can’t see me doing that. The bag I have clips on the front for carrying stuff like your laptop and a bit of shopping.
But you’re right, I wouldn’t like to leave it locked up somewhere. But you don’t have to.
I took a hire-Brompton on a flight when I was in Istanbul for a week. Survived fine.
But I had an unfortunate experience with a tramline.
@northern_monkey I think you need to explain to your friend that you are *returning* to your roots. Show him some films from the 1950s.
@TLDRNewsUK 🇦🇷 Argentina has told the UK that it wants to start new talks over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands and has pulled out of a 2016 cooperation pact.
Could a Sunak Falklands moment save his chances of reelection?
Bloody hell not again. The Argentinians need to give this a rest.
Of course national fervour doesn't make sense, we have our own examples of that, but the Argentinian passion on this issue really doesn't seem to make sense to me when it's noted their claim to the islands is a rather technical one based on inheriting rights from former Spanish sovereignty, and talk about natives who don't exist. Yes there are other complexities, but the point being it's actually a rather arcane legal dispute, yet it's talked about in terms of colonialism as if someone seized Buenos Aires 2 years ago.
There is nothing Argentina can do about it anyway. The UK has a veto on any UN decision as a permanent member of the UN Security Council unlike them.
The UK also has a bigger navy and army and airforce than Argentina now
Have a look at an atlas. It's not the Persian Gulf.
Since the Falklands War there is also a bigger permanent British garrison on the islands, a Royal Navy ship on patrol there at all times and a Royal Navy nuclear submarine patrols regularly nearby (though the exact times and location of the latter are obviously classified)
"ship" is a posh way to describe a patrol boat. And the forces, at the far end of a long supply line, are very small.
I remember 1981 - you obviously don't.
Yes, Argentina has cut its armed forces back to far fewer than they were in Galtieri's day.
The UK does not have an army of 153,000. That is the total size of our armed forces - Army, Navy and Airforce - including reservists. Our regular army is just over 80,000 and there are another 30,000 reservists. And gven our other commitments, not least on the Eastern flank of NATO, how many of those do you seriously think we could deploy?
We are much stronger on the ground in the Falklands than we were in 1982 but at the same time much weaker overall. So I could see our forces putting up a reasonable defence but I am certainly not confident they could hold. And if they did fall then we have no chance at all of reclaiming the islands as we did in 1982.
Our commitments on the Eastern flank of NATO would obviously be temporarily abandoned given British sovereign territory had been invaded.
We have a bigger armed forces than Argentina's which are also far weaker than they were in 1982
I am sorry but you really are deluded. What we did in 1982 was extraordinary but we could do it now. We simply don't have the ships.
As an example in 1982 we sent 8 destroyers and 16 frigates as part of the task force (and that was not our entire contingent of those vessel types in the navy). The entire Royal Navy only has 6 destroyers and 12 frigates. And we don't have the crews even for all of those.
Yes we do. we have 10 times the submarines Argentina do, enough to sink most of the Argentine navy alone for starters.
We also have more surface ships too, Argentina now literally has just 1 destroyer and not a single frigate!
You do realise that the size of their navy is pretty much immaterial given they wouldn't be the ones trying to mount a recapture 8000 miles away? What mattered in 1982 was our ability to get men to the South Atlantic and retake the islands. We no longer have the capability to do that. As I said you are deluded. I will add remarkably ignorant as well.
Yes it is, we could sink their entire fleet whether in port in Buenos Aires or Falklands waters within a week.
Once that is done we then send the aircraft carriers to quickly recapture the Islands, using submarines to send missiles on any Argentine troops still on the islands in the meantime
Fucking hell.
Any missile strike on the Falklands is likely to wipe out the Islanders as well.
Not if well targeted, a Tomahawk missile or 2 would do the trick
@TLDRNewsUK 🇦🇷 Argentina has told the UK that it wants to start new talks over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands and has pulled out of a 2016 cooperation pact.
Could a Sunak Falklands moment save his chances of reelection?
Bloody hell not again. The Argentinians need to give this a rest.
Of course national fervour doesn't make sense, we have our own examples of that, but the Argentinian passion on this issue really doesn't seem to make sense to me when it's noted their claim to the islands is a rather technical one based on inheriting rights from former Spanish sovereignty, and talk about natives who don't exist. Yes there are other complexities, but the point being it's actually a rather arcane legal dispute, yet it's talked about in terms of colonialism as if someone seized Buenos Aires 2 years ago.
There is nothing Argentina can do about it anyway. The UK has a veto on any UN decision as a permanent member of the UN Security Council unlike them.
The UK also has a bigger navy and army and airforce than Argentina now
The Argies forces must be minuscule!
Google tells me Arg: 70,600 (2022) vs UK 78,000 (2020). Not sure if this is chalk and apples eg whole of HMF vs army...but it's a close run thing.
We absolutely couldn't mount another Falklands tomorrow morning that's for sure.
From what I’ve seen of the Argentine navy in Ushuaia they could barely crew one ship
However all this is replying to the mood music of Britain in retreat. Giving up the Elgin marbles. Handing back Diego Garcia. London shrinking as a world city
I can see why the argies might think now is a time to strike - psychologically - as the Uk seems in perpetual decline and in a funk of self doubt
They can think what they want, the UK on its own could still beat most nations in a war apart from the US and China, France and India would probably be a stalemate, Russia can't even beat Ukraine.
Argentina also has declined well past its peak when it was one of the wealthiest nations in the world, even in the Falklands war it had far bigger armed forces than now
Have a look at the RN and RAF in 1981 vs today - abvoe all the long range stuff.
And the Merchant Navy, when it comes to the critical STUFT ships of 1981
The Army is about as useful as a fart in a hurricane without those two when it comes to the Flaklands.
Yes we have enough submarines to sink most of the Argentine navy within a day or 2.
Plus enough aircraft carriers and submarines with Cruise Missiles to bomb the Argentine army into submission too if they ever tried invading the Falklands again even without setting any troops on land beyond the garrison already there
What a pathetic post and as so often you just talk codswallop
Indeed having been to the remote Falkland Islands with its rugged terrain and cliff lined coasts with hundreds of Islands and inlets makes it a very difficult place to wage warfare and anyway the whole idea is ridiculous
Weak, wet, pathetic, useless. If Thatcher had had your defeatist attitude in 1982 we would never have recaptured the Falklands then
Sadly you are being utterly ridiculous
You have no knowledge of the territory, our present capabilities, and the fact is we nearly didn't capture them in 1982
Indeed the loss of the Welsh guards at Bluff Cove was shocking as was the sinking of the Sheffield
1982 was very different to today
No, you are being a pathetic, defeatist wet lettuce.
The Argentine forces have also been so cut back since 1982 they are far weaker than they were then. Our submarines could sink the entire Argentine navy within a week
@TLDRNewsUK 🇦🇷 Argentina has told the UK that it wants to start new talks over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands and has pulled out of a 2016 cooperation pact.
Could a Sunak Falklands moment save his chances of reelection?
Bloody hell not again. The Argentinians need to give this a rest.
Of course national fervour doesn't make sense, we have our own examples of that, but the Argentinian passion on this issue really doesn't seem to make sense to me when it's noted their claim to the islands is a rather technical one based on inheriting rights from former Spanish sovereignty, and talk about natives who don't exist. Yes there are other complexities, but the point being it's actually a rather arcane legal dispute, yet it's talked about in terms of colonialism as if someone seized Buenos Aires 2 years ago.
There is nothing Argentina can do about it anyway. The UK has a veto on any UN decision as a permanent member of the UN Security Council unlike them.
The UK also has a bigger navy and army and airforce than Argentina now
The Argies forces must be minuscule!
Google tells me Arg: 70,600 (2022) vs UK 78,000 (2020). Not sure if this is chalk and apples eg whole of HMF vs army...but it's a close run thing.
We absolutely couldn't mount another Falklands tomorrow morning that's for sure.
From what I’ve seen of the Argentine navy in Ushuaia they could barely crew one ship
However all this is replying to the mood music of Britain in retreat. Giving up the Elgin marbles. Handing back Diego Garcia. London shrinking as a world city
I can see why the argies might think now is a time to strike - psychologically - as the Uk seems in perpetual decline and in a funk of self doubt
They can think what they want, the UK on its own could still beat most nations in a war apart from the US and China, France and India would probably be a stalemate, Russia can't even beat Ukraine.
Argentina also has declined well past its peak when it was one of the wealthiest nations in the world, even in the Falklands war it had far bigger armed forces than now
Have a look at the RN and RAF in 1981 vs today - abvoe all the long range stuff.
And the Merchant Navy, when it comes to the critical STUFT ships of 1981
The Army is about as useful as a fart in a hurricane without those two when it comes to the Flaklands.
Yes we have enough submarines to sink most of the Argentine navy within a day or 2.
Plus enough aircraft carriers and submarines with Cruise Missiles to bomb the Argentine army into submission too if they ever tried invading the Falklands again even without setting any troops on land beyond the garrison already there
What a pathetic post and as so often you just talk codswallop
Indeed having been to the remote Falkland Islands with its rugged terrain and cliff lined coasts with hundreds of Islands and inlets makes it a very difficult place to wage warfare and anyway the whole idea is ridiculous
Weak, wet, pathetic, useless. If Thatcher had had your defeatist attitude in 1982 we would never have recaptured the Falklands then
Sadly you are being utterly ridiculous
You have no knowledge of the territory, our present capabilities, and the fact is we nearly didn't capture them in 1982
Indeed the loss of the Welsh guards at Bluff Cove was shocking as was the sinking of the Sheffield
1982 was very different to today
No, you are being a pathetic, defeatist wet lettuce.
The Argentine forces have also been so cut back since 1982 they are far weaker than they were then. Our submarines could sink the entire Argentine navy within a week
You have no idea just how controversial the sinking of the Belgrano was have you
I was the late Wyn Roberts driver at the following GE and we had to field many questions about that event as it was highly controversial
I do not know how old you are but to blithely talk of sinking the Argentine fleet in a week when I had to explain the sinking of one vessel shows how utterly out of touch you are
@TLDRNewsUK 🇦🇷 Argentina has told the UK that it wants to start new talks over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands and has pulled out of a 2016 cooperation pact.
Could a Sunak Falklands moment save his chances of reelection?
Bloody hell not again. The Argentinians need to give this a rest.
Of course national fervour doesn't make sense, we have our own examples of that, but the Argentinian passion on this issue really doesn't seem to make sense to me when it's noted their claim to the islands is a rather technical one based on inheriting rights from former Spanish sovereignty, and talk about natives who don't exist. Yes there are other complexities, but the point being it's actually a rather arcane legal dispute, yet it's talked about in terms of colonialism as if someone seized Buenos Aires 2 years ago.
There is nothing Argentina can do about it anyway. The UK has a veto on any UN decision as a permanent member of the UN Security Council unlike them.
The UK also has a bigger navy and army and airforce than Argentina now
The Argies forces must be minuscule!
Google tells me Arg: 70,600 (2022) vs UK 78,000 (2020). Not sure if this is chalk and apples eg whole of HMF vs army...but it's a close run thing.
We absolutely couldn't mount another Falklands tomorrow morning that's for sure.
From what I’ve seen of the Argentine navy in Ushuaia they could barely crew one ship
However all this is replying to the mood music of Britain in retreat. Giving up the Elgin marbles. Handing back Diego Garcia. London shrinking as a world city
I can see why the argies might think now is a time to strike - psychologically - as the Uk seems in perpetual decline and in a funk of self doubt
They can think what they want, the UK on its own could still beat most nations in a war apart from the US and China, France and India would probably be a stalemate, Russia can't even beat Ukraine.
Argentina also has declined well past its peak when it was one of the wealthiest nations in the world, even in the Falklands war it had far bigger armed forces than now
Have a look at the RN and RAF in 1981 vs today - abvoe all the long range stuff.
And the Merchant Navy, when it comes to the critical STUFT ships of 1981
The Army is about as useful as a fart in a hurricane without those two when it comes to the Flaklands.
Yes we have enough submarines to sink most of the Argentine navy within a day or 2.
Plus enough aircraft carriers and submarines with Cruise Missiles to bomb the Argentine army into submission too if they ever tried invading the Falklands again even without setting any troops on land beyond the garrison already there
What a pathetic post and as so often you just talk codswallop
Indeed having been to the remote Falkland Islands with its rugged terrain and cliff lined coasts with hundreds of Islands and inlets makes it a very difficult place to wage warfare and anyway the whole idea is ridiculous
Weak, wet, pathetic, useless. If Thatcher had had your defeatist attitude in 1982 we would never have recaptured the Falklands then
Sadly you are being utterly ridiculous
You have no knowledge of the territory, our present capabilities, and the fact is we nearly didn't capture them in 1982
Indeed the loss of the Welsh guards at Bluff Cove was shocking as was the sinking of the Sheffield
1982 was very different to today
No, you are being a pathetic, defeatist wet lettuce.
The Argentine forces have also been so cut back since 1982 they are far weaker than they were then. Our submarines could sink the entire Argentine navy within a week
Couldn’t they weaponise Messi against us though 😟
Edit. Wait. Did someone mention they’ve seen Lettuce today?
Did they also have tomatoes and cucumber?
Lidl yesterday was well stocked with Tomatoes, cucumbers and lettuce. I didn't buy any as I don't eat imported fruit and veg that can be grown here. So I eat seasonally (apart from the occasional treat of hothouse tomatoes from the IoW).
@TLDRNewsUK 🇦🇷 Argentina has told the UK that it wants to start new talks over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands and has pulled out of a 2016 cooperation pact.
Could a Sunak Falklands moment save his chances of reelection?
Bloody hell not again. The Argentinians need to give this a rest.
Of course national fervour doesn't make sense, we have our own examples of that, but the Argentinian passion on this issue really doesn't seem to make sense to me when it's noted their claim to the islands is a rather technical one based on inheriting rights from former Spanish sovereignty, and talk about natives who don't exist. Yes there are other complexities, but the point being it's actually a rather arcane legal dispute, yet it's talked about in terms of colonialism as if someone seized Buenos Aires 2 years ago.
There is nothing Argentina can do about it anyway. The UK has a veto on any UN decision as a permanent member of the UN Security Council unlike them.
The UK also has a bigger navy and army and airforce than Argentina now
The Argies forces must be minuscule!
Google tells me Arg: 70,600 (2022) vs UK 78,000 (2020). Not sure if this is chalk and apples eg whole of HMF vs army...but it's a close run thing.
We absolutely couldn't mount another Falklands tomorrow morning that's for sure.
From what I’ve seen of the Argentine navy in Ushuaia they could barely crew one ship
However all this is replying to the mood music of Britain in retreat. Giving up the Elgin marbles. Handing back Diego Garcia. London shrinking as a world city
I can see why the argies might think now is a time to strike - psychologically - as the Uk seems in perpetual decline and in a funk of self doubt
They can think what they want, the UK on its own could still beat most nations in a war apart from the US and China, France and India would probably be a stalemate, Russia can't even beat Ukraine.
Argentina also has declined well past its peak when it was one of the wealthiest nations in the world, even in the Falklands war it had far bigger armed forces than now
Have a look at the RN and RAF in 1981 vs today - abvoe all the long range stuff.
And the Merchant Navy, when it comes to the critical STUFT ships of 1981
The Army is about as useful as a fart in a hurricane without those two when it comes to the Flaklands.
Yes we have enough submarines to sink most of the Argentine navy within a day or 2.
Plus enough aircraft carriers and submarines with Cruise Missiles to bomb the Argentine army into submission too if they ever tried invading the Falklands again even without setting any troops on land beyond the garrison already there
What a pathetic post and as so often you just talk codswallop
Indeed having been to the remote Falkland Islands with its rugged terrain and cliff lined coasts with hundreds of Islands and inlets makes it a very difficult place to wage warfare and anyway the whole idea is ridiculous
Weak, wet, pathetic, useless. If Thatcher had had your defeatist attitude in 1982 we would never have recaptured the Falklands then
Sadly you are being utterly ridiculous
You have no knowledge of the territory, our present capabilities, and the fact is we nearly didn't capture them in 1982
Indeed the loss of the Welsh guards at Bluff Cove was shocking as was the sinking of the Sheffield
1982 was very different to today
No, you are being a pathetic, defeatist wet lettuce.
The Argentine forces have also been so cut back since 1982 they are far weaker than they were then. Our submarines could sink the entire Argentine navy within a week
How many British servicemen and women are you comfortable with sacrificing for your Conservative election victory?
@TLDRNewsUK 🇦🇷 Argentina has told the UK that it wants to start new talks over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands and has pulled out of a 2016 cooperation pact.
Could a Sunak Falklands moment save his chances of reelection?
Bloody hell not again. The Argentinians need to give this a rest.
Of course national fervour doesn't make sense, we have our own examples of that, but the Argentinian passion on this issue really doesn't seem to make sense to me when it's noted their claim to the islands is a rather technical one based on inheriting rights from former Spanish sovereignty, and talk about natives who don't exist. Yes there are other complexities, but the point being it's actually a rather arcane legal dispute, yet it's talked about in terms of colonialism as if someone seized Buenos Aires 2 years ago.
There is nothing Argentina can do about it anyway. The UK has a veto on any UN decision as a permanent member of the UN Security Council unlike them.
The UK also has a bigger navy and army and airforce than Argentina now
Have a look at an atlas. It's not the Persian Gulf.
Since the Falklands War there is also a bigger permanent British garrison on the islands, a Royal Navy ship on patrol there at all times and a Royal Navy nuclear submarine patrols regularly nearby (though the exact times and location of the latter are obviously classified)
"ship" is a posh way to describe a patrol boat. And the forces, at the far end of a long supply line, are very small.
I remember 1981 - you obviously don't.
Yes, Argentina has cut its armed forces back to far fewer than they were in Galtieri's day.
The UK does not have an army of 153,000. That is the total size of our armed forces - Army, Navy and Airforce - including reservists. Our regular army is just over 80,000 and there are another 30,000 reservists. And gven our other commitments, not least on the Eastern flank of NATO, how many of those do you seriously think we could deploy?
We are much stronger on the ground in the Falklands than we were in 1982 but at the same time much weaker overall. So I could see our forces putting up a reasonable defence but I am certainly not confident they could hold. And if they did fall then we have no chance at all of reclaiming the islands as we did in 1982.
Our commitments on the Eastern flank of NATO would obviously be temporarily abandoned given British sovereign territory had been invaded.
We have a bigger armed forces than Argentina's which are also far weaker than they were in 1982
I am sorry but you really are deluded. What we did in 1982 was extraordinary but we could do it now. We simply don't have the ships.
As an example in 1982 we sent 8 destroyers and 16 frigates as part of the task force (and that was not our entire contingent of those vessel types in the navy). The entire Royal Navy only has 6 destroyers and 12 frigates. And we don't have the crews even for all of those.
Yes we do. we have 10 times the submarines Argentina do, enough to sink most of the Argentine navy alone for starters.
We also have more surface ships too, Argentina now literally has just 1 destroyer and not a single frigate!
You do realise that the size of their navy is pretty much immaterial given they wouldn't be the ones trying to mount a recapture 8000 miles away? What mattered in 1982 was our ability to get men to the South Atlantic and retake the islands. We no longer have the capability to do that. As I said you are deluded. I will add remarkably ignorant as well.
Yes it is, we could sink their entire fleet whether in port in Buenos Aires or Falklands waters within a week.
Once that is done we then send the aircraft carriers to quickly recapture the Islands, using submarines to send missiles on any Argentine troops still on the islands in the meantime
Fucking hell.
Any missile strike on the Falklands is likely to wipe out the Islanders as well.
Not if well targeted, a Tomahawk missile or 2 would do the trick
On this one, I don't think the Argentine Air Force currently has a single war plane that can fly to the Falklands. A couple of transports, but that's about it, afaics.
I'd say the greatest threat to the Falklands for the next 15-20 years is Treasury salami-slicing, or if China buys Argentina.
@TLDRNewsUK 🇦🇷 Argentina has told the UK that it wants to start new talks over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands and has pulled out of a 2016 cooperation pact.
Could a Sunak Falklands moment save his chances of reelection?
Bloody hell not again. The Argentinians need to give this a rest.
Of course national fervour doesn't make sense, we have our own examples of that, but the Argentinian passion on this issue really doesn't seem to make sense to me when it's noted their claim to the islands is a rather technical one based on inheriting rights from former Spanish sovereignty, and talk about natives who don't exist. Yes there are other complexities, but the point being it's actually a rather arcane legal dispute, yet it's talked about in terms of colonialism as if someone seized Buenos Aires 2 years ago.
There is nothing Argentina can do about it anyway. The UK has a veto on any UN decision as a permanent member of the UN Security Council unlike them.
The UK also has a bigger navy and army and airforce than Argentina now
The Argies forces must be minuscule!
Google tells me Arg: 70,600 (2022) vs UK 78,000 (2020). Not sure if this is chalk and apples eg whole of HMF vs army...but it's a close run thing.
We absolutely couldn't mount another Falklands tomorrow morning that's for sure.
From what I’ve seen of the Argentine navy in Ushuaia they could barely crew one ship
However all this is replying to the mood music of Britain in retreat. Giving up the Elgin marbles. Handing back Diego Garcia. London shrinking as a world city
I can see why the argies might think now is a time to strike - psychologically - as the Uk seems in perpetual decline and in a funk of self doubt
They can think what they want, the UK on its own could still beat most nations in a war apart from the US and China, France and India would probably be a stalemate, Russia can't even beat Ukraine.
Argentina also has declined well past its peak when it was one of the wealthiest nations in the world, even in the Falklands war it had far bigger armed forces than now
Have a look at the RN and RAF in 1981 vs today - abvoe all the long range stuff.
And the Merchant Navy, when it comes to the critical STUFT ships of 1981
The Army is about as useful as a fart in a hurricane without those two when it comes to the Flaklands.
Yes we have enough submarines to sink most of the Argentine navy within a day or 2.
Plus enough aircraft carriers and submarines with Cruise Missiles to bomb the Argentine army into submission too if they ever tried invading the Falklands again even without setting any troops on land beyond the garrison already there
What a pathetic post and as so often you just talk codswallop
Indeed having been to the remote Falkland Islands with its rugged terrain and cliff lined coasts with hundreds of Islands and inlets makes it a very difficult place to wage warfare and anyway the whole idea is ridiculous
Weak, wet, pathetic, useless. If Thatcher had had your defeatist attitude in 1982 we would never have recaptured the Falklands then
Sadly you are being utterly ridiculous
You have no knowledge of the territory, our present capabilities, and the fact is we nearly didn't capture them in 1982
Indeed the loss of the Welsh guards at Bluff Cove was shocking as was the sinking of the Sheffield
1982 was very different to today
No, you are being a pathetic, defeatist wet lettuce.
The Argentine forces have also been so cut back since 1982 they are far weaker than they were then. Our submarines could sink the entire Argentine navy within a week
How many British servicemen and women are you comfortable with sacrificing for your Conservative election victory?
As many as it takes to defend British territory, any UK PM not willing to defend the Falklands would lose the next election by a landslide. Though subs and aircraft carriers and planes and missiles alone should quickly do the job
@TLDRNewsUK 🇦🇷 Argentina has told the UK that it wants to start new talks over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands and has pulled out of a 2016 cooperation pact.
Could a Sunak Falklands moment save his chances of reelection?
Bloody hell not again. The Argentinians need to give this a rest.
Of course national fervour doesn't make sense, we have our own examples of that, but the Argentinian passion on this issue really doesn't seem to make sense to me when it's noted their claim to the islands is a rather technical one based on inheriting rights from former Spanish sovereignty, and talk about natives who don't exist. Yes there are other complexities, but the point being it's actually a rather arcane legal dispute, yet it's talked about in terms of colonialism as if someone seized Buenos Aires 2 years ago.
There is nothing Argentina can do about it anyway. The UK has a veto on any UN decision as a permanent member of the UN Security Council unlike them.
The UK also has a bigger navy and army and airforce than Argentina now
Have a look at an atlas. It's not the Persian Gulf.
Since the Falklands War there is also a bigger permanent British garrison on the islands, a Royal Navy ship on patrol there at all times and a Royal Navy nuclear submarine patrols regularly nearby (though the exact times and location of the latter are obviously classified)
"ship" is a posh way to describe a patrol boat. And the forces, at the far end of a long supply line, are very small.
I remember 1981 - you obviously don't.
Yes, Argentina has cut its armed forces back to far fewer than they were in Galtieri's day.
The UK does not have an army of 153,000. That is the total size of our armed forces - Army, Navy and Airforce - including reservists. Our regular army is just over 80,000 and there are another 30,000 reservists. And gven our other commitments, not least on the Eastern flank of NATO, how many of those do you seriously think we could deploy?
We are much stronger on the ground in the Falklands than we were in 1982 but at the same time much weaker overall. So I could see our forces putting up a reasonable defence but I am certainly not confident they could hold. And if they did fall then we have no chance at all of reclaiming the islands as we did in 1982.
Our commitments on the Eastern flank of NATO would obviously be temporarily abandoned given British sovereign territory had been invaded.
We have a bigger armed forces than Argentina's which are also far weaker than they were in 1982
I am sorry but you really are deluded. What we did in 1982 was extraordinary but we could do it now. We simply don't have the ships.
As an example in 1982 we sent 8 destroyers and 16 frigates as part of the task force (and that was not our entire contingent of those vessel types in the navy). The entire Royal Navy only has 6 destroyers and 12 frigates. And we don't have the crews even for all of those.
Yes we do. we have 10 times the submarines Argentina do, enough to sink most of the Argentine navy alone for starters.
We also have more surface ships too, Argentina now literally has just 1 destroyer and not a single frigate!
You do realise that the size of their navy is pretty much immaterial given they wouldn't be the ones trying to mount a recapture 8000 miles away? What mattered in 1982 was our ability to get men to the South Atlantic and retake the islands. We no longer have the capability to do that. As I said you are deluded. I will add remarkably ignorant as well.
Yes it is, we could sink their entire fleet whether in port in Buenos Aires or Falklands waters within a week.
Once that is done we then send the aircraft carriers to quickly support the Islands, using submarines to send missiles on any Argentine troops who have got on the islands in the meantime
I would suggest you get a cup of tea and a rich tea biscuit rather than continuing this nonsense
Don't the Express and Mirror share journalists and stories now?
What have you got for me today boss. You’re not going to send me out again to interview some people struggling to heat and eat? You know I told you, none of them are bathing particularly regular either. Can’t I just work from home, get drunk, and make up some copy about a suggestion put on a post it note at Tory away day this week, guarantees UK best growth in G7 for the next five years?
@TLDRNewsUK 🇦🇷 Argentina has told the UK that it wants to start new talks over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands and has pulled out of a 2016 cooperation pact.
Could a Sunak Falklands moment save his chances of reelection?
Bloody hell not again. The Argentinians need to give this a rest.
Of course national fervour doesn't make sense, we have our own examples of that, but the Argentinian passion on this issue really doesn't seem to make sense to me when it's noted their claim to the islands is a rather technical one based on inheriting rights from former Spanish sovereignty, and talk about natives who don't exist. Yes there are other complexities, but the point being it's actually a rather arcane legal dispute, yet it's talked about in terms of colonialism as if someone seized Buenos Aires 2 years ago.
There is nothing Argentina can do about it anyway. The UK has a veto on any UN decision as a permanent member of the UN Security Council unlike them.
The UK also has a bigger navy and army and airforce than Argentina now
Have a look at an atlas. It's not the Persian Gulf.
Since the Falklands War there is also a bigger permanent British garrison on the islands, a Royal Navy ship on patrol there at all times and a Royal Navy nuclear submarine patrols regularly nearby (though the exact times and location of the latter are obviously classified)
"ship" is a posh way to describe a patrol boat. And the forces, at the far end of a long supply line, are very small.
I remember 1981 - you obviously don't.
Yes, Argentina has cut its armed forces back to far fewer than they were in Galtieri's day.
The UK does not have an army of 153,000. That is the total size of our armed forces - Army, Navy and Airforce - including reservists. Our regular army is just over 80,000 and there are another 30,000 reservists. And gven our other commitments, not least on the Eastern flank of NATO, how many of those do you seriously think we could deploy?
We are much stronger on the ground in the Falklands than we were in 1982 but at the same time much weaker overall. So I could see our forces putting up a reasonable defence but I am certainly not confident they could hold. And if they did fall then we have no chance at all of reclaiming the islands as we did in 1982.
Our commitments on the Eastern flank of NATO would obviously be temporarily abandoned given British sovereign territory had been invaded.
We have a bigger armed forces than Argentina's which are also far weaker than they were in 1982
I am sorry but you really are deluded. What we did in 1982 was extraordinary but we could do it now. We simply don't have the ships.
As an example in 1982 we sent 8 destroyers and 16 frigates as part of the task force (and that was not our entire contingent of those vessel types in the navy). The entire Royal Navy only has 6 destroyers and 12 frigates. And we don't have the crews even for all of those.
Yes we do. we have 10 times the submarines Argentina do, enough to sink most of the Argentine navy alone for starters.
We also have more surface ships too, Argentina now literally has just 1 destroyer and not a single frigate!
You do realise that the size of their navy is pretty much immaterial given they wouldn't be the ones trying to mount a recapture 8000 miles away? What mattered in 1982 was our ability to get men to the South Atlantic and retake the islands. We no longer have the capability to do that. As I said you are deluded. I will add remarkably ignorant as well.
Yes it is, we could sink their entire fleet whether in port in Buenos Aires or Falklands waters within a week.
Once that is done we then send the aircraft carriers to quickly recapture the Islands, using submarines to send missiles on any Argentine troops still on the islands in the meantime
Fucking hell.
Any missile strike on the Falklands is likely to wipe out the Islanders as well.
Not if well targeted, a Tomahawk missile or 2 would do the trick
Utter nonsense
Look up the Falkland Islands and you will see how silly that comment is
@TLDRNewsUK 🇦🇷 Argentina has told the UK that it wants to start new talks over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands and has pulled out of a 2016 cooperation pact.
Could a Sunak Falklands moment save his chances of reelection?
Bloody hell not again. The Argentinians need to give this a rest.
Of course national fervour doesn't make sense, we have our own examples of that, but the Argentinian passion on this issue really doesn't seem to make sense to me when it's noted their claim to the islands is a rather technical one based on inheriting rights from former Spanish sovereignty, and talk about natives who don't exist. Yes there are other complexities, but the point being it's actually a rather arcane legal dispute, yet it's talked about in terms of colonialism as if someone seized Buenos Aires 2 years ago.
There is nothing Argentina can do about it anyway. The UK has a veto on any UN decision as a permanent member of the UN Security Council unlike them.
The UK also has a bigger navy and army and airforce than Argentina now
Have a look at an atlas. It's not the Persian Gulf.
Since the Falklands War there is also a bigger permanent British garrison on the islands, a Royal Navy ship on patrol there at all times and a Royal Navy nuclear submarine patrols regularly nearby (though the exact times and location of the latter are obviously classified)
"ship" is a posh way to describe a patrol boat. And the forces, at the far end of a long supply line, are very small.
I remember 1981 - you obviously don't.
Yes, Argentina has cut its armed forces back to far fewer than they were in Galtieri's day.
The UK does not have an army of 153,000. That is the total size of our armed forces - Army, Navy and Airforce - including reservists. Our regular army is just over 80,000 and there are another 30,000 reservists. And gven our other commitments, not least on the Eastern flank of NATO, how many of those do you seriously think we could deploy?
We are much stronger on the ground in the Falklands than we were in 1982 but at the same time much weaker overall. So I could see our forces putting up a reasonable defence but I am certainly not confident they could hold. And if they did fall then we have no chance at all of reclaiming the islands as we did in 1982.
Our commitments on the Eastern flank of NATO would obviously be temporarily abandoned given British sovereign territory had been invaded.
We have a bigger armed forces than Argentina's which are also far weaker than they were in 1982
I am sorry but you really are deluded. What we did in 1982 was extraordinary but we could do it now. We simply don't have the ships.
As an example in 1982 we sent 8 destroyers and 16 frigates as part of the task force (and that was not our entire contingent of those vessel types in the navy). The entire Royal Navy only has 6 destroyers and 12 frigates. And we don't have the crews even for all of those.
Yes we do. we have 10 times the submarines Argentina do, enough to sink most of the Argentine navy alone for starters.
We also have more surface ships too, Argentina now literally has just 1 destroyer and not a single frigate!
You do realise that the size of their navy is pretty much immaterial given they wouldn't be the ones trying to mount a recapture 8000 miles away? What mattered in 1982 was our ability to get men to the South Atlantic and retake the islands. We no longer have the capability to do that. As I said you are deluded. I will add remarkably ignorant as well.
Yes it is, we could sink their entire fleet whether in port in Buenos Aires or Falklands waters within a week.
Once that is done we then send the aircraft carriers to quickly recapture the Islands, using submarines to send missiles on any Argentine troops still on the islands in the meantime
Fucking hell.
Any missile strike on the Falklands is likely to wipe out the Islanders as well.
Not if well targeted, a Tomahawk missile or 2 would do the trick
Utter nonsense
Look up the Falkland Islands and you will see how silly that comment is
Mind you, knowing you, you probably won't
Yes a sparsely inhabited collection of islands so any Argentine landing force would stick out like a sore thumb for RN submarines to launch missiles at
@TLDRNewsUK 🇦🇷 Argentina has told the UK that it wants to start new talks over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands and has pulled out of a 2016 cooperation pact.
Could a Sunak Falklands moment save his chances of reelection?
Bloody hell not again. The Argentinians need to give this a rest.
Of course national fervour doesn't make sense, we have our own examples of that, but the Argentinian passion on this issue really doesn't seem to make sense to me when it's noted their claim to the islands is a rather technical one based on inheriting rights from former Spanish sovereignty, and talk about natives who don't exist. Yes there are other complexities, but the point being it's actually a rather arcane legal dispute, yet it's talked about in terms of colonialism as if someone seized Buenos Aires 2 years ago.
There is nothing Argentina can do about it anyway. The UK has a veto on any UN decision as a permanent member of the UN Security Council unlike them.
The UK also has a bigger navy and army and airforce than Argentina now
Have a look at an atlas. It's not the Persian Gulf.
Since the Falklands War there is also a bigger permanent British garrison on the islands, a Royal Navy ship on patrol there at all times and a Royal Navy nuclear submarine patrols regularly nearby (though the exact times and location of the latter are obviously classified)
"ship" is a posh way to describe a patrol boat. And the forces, at the far end of a long supply line, are very small.
I remember 1981 - you obviously don't.
Yes, Argentina has cut its armed forces back to far fewer than they were in Galtieri's day.
The UK does not have an army of 153,000. That is the total size of our armed forces - Army, Navy and Airforce - including reservists. Our regular army is just over 80,000 and there are another 30,000 reservists. And gven our other commitments, not least on the Eastern flank of NATO, how many of those do you seriously think we could deploy?
We are much stronger on the ground in the Falklands than we were in 1982 but at the same time much weaker overall. So I could see our forces putting up a reasonable defence but I am certainly not confident they could hold. And if they did fall then we have no chance at all of reclaiming the islands as we did in 1982.
Our commitments on the Eastern flank of NATO would obviously be temporarily abandoned given British sovereign territory had been invaded.
We have a bigger armed forces than Argentina's which are also far weaker than they were in 1982
I am sorry but you really are deluded. What we did in 1982 was extraordinary but we could do it now. We simply don't have the ships.
As an example in 1982 we sent 8 destroyers and 16 frigates as part of the task force (and that was not our entire contingent of those vessel types in the navy). The entire Royal Navy only has 6 destroyers and 12 frigates. And we don't have the crews even for all of those.
Yes we do. we have 10 times the submarines Argentina do, enough to sink most of the Argentine navy alone for starters.
We also have more surface ships too, Argentina now literally has just 1 destroyer and not a single frigate!
You do realise that the size of their navy is pretty much immaterial given they wouldn't be the ones trying to mount a recapture 8000 miles away? What mattered in 1982 was our ability to get men to the South Atlantic and retake the islands. We no longer have the capability to do that. As I said you are deluded. I will add remarkably ignorant as well.
Yes it is, we could sink their entire fleet whether in port in Buenos Aires or Falklands waters within a week.
Once that is done we then send the aircraft carriers to quickly recapture the Islands, using submarines to send missiles on any Argentine troops still on the islands in the meantime
Fucking hell.
Any missile strike on the Falklands is likely to wipe out the Islanders as well.
Not if well targeted, a Tomahawk missile or 2 would do the trick
On this one, I don't think the Argentine Air Force currently has a single war plane that can fly to the Falklands. A couple of transports, but that's about it, afaics.
I'd say the greatest threat to the Falklands for the next 15-20 years is Treasury salami-slicing, or if China buys Argentina.
@TLDRNewsUK 🇦🇷 Argentina has told the UK that it wants to start new talks over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands and has pulled out of a 2016 cooperation pact.
Could a Sunak Falklands moment save his chances of reelection?
Bloody hell not again. The Argentinians need to give this a rest.
Of course national fervour doesn't make sense, we have our own examples of that, but the Argentinian passion on this issue really doesn't seem to make sense to me when it's noted their claim to the islands is a rather technical one based on inheriting rights from former Spanish sovereignty, and talk about natives who don't exist. Yes there are other complexities, but the point being it's actually a rather arcane legal dispute, yet it's talked about in terms of colonialism as if someone seized Buenos Aires 2 years ago.
There is nothing Argentina can do about it anyway. The UK has a veto on any UN decision as a permanent member of the UN Security Council unlike them.
The UK also has a bigger navy and army and airforce than Argentina now
The Argies forces must be minuscule!
Google tells me Arg: 70,600 (2022) vs UK 78,000 (2020). Not sure if this is chalk and apples eg whole of HMF vs army...but it's a close run thing.
We absolutely couldn't mount another Falklands tomorrow morning that's for sure.
From what I’ve seen of the Argentine navy in Ushuaia they could barely crew one ship
However all this is replying to the mood music of Britain in retreat. Giving up the Elgin marbles. Handing back Diego Garcia. London shrinking as a world city
I can see why the argies might think now is a time to strike - psychologically - as the Uk seems in perpetual decline and in a funk of self doubt
They can think what they want, the UK on its own could still beat most nations in a war apart from the US and China, France and India would probably be a stalemate, Russia can't even beat Ukraine.
Argentina also has declined well past its peak when it was one of the wealthiest nations in the world, even in the Falklands war it had far bigger armed forces than now
Have a look at the RN and RAF in 1981 vs today - abvoe all the long range stuff.
And the Merchant Navy, when it comes to the critical STUFT ships of 1981
The Army is about as useful as a fart in a hurricane without those two when it comes to the Flaklands.
Yes we have enough submarines to sink most of the Argentine navy within a day or 2.
Plus enough aircraft carriers and submarines with Cruise Missiles to bomb the Argentine army into submission too if they ever tried invading the Falklands again even without setting any troops on land beyond the garrison already there
What a pathetic post and as so often you just talk codswallop
Indeed having been to the remote Falkland Islands with its rugged terrain and cliff lined coasts with hundreds of Islands and inlets makes it a very difficult place to wage warfare and anyway the whole idea is ridiculous
Weak, wet, pathetic, useless. If Thatcher had had your defeatist attitude in 1982 we would never have recaptured the Falklands then
Sadly you are being utterly ridiculous
You have no knowledge of the territory, our present capabilities, and the fact is we nearly didn't capture them in 1982
Indeed the loss of the Welsh guards at Bluff Cove was shocking as was the sinking of the Sheffield
1982 was very different to today
No, you are being a pathetic, defeatist wet lettuce.
The Argentine forces have also been so cut back since 1982 they are far weaker than they were then. Our submarines could sink the entire Argentine navy within a week
You have no idea just how controversial the sinking of the Belgrano was have you
I was the late Wyn Roberts driver at the following GE and we had to field many questions about that event as it was highly controversial
I do not know how old you are but to blithely talk of sinking the Argentine fleet in a week when I had to explain the sinking of one vessel shows how utterly out of touch you are
And his talk of torpedoing ships in harbour. What does he think the Navy have, Fairey ****ing Swordfish??
@TLDRNewsUK 🇦🇷 Argentina has told the UK that it wants to start new talks over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands and has pulled out of a 2016 cooperation pact.
Could a Sunak Falklands moment save his chances of reelection?
Bloody hell not again. The Argentinians need to give this a rest.
Of course national fervour doesn't make sense, we have our own examples of that, but the Argentinian passion on this issue really doesn't seem to make sense to me when it's noted their claim to the islands is a rather technical one based on inheriting rights from former Spanish sovereignty, and talk about natives who don't exist. Yes there are other complexities, but the point being it's actually a rather arcane legal dispute, yet it's talked about in terms of colonialism as if someone seized Buenos Aires 2 years ago.
There is nothing Argentina can do about it anyway. The UK has a veto on any UN decision as a permanent member of the UN Security Council unlike them.
The UK also has a bigger navy and army and airforce than Argentina now
Have a look at an atlas. It's not the Persian Gulf.
Since the Falklands War there is also a bigger permanent British garrison on the islands, a Royal Navy ship on patrol there at all times and a Royal Navy nuclear submarine patrols regularly nearby (though the exact times and location of the latter are obviously classified)
"ship" is a posh way to describe a patrol boat. And the forces, at the far end of a long supply line, are very small.
I remember 1981 - you obviously don't.
Yes, Argentina has cut its armed forces back to far fewer than they were in Galtieri's day.
The UK does not have an army of 153,000. That is the total size of our armed forces - Army, Navy and Airforce - including reservists. Our regular army is just over 80,000 and there are another 30,000 reservists. And gven our other commitments, not least on the Eastern flank of NATO, how many of those do you seriously think we could deploy?
We are much stronger on the ground in the Falklands than we were in 1982 but at the same time much weaker overall. So I could see our forces putting up a reasonable defence but I am certainly not confident they could hold. And if they did fall then we have no chance at all of reclaiming the islands as we did in 1982.
Our commitments on the Eastern flank of NATO would obviously be temporarily abandoned given British sovereign territory had been invaded.
We have a bigger armed forces than Argentina's which are also far weaker than they were in 1982
I am sorry but you really are deluded. What we did in 1982 was extraordinary but we could do it now. We simply don't have the ships.
As an example in 1982 we sent 8 destroyers and 16 frigates as part of the task force (and that was not our entire contingent of those vessel types in the navy). The entire Royal Navy only has 6 destroyers and 12 frigates. And we don't have the crews even for all of those.
Yes we do. we have 10 times the submarines Argentina do, enough to sink most of the Argentine navy alone for starters.
We also have more surface ships too, Argentina now literally has just 1 destroyer and not a single frigate!
You do realise that the size of their navy is pretty much immaterial given they wouldn't be the ones trying to mount a recapture 8000 miles away? What mattered in 1982 was our ability to get men to the South Atlantic and retake the islands. We no longer have the capability to do that. As I said you are deluded. I will add remarkably ignorant as well.
Yes it is, we could sink their entire fleet whether in port in Buenos Aires or Falklands waters within a week.
Once that is done we then send the aircraft carriers to quickly recapture the Islands, using submarines to send missiles on any Argentine troops still on the islands in the meantime
Fucking hell.
Any missile strike on the Falklands is likely to wipe out the Islanders as well.
Not if well targeted, a Tomahawk missile or 2 would do the trick
On this one, I don't think the Argentine Air Force currently has a single war plane that can fly to the Falklands. A couple of transports, but that's about it, afaics.
I'd say the greatest threat to the Falklands for the next 15-20 years is Treasury salami-slicing, or if China buys Argentina.
Quite, because there is a certain minimum size below which the det isn't useful at all. And it's showing up on the stats, like the Red Arrows.
@TLDRNewsUK 🇦🇷 Argentina has told the UK that it wants to start new talks over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands and has pulled out of a 2016 cooperation pact.
Could a Sunak Falklands moment save his chances of reelection?
Bloody hell not again. The Argentinians need to give this a rest.
Of course national fervour doesn't make sense, we have our own examples of that, but the Argentinian passion on this issue really doesn't seem to make sense to me when it's noted their claim to the islands is a rather technical one based on inheriting rights from former Spanish sovereignty, and talk about natives who don't exist. Yes there are other complexities, but the point being it's actually a rather arcane legal dispute, yet it's talked about in terms of colonialism as if someone seized Buenos Aires 2 years ago.
There is nothing Argentina can do about it anyway. The UK has a veto on any UN decision as a permanent member of the UN Security Council unlike them.
The UK also has a bigger navy and army and airforce than Argentina now
The Argies forces must be minuscule!
Google tells me Arg: 70,600 (2022) vs UK 78,000 (2020). Not sure if this is chalk and apples eg whole of HMF vs army...but it's a close run thing.
We absolutely couldn't mount another Falklands tomorrow morning that's for sure.
From what I’ve seen of the Argentine navy in Ushuaia they could barely crew one ship
However all this is replying to the mood music of Britain in retreat. Giving up the Elgin marbles. Handing back Diego Garcia. London shrinking as a world city
I can see why the argies might think now is a time to strike - psychologically - as the Uk seems in perpetual decline and in a funk of self doubt
They can think what they want, the UK on its own could still beat most nations in a war apart from the US and China, France and India would probably be a stalemate, Russia can't even beat Ukraine.
Argentina also has declined well past its peak when it was one of the wealthiest nations in the world, even in the Falklands war it had far bigger armed forces than now
Have a look at the RN and RAF in 1981 vs today - abvoe all the long range stuff.
And the Merchant Navy, when it comes to the critical STUFT ships of 1981
The Army is about as useful as a fart in a hurricane without those two when it comes to the Flaklands.
Yes we have enough submarines to sink most of the Argentine navy within a day or 2.
Plus enough aircraft carriers and submarines with Cruise Missiles to bomb the Argentine army into submission too if they ever tried invading the Falklands again even without setting any troops on land beyond the garrison already there
What a pathetic post and as so often you just talk codswallop
Indeed having been to the remote Falkland Islands with its rugged terrain and cliff lined coasts with hundreds of Islands and inlets makes it a very difficult place to wage warfare and anyway the whole idea is ridiculous
Weak, wet, pathetic, useless. If Thatcher had had your defeatist attitude in 1982 we would never have recaptured the Falklands then
Sadly you are being utterly ridiculous
You have no knowledge of the territory, our present capabilities, and the fact is we nearly didn't capture them in 1982
Indeed the loss of the Welsh guards at Bluff Cove was shocking as was the sinking of the Sheffield
1982 was very different to today
No, you are being a pathetic, defeatist wet lettuce.
The Argentine forces have also been so cut back since 1982 they are far weaker than they were then. Our submarines could sink the entire Argentine navy within a week
Couldn’t they weaponise Messi against us though 😟
Edit. Wait. Did someone mention they’ve seen Lettuce today?
Did they also have tomatoes and cucumber?
Lidl yesterday was well stocked with Tomatoes, cucumbers and lettuce. I didn't buy any as I don't eat imported fruit and veg that can be grown here. So I eat seasonally (apart from the occasional treat of hothouse tomatoes from the IoW).
I live in Spain where there are tons of salad stuff all year but I don't eat any of it in the 2/3 chilly winter months. I'm totally baffled as to why anyone in the UK should be yearning for cold salad in February or March. It's surely got to be another case of confected outrage.
@TLDRNewsUK 🇦🇷 Argentina has told the UK that it wants to start new talks over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands and has pulled out of a 2016 cooperation pact.
Could a Sunak Falklands moment save his chances of reelection?
Bloody hell not again. The Argentinians need to give this a rest.
Of course national fervour doesn't make sense, we have our own examples of that, but the Argentinian passion on this issue really doesn't seem to make sense to me when it's noted their claim to the islands is a rather technical one based on inheriting rights from former Spanish sovereignty, and talk about natives who don't exist. Yes there are other complexities, but the point being it's actually a rather arcane legal dispute, yet it's talked about in terms of colonialism as if someone seized Buenos Aires 2 years ago.
There is nothing Argentina can do about it anyway. The UK has a veto on any UN decision as a permanent member of the UN Security Council unlike them.
The UK also has a bigger navy and army and airforce than Argentina now
Have a look at an atlas. It's not the Persian Gulf.
Since the Falklands War there is also a bigger permanent British garrison on the islands, a Royal Navy ship on patrol there at all times and a Royal Navy nuclear submarine patrols regularly nearby (though the exact times and location of the latter are obviously classified)
"ship" is a posh way to describe a patrol boat. And the forces, at the far end of a long supply line, are very small.
I remember 1981 - you obviously don't.
Yes, Argentina has cut its armed forces back to far fewer than they were in Galtieri's day.
The UK does not have an army of 153,000. That is the total size of our armed forces - Army, Navy and Airforce - including reservists. Our regular army is just over 80,000 and there are another 30,000 reservists. And gven our other commitments, not least on the Eastern flank of NATO, how many of those do you seriously think we could deploy?
We are much stronger on the ground in the Falklands than we were in 1982 but at the same time much weaker overall. So I could see our forces putting up a reasonable defence but I am certainly not confident they could hold. And if they did fall then we have no chance at all of reclaiming the islands as we did in 1982.
Our commitments on the Eastern flank of NATO would obviously be temporarily abandoned given British sovereign territory had been invaded.
We have a bigger armed forces than Argentina's which are also far weaker than they were in 1982
I am sorry but you really are deluded. What we did in 1982 was extraordinary but we could do it now. We simply don't have the ships.
As an example in 1982 we sent 8 destroyers and 16 frigates as part of the task force (and that was not our entire contingent of those vessel types in the navy). The entire Royal Navy only has 6 destroyers and 12 frigates. And we don't have the crews even for all of those.
Yes we do. we have 10 times the submarines Argentina do, enough to sink most of the Argentine navy alone for starters.
We also have more surface ships too, Argentina now literally has just 1 destroyer and not a single frigate!
You do realise that the size of their navy is pretty much immaterial given they wouldn't be the ones trying to mount a recapture 8000 miles away? What mattered in 1982 was our ability to get men to the South Atlantic and retake the islands. We no longer have the capability to do that. As I said you are deluded. I will add remarkably ignorant as well.
Yes it is, we could sink their entire fleet whether in port in Buenos Aires or Falklands waters within a week.
Once that is done we then send the aircraft carriers to quickly recapture the Islands, using submarines to send missiles on any Argentine troops still on the islands in the meantime
Fucking hell.
Any missile strike on the Falklands is likely to wipe out the Islanders as well.
Not if well targeted, a Tomahawk missile or 2 would do the trick
Utter nonsense
Look up the Falkland Islands and you will see how silly that comment is
Mind you, knowing you, you probably won't
Yes a sparsely inhabited collection of islands so any Argentine landing force would stick out like a sore thumb for RN submarines to launch missiles at
@TLDRNewsUK 🇦🇷 Argentina has told the UK that it wants to start new talks over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands and has pulled out of a 2016 cooperation pact.
Could a Sunak Falklands moment save his chances of reelection?
Bloody hell not again. The Argentinians need to give this a rest.
Of course national fervour doesn't make sense, we have our own examples of that, but the Argentinian passion on this issue really doesn't seem to make sense to me when it's noted their claim to the islands is a rather technical one based on inheriting rights from former Spanish sovereignty, and talk about natives who don't exist. Yes there are other complexities, but the point being it's actually a rather arcane legal dispute, yet it's talked about in terms of colonialism as if someone seized Buenos Aires 2 years ago.
There is nothing Argentina can do about it anyway. The UK has a veto on any UN decision as a permanent member of the UN Security Council unlike them.
The UK also has a bigger navy and army and airforce than Argentina now
The Argies forces must be minuscule!
Google tells me Arg: 70,600 (2022) vs UK 78,000 (2020). Not sure if this is chalk and apples eg whole of HMF vs army...but it's a close run thing.
We absolutely couldn't mount another Falklands tomorrow morning that's for sure.
From what I’ve seen of the Argentine navy in Ushuaia they could barely crew one ship
However all this is replying to the mood music of Britain in retreat. Giving up the Elgin marbles. Handing back Diego Garcia. London shrinking as a world city
I can see why the argies might think now is a time to strike - psychologically - as the Uk seems in perpetual decline and in a funk of self doubt
They can think what they want, the UK on its own could still beat most nations in a war apart from the US and China, France and India would probably be a stalemate, Russia can't even beat Ukraine.
Argentina also has declined well past its peak when it was one of the wealthiest nations in the world, even in the Falklands war it had far bigger armed forces than now
Have a look at the RN and RAF in 1981 vs today - abvoe all the long range stuff.
And the Merchant Navy, when it comes to the critical STUFT ships of 1981
The Army is about as useful as a fart in a hurricane without those two when it comes to the Flaklands.
Yes we have enough submarines to sink most of the Argentine navy within a day or 2.
Plus enough aircraft carriers and submarines with Cruise Missiles to bomb the Argentine army into submission too if they ever tried invading the Falklands again even without setting any troops on land beyond the garrison already there
What a pathetic post and as so often you just talk codswallop
Indeed having been to the remote Falkland Islands with its rugged terrain and cliff lined coasts with hundreds of Islands and inlets makes it a very difficult place to wage warfare and anyway the whole idea is ridiculous
Weak, wet, pathetic, useless. If Thatcher had had your defeatist attitude in 1982 we would never have recaptured the Falklands then
Sadly you are being utterly ridiculous
You have no knowledge of the territory, our present capabilities, and the fact is we nearly didn't capture them in 1982
Indeed the loss of the Welsh guards at Bluff Cove was shocking as was the sinking of the Sheffield
1982 was very different to today
No, you are being a pathetic, defeatist wet lettuce.
The Argentine forces have also been so cut back since 1982 they are far weaker than they were then. Our submarines could sink the entire Argentine navy within a week
You have no idea just how controversial the sinking of the Belgrano was have you
I was the late Wyn Roberts driver at the following GE and we had to field many questions about that event as it was highly controversial
I do not know how old you are but to blithely talk of sinking the Argentine fleet in a week when I had to explain the sinking of one vessel shows how utterly out of touch you are
I was told at the time by an Army Captain who was out there not long after the recapture, that it was fortunate the Argentinians surrendered first. The distance between victory and defeat was, I was led to believe, much slimmer than it appeared from the justifiable jingoism that followed.
@TLDRNewsUK 🇦🇷 Argentina has told the UK that it wants to start new talks over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands and has pulled out of a 2016 cooperation pact.
Could a Sunak Falklands moment save his chances of reelection?
Bloody hell not again. The Argentinians need to give this a rest.
Of course national fervour doesn't make sense, we have our own examples of that, but the Argentinian passion on this issue really doesn't seem to make sense to me when it's noted their claim to the islands is a rather technical one based on inheriting rights from former Spanish sovereignty, and talk about natives who don't exist. Yes there are other complexities, but the point being it's actually a rather arcane legal dispute, yet it's talked about in terms of colonialism as if someone seized Buenos Aires 2 years ago.
There is nothing Argentina can do about it anyway. The UK has a veto on any UN decision as a permanent member of the UN Security Council unlike them.
The UK also has a bigger navy and army and airforce than Argentina now
Have a look at an atlas. It's not the Persian Gulf.
Since the Falklands War there is also a bigger permanent British garrison on the islands, a Royal Navy ship on patrol there at all times and a Royal Navy nuclear submarine patrols regularly nearby (though the exact times and location of the latter are obviously classified)
"ship" is a posh way to describe a patrol boat. And the forces, at the far end of a long supply line, are very small.
I remember 1981 - you obviously don't.
Yes, Argentina has cut its armed forces back to far fewer than they were in Galtieri's day.
The UK does not have an army of 153,000. That is the total size of our armed forces - Army, Navy and Airforce - including reservists. Our regular army is just over 80,000 and there are another 30,000 reservists. And gven our other commitments, not least on the Eastern flank of NATO, how many of those do you seriously think we could deploy?
We are much stronger on the ground in the Falklands than we were in 1982 but at the same time much weaker overall. So I could see our forces putting up a reasonable defence but I am certainly not confident they could hold. And if they did fall then we have no chance at all of reclaiming the islands as we did in 1982.
Our commitments on the Eastern flank of NATO would obviously be temporarily abandoned given British sovereign territory had been invaded.
We have a bigger armed forces than Argentina's which are also far weaker than they were in 1982
I am sorry but you really are deluded. What we did in 1982 was extraordinary but we could do it now. We simply don't have the ships.
As an example in 1982 we sent 8 destroyers and 16 frigates as part of the task force (and that was not our entire contingent of those vessel types in the navy). The entire Royal Navy only has 6 destroyers and 12 frigates. And we don't have the crews even for all of those.
Yes we do. we have 10 times the submarines Argentina do, enough to sink most of the Argentine navy alone for starters.
We also have more surface ships too, Argentina now literally has just 1 destroyer and not a single frigate!
You do realise that the size of their navy is pretty much immaterial given they wouldn't be the ones trying to mount a recapture 8000 miles away? What mattered in 1982 was our ability to get men to the South Atlantic and retake the islands. We no longer have the capability to do that. As I said you are deluded. I will add remarkably ignorant as well.
Yes it is, we could sink their entire fleet whether in port in Buenos Aires or Falklands waters within a week.
Once that is done we then send the aircraft carriers to quickly recapture the Islands, using submarines to send missiles on any Argentine troops still on the islands in the meantime
Fucking hell.
Any missile strike on the Falklands is likely to wipe out the Islanders as well.
@TLDRNewsUK 🇦🇷 Argentina has told the UK that it wants to start new talks over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands and has pulled out of a 2016 cooperation pact.
Could a Sunak Falklands moment save his chances of reelection?
Bloody hell not again. The Argentinians need to give this a rest.
Of course national fervour doesn't make sense, we have our own examples of that, but the Argentinian passion on this issue really doesn't seem to make sense to me when it's noted their claim to the islands is a rather technical one based on inheriting rights from former Spanish sovereignty, and talk about natives who don't exist. Yes there are other complexities, but the point being it's actually a rather arcane legal dispute, yet it's talked about in terms of colonialism as if someone seized Buenos Aires 2 years ago.
There is nothing Argentina can do about it anyway. The UK has a veto on any UN decision as a permanent member of the UN Security Council unlike them.
The UK also has a bigger navy and army and airforce than Argentina now
Have a look at an atlas. It's not the Persian Gulf.
Since the Falklands War there is also a bigger permanent British garrison on the islands, a Royal Navy ship on patrol there at all times and a Royal Navy nuclear submarine patrols regularly nearby (though the exact times and location of the latter are obviously classified)
"ship" is a posh way to describe a patrol boat. And the forces, at the far end of a long supply line, are very small.
I remember 1981 - you obviously don't.
Yes, Argentina has cut its armed forces back to far fewer than they were in Galtieri's day.
The UK does not have an army of 153,000. That is the total size of our armed forces - Army, Navy and Airforce - including reservists. Our regular army is just over 80,000 and there are another 30,000 reservists. And gven our other commitments, not least on the Eastern flank of NATO, how many of those do you seriously think we could deploy?
We are much stronger on the ground in the Falklands than we were in 1982 but at the same time much weaker overall. So I could see our forces putting up a reasonable defence but I am certainly not confident they could hold. And if they did fall then we have no chance at all of reclaiming the islands as we did in 1982.
Our commitments on the Eastern flank of NATO would obviously be temporarily abandoned given British sovereign territory had been invaded.
We have a bigger armed forces than Argentina's which are also far weaker than they were in 1982
I am sorry but you really are deluded. What we did in 1982 was extraordinary but we could do it now. We simply don't have the ships.
As an example in 1982 we sent 8 destroyers and 16 frigates as part of the task force (and that was not our entire contingent of those vessel types in the navy). The entire Royal Navy only has 6 destroyers and 12 frigates. And we don't have the crews even for all of those.
Yes we do. we have 10 times the submarines Argentina do, enough to sink most of the Argentine navy alone for starters.
We also have more surface ships too, Argentina now literally has just 1 destroyer and not a single frigate!
You do realise that the size of their navy is pretty much immaterial given they wouldn't be the ones trying to mount a recapture 8000 miles away? What mattered in 1982 was our ability to get men to the South Atlantic and retake the islands. We no longer have the capability to do that. As I said you are deluded. I will add remarkably ignorant as well.
Yes it is, we could sink their entire fleet whether in port in Buenos Aires or Falklands waters within a week.
Once that is done we then send the aircraft carriers to quickly support the Islands, using submarines to send missiles on any Argentine troops who have got on the islands in the meantime
I would suggest you get a cup of tea and a rich tea biscuit rather than continuing this nonsense
We should relax about this. No one - Argentina or anyone else - will be invading the Falklands at any time in the foreseeable future.
That being said, we are not going to be visited by aliens in the foreseeable future, but this doesn't stop us from discussing that! 😈
@TLDRNewsUK 🇦🇷 Argentina has told the UK that it wants to start new talks over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands and has pulled out of a 2016 cooperation pact.
Could a Sunak Falklands moment save his chances of reelection?
Bloody hell not again. The Argentinians need to give this a rest.
Of course national fervour doesn't make sense, we have our own examples of that, but the Argentinian passion on this issue really doesn't seem to make sense to me when it's noted their claim to the islands is a rather technical one based on inheriting rights from former Spanish sovereignty, and talk about natives who don't exist. Yes there are other complexities, but the point being it's actually a rather arcane legal dispute, yet it's talked about in terms of colonialism as if someone seized Buenos Aires 2 years ago.
There is nothing Argentina can do about it anyway. The UK has a veto on any UN decision as a permanent member of the UN Security Council unlike them.
The UK also has a bigger navy and army and airforce than Argentina now
Have a look at an atlas. It's not the Persian Gulf.
Since the Falklands War there is also a bigger permanent British garrison on the islands, a Royal Navy ship on patrol there at all times and a Royal Navy nuclear submarine patrols regularly nearby (though the exact times and location of the latter are obviously classified)
"ship" is a posh way to describe a patrol boat. And the forces, at the far end of a long supply line, are very small.
I remember 1981 - you obviously don't.
Yes, Argentina has cut its armed forces back to far fewer than they were in Galtieri's day.
The UK does not have an army of 153,000. That is the total size of our armed forces - Army, Navy and Airforce - including reservists. Our regular army is just over 80,000 and there are another 30,000 reservists. And gven our other commitments, not least on the Eastern flank of NATO, how many of those do you seriously think we could deploy?
We are much stronger on the ground in the Falklands than we were in 1982 but at the same time much weaker overall. So I could see our forces putting up a reasonable defence but I am certainly not confident they could hold. And if they did fall then we have no chance at all of reclaiming the islands as we did in 1982.
Our commitments on the Eastern flank of NATO would obviously be temporarily abandoned given British sovereign territory had been invaded.
We have a bigger armed forces than Argentina's which are also far weaker than they were in 1982
I am sorry but you really are deluded. What we did in 1982 was extraordinary but we could do it now. We simply don't have the ships.
As an example in 1982 we sent 8 destroyers and 16 frigates as part of the task force (and that was not our entire contingent of those vessel types in the navy). The entire Royal Navy only has 6 destroyers and 12 frigates. And we don't have the crews even for all of those.
Yes we do. we have 10 times the submarines Argentina do, enough to sink most of the Argentine navy alone for starters.
We also have more surface ships too, Argentina now literally has just 1 destroyer and not a single frigate!
You do realise that the size of their navy is pretty much immaterial given they wouldn't be the ones trying to mount a recapture 8000 miles away? What mattered in 1982 was our ability to get men to the South Atlantic and retake the islands. We no longer have the capability to do that. As I said you are deluded. I will add remarkably ignorant as well.
Yes it is, we could sink their entire fleet whether in port in Buenos Aires or Falklands waters within a week.
Once that is done we then send the aircraft carriers to quickly recapture the Islands, using submarines to send missiles on any Argentine troops still on the islands in the meantime
Fucking hell.
Any missile strike on the Falklands is likely to wipe out the Islanders as well.
Not if well targeted, a Tomahawk missile or 2 would do the trick
On this one, I don't think the Argentine Air Force currently has a single war plane that can fly to the Falklands. A couple of transports, but that's about it, afaics.
I'd say the greatest threat to the Falklands for the next 15-20 years is Treasury salami-slicing, or if China buys Argentina.
@TLDRNewsUK 🇦🇷 Argentina has told the UK that it wants to start new talks over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands and has pulled out of a 2016 cooperation pact.
Could a Sunak Falklands moment save his chances of reelection?
Bloody hell not again. The Argentinians need to give this a rest.
Of course national fervour doesn't make sense, we have our own examples of that, but the Argentinian passion on this issue really doesn't seem to make sense to me when it's noted their claim to the islands is a rather technical one based on inheriting rights from former Spanish sovereignty, and talk about natives who don't exist. Yes there are other complexities, but the point being it's actually a rather arcane legal dispute, yet it's talked about in terms of colonialism as if someone seized Buenos Aires 2 years ago.
There is nothing Argentina can do about it anyway. The UK has a veto on any UN decision as a permanent member of the UN Security Council unlike them.
The UK also has a bigger navy and army and airforce than Argentina now
The Argies forces must be minuscule!
Google tells me Arg: 70,600 (2022) vs UK 78,000 (2020). Not sure if this is chalk and apples eg whole of HMF vs army...but it's a close run thing.
We absolutely couldn't mount another Falklands tomorrow morning that's for sure.
From what I’ve seen of the Argentine navy in Ushuaia they could barely crew one ship
However all this is replying to the mood music of Britain in retreat. Giving up the Elgin marbles. Handing back Diego Garcia. London shrinking as a world city
I can see why the argies might think now is a time to strike - psychologically - as the Uk seems in perpetual decline and in a funk of self doubt
They can think what they want, the UK on its own could still beat most nations in a war apart from the US and China, France and India would probably be a stalemate, Russia can't even beat Ukraine.
Argentina also has declined well past its peak when it was one of the wealthiest nations in the world, even in the Falklands war it had far bigger armed forces than now
Have a look at the RN and RAF in 1981 vs today - abvoe all the long range stuff.
And the Merchant Navy, when it comes to the critical STUFT ships of 1981
The Army is about as useful as a fart in a hurricane without those two when it comes to the Flaklands.
Yes we have enough submarines to sink most of the Argentine navy within a day or 2.
Plus enough aircraft carriers and submarines with Cruise Missiles to bomb the Argentine army into submission too if they ever tried invading the Falklands again even without setting any troops on land beyond the garrison already there
What a pathetic post and as so often you just talk codswallop
Indeed having been to the remote Falkland Islands with its rugged terrain and cliff lined coasts with hundreds of Islands and inlets makes it a very difficult place to wage warfare and anyway the whole idea is ridiculous
Weak, wet, pathetic, useless. If Thatcher had had your defeatist attitude in 1982 we would never have recaptured the Falklands then
Sadly you are being utterly ridiculous
You have no knowledge of the territory, our present capabilities, and the fact is we nearly didn't capture them in 1982
Indeed the loss of the Welsh guards at Bluff Cove was shocking as was the sinking of the Sheffield
1982 was very different to today
No, you are being a pathetic, defeatist wet lettuce.
The Argentine forces have also been so cut back since 1982 they are far weaker than they were then. Our submarines could sink the entire Argentine navy within a week
You have no idea just how controversial the sinking of the Belgrano was have you
I was the late Wyn Roberts driver at the following GE and we had to field many questions about that event as it was highly controversial
I do not know how old you are but to blithely talk of sinking the Argentine fleet in a week when I had to explain the sinking of one vessel shows how utterly out of touch you are
And his talk of torpedoing ships in harbour. What does he think the Navy have, Fairey ****ing Swordfish??
Spearfish torpedoes carried by our Astute class submarines are able to provide anti surface warfare capability as well as anti submarine warfare capability
@TLDRNewsUK 🇦🇷 Argentina has told the UK that it wants to start new talks over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands and has pulled out of a 2016 cooperation pact.
Could a Sunak Falklands moment save his chances of reelection?
Bloody hell not again. The Argentinians need to give this a rest.
Of course national fervour doesn't make sense, we have our own examples of that, but the Argentinian passion on this issue really doesn't seem to make sense to me when it's noted their claim to the islands is a rather technical one based on inheriting rights from former Spanish sovereignty, and talk about natives who don't exist. Yes there are other complexities, but the point being it's actually a rather arcane legal dispute, yet it's talked about in terms of colonialism as if someone seized Buenos Aires 2 years ago.
There is nothing Argentina can do about it anyway. The UK has a veto on any UN decision as a permanent member of the UN Security Council unlike them.
The UK also has a bigger navy and army and airforce than Argentina now
The Argies forces must be minuscule!
Google tells me Arg: 70,600 (2022) vs UK 78,000 (2020). Not sure if this is chalk and apples eg whole of HMF vs army...but it's a close run thing.
We absolutely couldn't mount another Falklands tomorrow morning that's for sure.
From what I’ve seen of the Argentine navy in Ushuaia they could barely crew one ship
However all this is replying to the mood music of Britain in retreat. Giving up the Elgin marbles. Handing back Diego Garcia. London shrinking as a world city
I can see why the argies might think now is a time to strike - psychologically - as the Uk seems in perpetual decline and in a funk of self doubt
They can think what they want, the UK on its own could still beat most nations in a war apart from the US and China, France and India would probably be a stalemate, Russia can't even beat Ukraine.
Argentina also has declined well past its peak when it was one of the wealthiest nations in the world, even in the Falklands war it had far bigger armed forces than now
Have a look at the RN and RAF in 1981 vs today - abvoe all the long range stuff.
And the Merchant Navy, when it comes to the critical STUFT ships of 1981
The Army is about as useful as a fart in a hurricane without those two when it comes to the Flaklands.
Yes we have enough submarines to sink most of the Argentine navy within a day or 2.
Plus enough aircraft carriers and submarines with Cruise Missiles to bomb the Argentine army into submission too if they ever tried invading the Falklands again even without setting any troops on land beyond the garrison already there
What a pathetic post and as so often you just talk codswallop
Indeed having been to the remote Falkland Islands with its rugged terrain and cliff lined coasts with hundreds of Islands and inlets makes it a very difficult place to wage warfare and anyway the whole idea is ridiculous
Weak, wet, pathetic, useless. If Thatcher had had your defeatist attitude in 1982 we would never have recaptured the Falklands then
Mrs T was very lucky she didn't cause the worst British military disaster in the Southern Hemisphere since the Boer War. Very, very lucky.
She didn't because she correctly went for victory at all costs and that was against an Argentine armed forces which were far stronger then than they are now
That is *precisely* why she very nearly caused a disaster.
But she didn't. Although some think her premiership was a miner tragedy.
PS Oh yes: your pun was not missed at all. I saw the remains ofd that war too (my parents lived in a mining area and the state of the fence around the local deep pit ...)
@TLDRNewsUK 🇦🇷 Argentina has told the UK that it wants to start new talks over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands and has pulled out of a 2016 cooperation pact.
Could a Sunak Falklands moment save his chances of reelection?
Bloody hell not again. The Argentinians need to give this a rest.
Of course national fervour doesn't make sense, we have our own examples of that, but the Argentinian passion on this issue really doesn't seem to make sense to me when it's noted their claim to the islands is a rather technical one based on inheriting rights from former Spanish sovereignty, and talk about natives who don't exist. Yes there are other complexities, but the point being it's actually a rather arcane legal dispute, yet it's talked about in terms of colonialism as if someone seized Buenos Aires 2 years ago.
There is nothing Argentina can do about it anyway. The UK has a veto on any UN decision as a permanent member of the UN Security Council unlike them.
The UK also has a bigger navy and army and airforce than Argentina now
Have a look at an atlas. It's not the Persian Gulf.
Since the Falklands War there is also a bigger permanent British garrison on the islands, a Royal Navy ship on patrol there at all times and a Royal Navy nuclear submarine patrols regularly nearby (though the exact times and location of the latter are obviously classified)
"ship" is a posh way to describe a patrol boat. And the forces, at the far end of a long supply line, are very small.
I remember 1981 - you obviously don't.
Yes, Argentina has cut its armed forces back to far fewer than they were in Galtieri's day.
The UK does not have an army of 153,000. That is the total size of our armed forces - Army, Navy and Airforce - including reservists. Our regular army is just over 80,000 and there are another 30,000 reservists. And gven our other commitments, not least on the Eastern flank of NATO, how many of those do you seriously think we could deploy?
We are much stronger on the ground in the Falklands than we were in 1982 but at the same time much weaker overall. So I could see our forces putting up a reasonable defence but I am certainly not confident they could hold. And if they did fall then we have no chance at all of reclaiming the islands as we did in 1982.
Our commitments on the Eastern flank of NATO would obviously be temporarily abandoned given British sovereign territory had been invaded.
We have a bigger armed forces than Argentina's which are also far weaker than they were in 1982
I am sorry but you really are deluded. What we did in 1982 was extraordinary but we could do it now. We simply don't have the ships.
As an example in 1982 we sent 8 destroyers and 16 frigates as part of the task force (and that was not our entire contingent of those vessel types in the navy). The entire Royal Navy only has 6 destroyers and 12 frigates. And we don't have the crews even for all of those.
Yes we do. we have 10 times the submarines Argentina do, enough to sink most of the Argentine navy alone for starters.
We also have more surface ships too, Argentina now literally has just 1 destroyer and not a single frigate!
You do realise that the size of their navy is pretty much immaterial given they wouldn't be the ones trying to mount a recapture 8000 miles away? What mattered in 1982 was our ability to get men to the South Atlantic and retake the islands. We no longer have the capability to do that. As I said you are deluded. I will add remarkably ignorant as well.
Yes it is, we could sink their entire fleet whether in port in Buenos Aires or Falklands waters within a week.
Once that is done we then send the aircraft carriers to quickly recapture the Islands, using submarines to send missiles on any Argentine troops still on the islands in the meantime
Fucking hell.
Any missile strike on the Falklands is likely to wipe out the Islanders as well.
Not if well targeted, a Tomahawk missile or 2 would do the trick
On this one, I don't think the Argentine Air Force currently has a single war plane that can fly to the Falklands. A couple of transports, but that's about it, afaics.
I'd say the greatest threat to the Falklands for the next 15-20 years is Treasury salami-slicing, or if China buys Argentina.
@TLDRNewsUK 🇦🇷 Argentina has told the UK that it wants to start new talks over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands and has pulled out of a 2016 cooperation pact.
Could a Sunak Falklands moment save his chances of reelection?
Bloody hell not again. The Argentinians need to give this a rest.
Of course national fervour doesn't make sense, we have our own examples of that, but the Argentinian passion on this issue really doesn't seem to make sense to me when it's noted their claim to the islands is a rather technical one based on inheriting rights from former Spanish sovereignty, and talk about natives who don't exist. Yes there are other complexities, but the point being it's actually a rather arcane legal dispute, yet it's talked about in terms of colonialism as if someone seized Buenos Aires 2 years ago.
There is nothing Argentina can do about it anyway. The UK has a veto on any UN decision as a permanent member of the UN Security Council unlike them.
The UK also has a bigger navy and army and airforce than Argentina now
The Argies forces must be minuscule!
Google tells me Arg: 70,600 (2022) vs UK 78,000 (2020). Not sure if this is chalk and apples eg whole of HMF vs army...but it's a close run thing.
We absolutely couldn't mount another Falklands tomorrow morning that's for sure.
From what I’ve seen of the Argentine navy in Ushuaia they could barely crew one ship
However all this is replying to the mood music of Britain in retreat. Giving up the Elgin marbles. Handing back Diego Garcia. London shrinking as a world city
I can see why the argies might think now is a time to strike - psychologically - as the Uk seems in perpetual decline and in a funk of self doubt
They can think what they want, the UK on its own could still beat most nations in a war apart from the US and China, France and India would probably be a stalemate, Russia can't even beat Ukraine.
Argentina also has declined well past its peak when it was one of the wealthiest nations in the world, even in the Falklands war it had far bigger armed forces than now
Have a look at the RN and RAF in 1981 vs today - abvoe all the long range stuff.
And the Merchant Navy, when it comes to the critical STUFT ships of 1981
The Army is about as useful as a fart in a hurricane without those two when it comes to the Flaklands.
Yes we have enough submarines to sink most of the Argentine navy within a day or 2.
Plus enough aircraft carriers and submarines with Cruise Missiles to bomb the Argentine army into submission too if they ever tried invading the Falklands again even without setting any troops on land beyond the garrison already there
What a pathetic post and as so often you just talk codswallop
Indeed having been to the remote Falkland Islands with its rugged terrain and cliff lined coasts with hundreds of Islands and inlets makes it a very difficult place to wage warfare and anyway the whole idea is ridiculous
Weak, wet, pathetic, useless. If Thatcher had had your defeatist attitude in 1982 we would never have recaptured the Falklands then
Sadly you are being utterly ridiculous
You have no knowledge of the territory, our present capabilities, and the fact is we nearly didn't capture them in 1982
Indeed the loss of the Welsh guards at Bluff Cove was shocking as was the sinking of the Sheffield
1982 was very different to today
No, you are being a pathetic, defeatist wet lettuce.
The Argentine forces have also been so cut back since 1982 they are far weaker than they were then. Our submarines could sink the entire Argentine navy within a week
You have no idea just how controversial the sinking of the Belgrano was have you
I was the late Wyn Roberts driver at the following GE and we had to field many questions about that event as it was highly controversial
I do not know how old you are but to blithely talk of sinking the Argentine fleet in a week when I had to explain the sinking of one vessel shows how utterly out of touch you are
And his talk of torpedoing ships in harbour. What does he think the Navy have, Fairey ****ing Swordfish??
Spearfish torpedoes carried by our Astute class submarines are able to provide anti surface warfare capability as well as anti submarine warfare capability
I said *IN HARBOUR*.
You know, with the shallow water near the coast, and things like piers and moles which get in the way.
Absolutely not, Ukraine and Taiwan are not British Overseas Territory, the Falklands are.
By all means continue to supply Ukraine and with the US and Australia and Japan and S Korea try and deter China from invading Taiwan but the government's first job is to defend British territory
Not sure the people who actually live there would agree but I’m sure they would appreciate someone miles away telling them they can’t belong to whichever country they want to.
I think we tried telling people who they belonged to a while ago and that isn’t looked back on particularly well these days. Self-determination and all that.
Edit, sorry just saw you referred to them as the Malvinas so you will clearly be happy to give the falklands to the French who have a better claim than Argentina. The people of St Malo send their thanks and support to you.
Plenty of attack lines against SKS best saved for nearer a GE methinks
He is a Liar of Johnson proportions, changes his mind about everything, has no principles at all, cant be trusted etc etc etc
1. He may well be a liar, but he's not a liar of Johnson proportions. 2. Changing your mind when the facts change is not a weakness, it's a strength. Unbending views in an ever changing world is the weakness.
Absolutely not, Ukraine and Taiwan are not British Overseas Territory, the Falklands are.
By all means continue to supply Ukraine and with the US and Australia and Japan and S Korea try and deter China from invading Taiwan but the government's first job is to defend British territory
Taiwan falling would have a bigger impact on the UK than losing The Malvinas.
The "Chief of Staff" role seems to have become nearly ubiquitous in both the public and private sectors. I'm not sure what a Chief of Staff does but everyone of imagined import seems to need one.
On other matters, a small move (2-3%) in the Conservatives' favour - not surprising after the wealth of positive publicity afforded Sunak earlier in the week,
We can directly compare the last two Techne polls as their limited fieldwork is available.
Among all voters, Labour leads 30-19 compared with 32-18 last week. The Don't Knows are up to 24% while the 2019 Conservative vote split 50% Conservative, 20% Labour last week but it's now 55% Conservative and 15% Labour.
Splitting out the Don't Knows, among the 65+ age group, a nine-point Labour lead (43-34) has become a two point Conservative lead (40-38). Among those aged 55-64, a 16-point Labour lead (46-30) has become a 3-point Labour lead (40-37). A Remain Labour lead of 64-15 has been trimmed to 59-17 while among Leavers a 45-28 Conservative lead has become a 48-28 Conservative lead.
The move seems to be therefore a shift of older voters who had indicated a preference for Labour back to the Conservative side - whether this develops or is just temporary is as always only a question more time and polling will answer. I'm sure we'll see the Conservatives back over 30 in polls before long but with the Budget coming, this will be a test of whether this is more than a short term blip.
There’s several things wrong here Stodge.
Firstly, don’t measure upticks over a time period of just a week or so. It’s only if things clearly changed month on month that matters.
It looks like I am going to have to explain how to read the main polling graph to you.
And the main lesson we take from saggy boobs and perky tits? It’s they can do all that and still the month by month line has gone nowhere. Absolutely nowhere. We can see real tangibles like saggy boobs and perky tits, but existentially there may be no meaning to them at all.
Secondly, the observed delay factor, long observed and discussed on PB (and header in the previous thread ) - political narrative to polling so often takes weeks to properly show up. The latest half of a saggy boob, or perky tit* the Tory line is drawing, actually pre dates the one or two days this week Torys actually got positive coverage for once.
*though nb Tories have been groping in the dark for a perky tit of late
@TLDRNewsUK 🇦🇷 Argentina has told the UK that it wants to start new talks over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands and has pulled out of a 2016 cooperation pact.
Could a Sunak Falklands moment save his chances of reelection?
Bloody hell not again. The Argentinians need to give this a rest.
Of course national fervour doesn't make sense, we have our own examples of that, but the Argentinian passion on this issue really doesn't seem to make sense to me when it's noted their claim to the islands is a rather technical one based on inheriting rights from former Spanish sovereignty, and talk about natives who don't exist. Yes there are other complexities, but the point being it's actually a rather arcane legal dispute, yet it's talked about in terms of colonialism as if someone seized Buenos Aires 2 years ago.
There is nothing Argentina can do about it anyway. The UK has a veto on any UN decision as a permanent member of the UN Security Council unlike them.
The UK also has a bigger navy and army and airforce than Argentina now
The Argies forces must be minuscule!
Google tells me Arg: 70,600 (2022) vs UK 78,000 (2020). Not sure if this is chalk and apples eg whole of HMF vs army...but it's a close run thing.
We absolutely couldn't mount another Falklands tomorrow morning that's for sure.
From what I’ve seen of the Argentine navy in Ushuaia they could barely crew one ship
However all this is replying to the mood music of Britain in retreat. Giving up the Elgin marbles. Handing back Diego Garcia. London shrinking as a world city
I can see why the argies might think now is a time to strike - psychologically - as the Uk seems in perpetual decline and in a funk of self doubt
They can think what they want, the UK on its own could still beat most nations in a war apart from the US and China, France and India would probably be a stalemate, Russia can't even beat Ukraine.
Argentina also has declined well past its peak when it was one of the wealthiest nations in the world, even in the Falklands war it had far bigger armed forces than now
Have a look at the RN and RAF in 1981 vs today - abvoe all the long range stuff.
And the Merchant Navy, when it comes to the critical STUFT ships of 1981
The Army is about as useful as a fart in a hurricane without those two when it comes to the Flaklands.
Yes we have enough submarines to sink most of the Argentine navy within a day or 2.
Plus enough aircraft carriers and submarines with Cruise Missiles to bomb the Argentine army into submission too if they ever tried invading the Falklands again even without setting any troops on land beyond the garrison already there
What a pathetic post and as so often you just talk codswallop
Indeed having been to the remote Falkland Islands with its rugged terrain and cliff lined coasts with hundreds of Islands and inlets makes it a very difficult place to wage warfare and anyway the whole idea is ridiculous
Weak, wet, pathetic, useless. If Thatcher had had your defeatist attitude in 1982 we would never have recaptured the Falklands then
Sadly you are being utterly ridiculous
You have no knowledge of the territory, our present capabilities, and the fact is we nearly didn't capture them in 1982
Indeed the loss of the Welsh guards at Bluff Cove was shocking as was the sinking of the Sheffield
1982 was very different to today
No, you are being a pathetic, defeatist wet lettuce.
The Argentine forces have also been so cut back since 1982 they are far weaker than they were then. Our submarines could sink the entire Argentine navy within a week
Couldn’t they weaponise Messi against us though 😟
Edit. Wait. Did someone mention they’ve seen Lettuce today?
Did they also have tomatoes and cucumber?
Lidl yesterday was well stocked with Tomatoes, cucumbers and lettuce. I didn't buy any as I don't eat imported fruit and veg that can be grown here. So I eat seasonally (apart from the occasional treat of hothouse tomatoes from the IoW).
A BLT is improved immensely by not having lettuce and tomato.
Not sure the people who actually live there would agree but I’m sure they would appreciate someone miles away telling them they can’t belong to whichever country they want to.
I think we tried telling people who they belonged to a while ago and that isn’t looked back on particularly well these days. Self-determination and all that.
Edit, sorry just saw you referred to them as the Malvinas so you will clearly be happy to give the falklands to the French who have a better claim than Argentina. The people of St Malo send their thanks and support to you.
Wait. So if Burkino Faso wanted to be a part of Britain, they can choose that?
@TLDRNewsUK 🇦🇷 Argentina has told the UK that it wants to start new talks over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands and has pulled out of a 2016 cooperation pact.
Could a Sunak Falklands moment save his chances of reelection?
Bloody hell not again. The Argentinians need to give this a rest.
Of course national fervour doesn't make sense, we have our own examples of that, but the Argentinian passion on this issue really doesn't seem to make sense to me when it's noted their claim to the islands is a rather technical one based on inheriting rights from former Spanish sovereignty, and talk about natives who don't exist. Yes there are other complexities, but the point being it's actually a rather arcane legal dispute, yet it's talked about in terms of colonialism as if someone seized Buenos Aires 2 years ago.
There is nothing Argentina can do about it anyway. The UK has a veto on any UN decision as a permanent member of the UN Security Council unlike them.
The UK also has a bigger navy and army and airforce than Argentina now
Have a look at an atlas. It's not the Persian Gulf.
Since the Falklands War there is also a bigger permanent British garrison on the islands, a Royal Navy ship on patrol there at all times and a Royal Navy nuclear submarine patrols regularly nearby (though the exact times and location of the latter are obviously classified)
"ship" is a posh way to describe a patrol boat. And the forces, at the far end of a long supply line, are very small.
I remember 1981 - you obviously don't.
Yes, Argentina has cut its armed forces back to far fewer than they were in Galtieri's day.
The UK does not have an army of 153,000. That is the total size of our armed forces - Army, Navy and Airforce - including reservists. Our regular army is just over 80,000 and there are another 30,000 reservists. And gven our other commitments, not least on the Eastern flank of NATO, how many of those do you seriously think we could deploy?
We are much stronger on the ground in the Falklands than we were in 1982 but at the same time much weaker overall. So I could see our forces putting up a reasonable defence but I am certainly not confident they could hold. And if they did fall then we have no chance at all of reclaiming the islands as we did in 1982.
Our commitments on the Eastern flank of NATO would obviously be temporarily abandoned given British sovereign territory had been invaded.
We have a bigger armed forces than Argentina's which are also far weaker than they were in 1982
I am sorry but you really are deluded. What we did in 1982 was extraordinary but we could do it now. We simply don't have the ships.
As an example in 1982 we sent 8 destroyers and 16 frigates as part of the task force (and that was not our entire contingent of those vessel types in the navy). The entire Royal Navy only has 6 destroyers and 12 frigates. And we don't have the crews even for all of those.
Yes we do. we have 10 times the submarines Argentina do, enough to sink most of the Argentine navy alone for starters.
We also have more surface ships too, Argentina now literally has just 1 destroyer and not a single frigate!
You do realise that the size of their navy is pretty much immaterial given they wouldn't be the ones trying to mount a recapture 8000 miles away? What mattered in 1982 was our ability to get men to the South Atlantic and retake the islands. We no longer have the capability to do that. As I said you are deluded. I will add remarkably ignorant as well.
Yes it is, we could sink their entire fleet whether in port in Buenos Aires or Falklands waters within a week.
Once that is done we then send the aircraft carriers to quickly recapture the Islands, using submarines to send missiles on any Argentine troops still on the islands in the meantime
Fucking hell.
Any missile strike on the Falklands is likely to wipe out the Islanders as well.
Not if well targeted, a Tomahawk missile or 2 would do the trick
Utter nonsense
Look up the Falkland Islands and you will see how silly that comment is
Mind you, knowing you, you probably won't
Yes a sparsely inhabited collection of islands so any Argentine landing force would stick out like a sore thumb for RN submarines to launch missiles at
That is so off the scale of nonsense
And frankly the flippant way you talk about this is an insult to the Welsh Guards who so tragically lost their lives in Bluff Cove on the 8th June 1982
Whilst correct that recapturing would be a Herculean effort, and we did it before, the planning has been that recapture is not necessary as the air defence is such that it’s a dead zone for the Argentinian airforce, their ships are vulnerable to south Atlantic subs and landing bays are covered in planning so a small force can repel successfully.
A lot was learnt from the 1982 fiasco.
Exactly. The plan is not to retake the Falklands but to prevent the invasion in the first place. There would be a lot of ships sunk and planes shot down before an Argentine boot was placed on the islands.
Absolutely not, Ukraine and Taiwan are not British Overseas Territory, the Falklands are.
By all means continue to supply Ukraine and with the US and Australia and Japan and S Korea try and deter China from invading Taiwan but the government's first job is to defend British territory
Taiwan falling would have a bigger impact on the UK than losing The Malvinas.
China is backing Argentina on the question for a reason.
@TLDRNewsUK 🇦🇷 Argentina has told the UK that it wants to start new talks over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands and has pulled out of a 2016 cooperation pact.
Could a Sunak Falklands moment save his chances of reelection?
Bloody hell not again. The Argentinians need to give this a rest.
Of course national fervour doesn't make sense, we have our own examples of that, but the Argentinian passion on this issue really doesn't seem to make sense to me when it's noted their claim to the islands is a rather technical one based on inheriting rights from former Spanish sovereignty, and talk about natives who don't exist. Yes there are other complexities, but the point being it's actually a rather arcane legal dispute, yet it's talked about in terms of colonialism as if someone seized Buenos Aires 2 years ago.
There is nothing Argentina can do about it anyway. The UK has a veto on any UN decision as a permanent member of the UN Security Council unlike them.
The UK also has a bigger navy and army and airforce than Argentina now
Have a look at an atlas. It's not the Persian Gulf.
Since the Falklands War there is also a bigger permanent British garrison on the islands, a Royal Navy ship on patrol there at all times and a Royal Navy nuclear submarine patrols regularly nearby (though the exact times and location of the latter are obviously classified)
"ship" is a posh way to describe a patrol boat. And the forces, at the far end of a long supply line, are very small.
I remember 1981 - you obviously don't.
Yes, Argentina has cut its armed forces back to far fewer than they were in Galtieri's day.
The UK does not have an army of 153,000. That is the total size of our armed forces - Army, Navy and Airforce - including reservists. Our regular army is just over 80,000 and there are another 30,000 reservists. And gven our other commitments, not least on the Eastern flank of NATO, how many of those do you seriously think we could deploy?
We are much stronger on the ground in the Falklands than we were in 1982 but at the same time much weaker overall. So I could see our forces putting up a reasonable defence but I am certainly not confident they could hold. And if they did fall then we have no chance at all of reclaiming the islands as we did in 1982.
Our commitments on the Eastern flank of NATO would obviously be temporarily abandoned given British sovereign territory had been invaded.
We have a bigger armed forces than Argentina's which are also far weaker than they were in 1982
I am sorry but you really are deluded. What we did in 1982 was extraordinary but we could do it now. We simply don't have the ships.
As an example in 1982 we sent 8 destroyers and 16 frigates as part of the task force (and that was not our entire contingent of those vessel types in the navy). The entire Royal Navy only has 6 destroyers and 12 frigates. And we don't have the crews even for all of those.
Yes we do. we have 10 times the submarines Argentina do, enough to sink most of the Argentine navy alone for starters.
We also have more surface ships too, Argentina now literally has just 1 destroyer and not a single frigate!
You do realise that the size of their navy is pretty much immaterial given they wouldn't be the ones trying to mount a recapture 8000 miles away? What mattered in 1982 was our ability to get men to the South Atlantic and retake the islands. We no longer have the capability to do that. As I said you are deluded. I will add remarkably ignorant as well.
Yes it is, we could sink their entire fleet whether in port in Buenos Aires or Falklands waters within a week.
Once that is done we then send the aircraft carriers to quickly recapture the Islands, using submarines to send missiles on any Argentine troops still on the islands in the meantime
Fucking hell.
Any missile strike on the Falklands is likely to wipe out the Islanders as well.
Not if well targeted, a Tomahawk missile or 2 would do the trick
On this one, I don't think the Argentine Air Force currently has a single war plane that can fly to the Falklands. A couple of transports, but that's about it, afaics.
I'd say the greatest threat to the Falklands for the next 15-20 years is Treasury salami-slicing, or if China buys Argentina.
@TLDRNewsUK 🇦🇷 Argentina has told the UK that it wants to start new talks over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands and has pulled out of a 2016 cooperation pact.
Could a Sunak Falklands moment save his chances of reelection?
Bloody hell not again. The Argentinians need to give this a rest.
Of course national fervour doesn't make sense, we have our own examples of that, but the Argentinian passion on this issue really doesn't seem to make sense to me when it's noted their claim to the islands is a rather technical one based on inheriting rights from former Spanish sovereignty, and talk about natives who don't exist. Yes there are other complexities, but the point being it's actually a rather arcane legal dispute, yet it's talked about in terms of colonialism as if someone seized Buenos Aires 2 years ago.
There is nothing Argentina can do about it anyway. The UK has a veto on any UN decision as a permanent member of the UN Security Council unlike them.
The UK also has a bigger navy and army and airforce than Argentina now
The Argies forces must be minuscule!
Google tells me Arg: 70,600 (2022) vs UK 78,000 (2020). Not sure if this is chalk and apples eg whole of HMF vs army...but it's a close run thing.
We absolutely couldn't mount another Falklands tomorrow morning that's for sure.
From what I’ve seen of the Argentine navy in Ushuaia they could barely crew one ship
However all this is replying to the mood music of Britain in retreat. Giving up the Elgin marbles. Handing back Diego Garcia. London shrinking as a world city
I can see why the argies might think now is a time to strike - psychologically - as the Uk seems in perpetual decline and in a funk of self doubt
They can think what they want, the UK on its own could still beat most nations in a war apart from the US and China, France and India would probably be a stalemate, Russia can't even beat Ukraine.
Argentina also has declined well past its peak when it was one of the wealthiest nations in the world, even in the Falklands war it had far bigger armed forces than now
Have a look at the RN and RAF in 1981 vs today - abvoe all the long range stuff.
And the Merchant Navy, when it comes to the critical STUFT ships of 1981
The Army is about as useful as a fart in a hurricane without those two when it comes to the Flaklands.
Yes we have enough submarines to sink most of the Argentine navy within a day or 2.
Plus enough aircraft carriers and submarines with Cruise Missiles to bomb the Argentine army into submission too if they ever tried invading the Falklands again even without setting any troops on land beyond the garrison already there
What a pathetic post and as so often you just talk codswallop
Indeed having been to the remote Falkland Islands with its rugged terrain and cliff lined coasts with hundreds of Islands and inlets makes it a very difficult place to wage warfare and anyway the whole idea is ridiculous
Weak, wet, pathetic, useless. If Thatcher had had your defeatist attitude in 1982 we would never have recaptured the Falklands then
Sadly you are being utterly ridiculous
You have no knowledge of the territory, our present capabilities, and the fact is we nearly didn't capture them in 1982
Indeed the loss of the Welsh guards at Bluff Cove was shocking as was the sinking of the Sheffield
1982 was very different to today
No, you are being a pathetic, defeatist wet lettuce.
The Argentine forces have also been so cut back since 1982 they are far weaker than they were then. Our submarines could sink the entire Argentine navy within a week
You have no idea just how controversial the sinking of the Belgrano was have you
I was the late Wyn Roberts driver at the following GE and we had to field many questions about that event as it was highly controversial
I do not know how old you are but to blithely talk of sinking the Argentine fleet in a week when I had to explain the sinking of one vessel shows how utterly out of touch you are
And his talk of torpedoing ships in harbour. What does he think the Navy have, Fairey ****ing Swordfish??
Spearfish torpedoes carried by our Astute class submarines are able to provide anti surface warfare capability as well as anti submarine warfare capability
Are you trolling us, or are you genuinely making what you consider to be a valid proposal? Stuff like this post could come back to haunt you when your political ambitions for high office are about to be realised.
@TLDRNewsUK 🇦🇷 Argentina has told the UK that it wants to start new talks over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands and has pulled out of a 2016 cooperation pact.
Could a Sunak Falklands moment save his chances of reelection?
Bloody hell not again. The Argentinians need to give this a rest.
Of course national fervour doesn't make sense, we have our own examples of that, but the Argentinian passion on this issue really doesn't seem to make sense to me when it's noted their claim to the islands is a rather technical one based on inheriting rights from former Spanish sovereignty, and talk about natives who don't exist. Yes there are other complexities, but the point being it's actually a rather arcane legal dispute, yet it's talked about in terms of colonialism as if someone seized Buenos Aires 2 years ago.
There is nothing Argentina can do about it anyway. The UK has a veto on any UN decision as a permanent member of the UN Security Council unlike them.
The UK also has a bigger navy and army and airforce than Argentina now
Have a look at an atlas. It's not the Persian Gulf.
Since the Falklands War there is also a bigger permanent British garrison on the islands, a Royal Navy ship on patrol there at all times and a Royal Navy nuclear submarine patrols regularly nearby (though the exact times and location of the latter are obviously classified)
"ship" is a posh way to describe a patrol boat. And the forces, at the far end of a long supply line, are very small.
I remember 1981 - you obviously don't.
Yes, Argentina has cut its armed forces back to far fewer than they were in Galtieri's day.
The UK does not have an army of 153,000. That is the total size of our armed forces - Army, Navy and Airforce - including reservists. Our regular army is just over 80,000 and there are another 30,000 reservists. And gven our other commitments, not least on the Eastern flank of NATO, how many of those do you seriously think we could deploy?
We are much stronger on the ground in the Falklands than we were in 1982 but at the same time much weaker overall. So I could see our forces putting up a reasonable defence but I am certainly not confident they could hold. And if they did fall then we have no chance at all of reclaiming the islands as we did in 1982.
Our commitments on the Eastern flank of NATO would obviously be temporarily abandoned given British sovereign territory had been invaded.
We have a bigger armed forces than Argentina's which are also far weaker than they were in 1982
I am sorry but you really are deluded. What we did in 1982 was extraordinary but we could do it now. We simply don't have the ships.
As an example in 1982 we sent 8 destroyers and 16 frigates as part of the task force (and that was not our entire contingent of those vessel types in the navy). The entire Royal Navy only has 6 destroyers and 12 frigates. And we don't have the crews even for all of those.
Yes we do. we have 10 times the submarines Argentina do, enough to sink most of the Argentine navy alone for starters.
We also have more surface ships too, Argentina now literally has just 1 destroyer and not a single frigate!
You do realise that the size of their navy is pretty much immaterial given they wouldn't be the ones trying to mount a recapture 8000 miles away? What mattered in 1982 was our ability to get men to the South Atlantic and retake the islands. We no longer have the capability to do that. As I said you are deluded. I will add remarkably ignorant as well.
Yes it is, we could sink their entire fleet whether in port in Buenos Aires or Falklands waters within a week.
Once that is done we then send the aircraft carriers to quickly support the Islands, using submarines to send missiles on any Argentine troops who have got on the islands in the meantime
I would suggest you get a cup of tea and a rich tea biscuit rather than continuing this nonsense
We should relax about this. No one - Argentina or anyone else - will be invading the Falklands at any time in the foreseeable future.
That being said, we are not going to be visited by aliens in the foreseeable future, but this doesn't stop us from discussing that! 😈
Not sure where this idea Argentina could invade has come from. Not only are its armed forces in a poor state and the country has no money but the Falklands are far better protected now than they were in 1982. Any Argentinian attack would fail full stop.
@TLDRNewsUK 🇦🇷 Argentina has told the UK that it wants to start new talks over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands and has pulled out of a 2016 cooperation pact.
Could a Sunak Falklands moment save his chances of reelection?
Bloody hell not again. The Argentinians need to give this a rest.
Of course national fervour doesn't make sense, we have our own examples of that, but the Argentinian passion on this issue really doesn't seem to make sense to me when it's noted their claim to the islands is a rather technical one based on inheriting rights from former Spanish sovereignty, and talk about natives who don't exist. Yes there are other complexities, but the point being it's actually a rather arcane legal dispute, yet it's talked about in terms of colonialism as if someone seized Buenos Aires 2 years ago.
There is nothing Argentina can do about it anyway. The UK has a veto on any UN decision as a permanent member of the UN Security Council unlike them.
The UK also has a bigger navy and army and airforce than Argentina now
Have a look at an atlas. It's not the Persian Gulf.
Since the Falklands War there is also a bigger permanent British garrison on the islands, a Royal Navy ship on patrol there at all times and a Royal Navy nuclear submarine patrols regularly nearby (though the exact times and location of the latter are obviously classified)
"ship" is a posh way to describe a patrol boat. And the forces, at the far end of a long supply line, are very small.
I remember 1981 - you obviously don't.
Yes, Argentina has cut its armed forces back to far fewer than they were in Galtieri's day.
The UK does not have an army of 153,000. That is the total size of our armed forces - Army, Navy and Airforce - including reservists. Our regular army is just over 80,000 and there are another 30,000 reservists. And gven our other commitments, not least on the Eastern flank of NATO, how many of those do you seriously think we could deploy?
We are much stronger on the ground in the Falklands than we were in 1982 but at the same time much weaker overall. So I could see our forces putting up a reasonable defence but I am certainly not confident they could hold. And if they did fall then we have no chance at all of reclaiming the islands as we did in 1982.
Our commitments on the Eastern flank of NATO would obviously be temporarily abandoned given British sovereign territory had been invaded.
We have a bigger armed forces than Argentina's which are also far weaker than they were in 1982
I am sorry but you really are deluded. What we did in 1982 was extraordinary but we could do it now. We simply don't have the ships.
As an example in 1982 we sent 8 destroyers and 16 frigates as part of the task force (and that was not our entire contingent of those vessel types in the navy). The entire Royal Navy only has 6 destroyers and 12 frigates. And we don't have the crews even for all of those.
Yes we do. we have 10 times the submarines Argentina do, enough to sink most of the Argentine navy alone for starters.
We also have more surface ships too, Argentina now literally has just 1 destroyer and not a single frigate!
You do realise that the size of their navy is pretty much immaterial given they wouldn't be the ones trying to mount a recapture 8000 miles away? What mattered in 1982 was our ability to get men to the South Atlantic and retake the islands. We no longer have the capability to do that. As I said you are deluded. I will add remarkably ignorant as well.
Yes it is, we could sink their entire fleet whether in port in Buenos Aires or Falklands waters within a week.
Once that is done we then send the aircraft carriers to quickly recapture the Islands, using submarines to send missiles on any Argentine troops still on the islands in the meantime
Fucking hell.
Any missile strike on the Falklands is likely to wipe out the Islanders as well.
Not if well targeted, a Tomahawk missile or 2 would do the trick
On this one, I don't think the Argentine Air Force currently has a single war plane that can fly to the Falklands. A couple of transports, but that's about it, afaics.
I'd say the greatest threat to the Falklands for the next 15-20 years is Treasury salami-slicing, or if China buys Argentina.
@TLDRNewsUK 🇦🇷 Argentina has told the UK that it wants to start new talks over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands and has pulled out of a 2016 cooperation pact.
Could a Sunak Falklands moment save his chances of reelection?
Bloody hell not again. The Argentinians need to give this a rest.
Of course national fervour doesn't make sense, we have our own examples of that, but the Argentinian passion on this issue really doesn't seem to make sense to me when it's noted their claim to the islands is a rather technical one based on inheriting rights from former Spanish sovereignty, and talk about natives who don't exist. Yes there are other complexities, but the point being it's actually a rather arcane legal dispute, yet it's talked about in terms of colonialism as if someone seized Buenos Aires 2 years ago.
There is nothing Argentina can do about it anyway. The UK has a veto on any UN decision as a permanent member of the UN Security Council unlike them.
The UK also has a bigger navy and army and airforce than Argentina now
The Argies forces must be minuscule!
Google tells me Arg: 70,600 (2022) vs UK 78,000 (2020). Not sure if this is chalk and apples eg whole of HMF vs army...but it's a close run thing.
We absolutely couldn't mount another Falklands tomorrow morning that's for sure.
From what I’ve seen of the Argentine navy in Ushuaia they could barely crew one ship
However all this is replying to the mood music of Britain in retreat. Giving up the Elgin marbles. Handing back Diego Garcia. London shrinking as a world city
I can see why the argies might think now is a time to strike - psychologically - as the Uk seems in perpetual decline and in a funk of self doubt
They can think what they want, the UK on its own could still beat most nations in a war apart from the US and China, France and India would probably be a stalemate, Russia can't even beat Ukraine.
Argentina also has declined well past its peak when it was one of the wealthiest nations in the world, even in the Falklands war it had far bigger armed forces than now
Have a look at the RN and RAF in 1981 vs today - abvoe all the long range stuff.
And the Merchant Navy, when it comes to the critical STUFT ships of 1981
The Army is about as useful as a fart in a hurricane without those two when it comes to the Flaklands.
Yes we have enough submarines to sink most of the Argentine navy within a day or 2.
Plus enough aircraft carriers and submarines with Cruise Missiles to bomb the Argentine army into submission too if they ever tried invading the Falklands again even without setting any troops on land beyond the garrison already there
What a pathetic post and as so often you just talk codswallop
Indeed having been to the remote Falkland Islands with its rugged terrain and cliff lined coasts with hundreds of Islands and inlets makes it a very difficult place to wage warfare and anyway the whole idea is ridiculous
Weak, wet, pathetic, useless. If Thatcher had had your defeatist attitude in 1982 we would never have recaptured the Falklands then
Sadly you are being utterly ridiculous
You have no knowledge of the territory, our present capabilities, and the fact is we nearly didn't capture them in 1982
Indeed the loss of the Welsh guards at Bluff Cove was shocking as was the sinking of the Sheffield
1982 was very different to today
No, you are being a pathetic, defeatist wet lettuce.
The Argentine forces have also been so cut back since 1982 they are far weaker than they were then. Our submarines could sink the entire Argentine navy within a week
You have no idea just how controversial the sinking of the Belgrano was have you
I was the late Wyn Roberts driver at the following GE and we had to field many questions about that event as it was highly controversial
I do not know how old you are but to blithely talk of sinking the Argentine fleet in a week when I had to explain the sinking of one vessel shows how utterly out of touch you are
And his talk of torpedoing ships in harbour. What does he think the Navy have, Fairey ****ing Swordfish??
Spearfish torpedoes carried by our Astute class submarines are able to provide anti surface warfare capability as well as anti submarine warfare capability
Are you trolling us, or are you genuinely making what you consider to be a valid proposal? Stuff like this post could come back to haunt you when your political ambitions for high office are about to be realised.
We tried explaining that to him in words of four letters years back. Didn't succeed.
@TLDRNewsUK 🇦🇷 Argentina has told the UK that it wants to start new talks over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands and has pulled out of a 2016 cooperation pact.
Could a Sunak Falklands moment save his chances of reelection?
Bloody hell not again. The Argentinians need to give this a rest.
Of course national fervour doesn't make sense, we have our own examples of that, but the Argentinian passion on this issue really doesn't seem to make sense to me when it's noted their claim to the islands is a rather technical one based on inheriting rights from former Spanish sovereignty, and talk about natives who don't exist. Yes there are other complexities, but the point being it's actually a rather arcane legal dispute, yet it's talked about in terms of colonialism as if someone seized Buenos Aires 2 years ago.
There is nothing Argentina can do about it anyway. The UK has a veto on any UN decision as a permanent member of the UN Security Council unlike them.
The UK also has a bigger navy and army and airforce than Argentina now
Have a look at an atlas. It's not the Persian Gulf.
Since the Falklands War there is also a bigger permanent British garrison on the islands, a Royal Navy ship on patrol there at all times and a Royal Navy nuclear submarine patrols regularly nearby (though the exact times and location of the latter are obviously classified)
"ship" is a posh way to describe a patrol boat. And the forces, at the far end of a long supply line, are very small.
I remember 1981 - you obviously don't.
Yes, Argentina has cut its armed forces back to far fewer than they were in Galtieri's day.
The UK does not have an army of 153,000. That is the total size of our armed forces - Army, Navy and Airforce - including reservists. Our regular army is just over 80,000 and there are another 30,000 reservists. And gven our other commitments, not least on the Eastern flank of NATO, how many of those do you seriously think we could deploy?
We are much stronger on the ground in the Falklands than we were in 1982 but at the same time much weaker overall. So I could see our forces putting up a reasonable defence but I am certainly not confident they could hold. And if they did fall then we have no chance at all of reclaiming the islands as we did in 1982.
Our commitments on the Eastern flank of NATO would obviously be temporarily abandoned given British sovereign territory had been invaded.
We have a bigger armed forces than Argentina's which are also far weaker than they were in 1982
I am sorry but you really are deluded. What we did in 1982 was extraordinary but we could do it now. We simply don't have the ships.
As an example in 1982 we sent 8 destroyers and 16 frigates as part of the task force (and that was not our entire contingent of those vessel types in the navy). The entire Royal Navy only has 6 destroyers and 12 frigates. And we don't have the crews even for all of those.
Yes we do. we have 10 times the submarines Argentina do, enough to sink most of the Argentine navy alone for starters.
We also have more surface ships too, Argentina now literally has just 1 destroyer and not a single frigate!
You do realise that the size of their navy is pretty much immaterial given they wouldn't be the ones trying to mount a recapture 8000 miles away? What mattered in 1982 was our ability to get men to the South Atlantic and retake the islands. We no longer have the capability to do that. As I said you are deluded. I will add remarkably ignorant as well.
Yes it is, we could sink their entire fleet whether in port in Buenos Aires or Falklands waters within a week.
Once that is done we then send the aircraft carriers to quickly recapture the Islands, using submarines to send missiles on any Argentine troops still on the islands in the meantime
Fucking hell.
Any missile strike on the Falklands is likely to wipe out the Islanders as well.
Not if well targeted, a Tomahawk missile or 2 would do the trick
On this one, I don't think the Argentine Air Force currently has a single war plane that can fly to the Falklands. A couple of transports, but that's about it, afaics.
I'd say the greatest threat to the Falklands for the next 15-20 years is Treasury salami-slicing, or if China buys Argentina.
@TLDRNewsUK 🇦🇷 Argentina has told the UK that it wants to start new talks over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands and has pulled out of a 2016 cooperation pact.
Could a Sunak Falklands moment save his chances of reelection?
Bloody hell not again. The Argentinians need to give this a rest.
Of course national fervour doesn't make sense, we have our own examples of that, but the Argentinian passion on this issue really doesn't seem to make sense to me when it's noted their claim to the islands is a rather technical one based on inheriting rights from former Spanish sovereignty, and talk about natives who don't exist. Yes there are other complexities, but the point being it's actually a rather arcane legal dispute, yet it's talked about in terms of colonialism as if someone seized Buenos Aires 2 years ago.
There is nothing Argentina can do about it anyway. The UK has a veto on any UN decision as a permanent member of the UN Security Council unlike them.
The UK also has a bigger navy and army and airforce than Argentina now
The Argies forces must be minuscule!
Google tells me Arg: 70,600 (2022) vs UK 78,000 (2020). Not sure if this is chalk and apples eg whole of HMF vs army...but it's a close run thing.
We absolutely couldn't mount another Falklands tomorrow morning that's for sure.
From what I’ve seen of the Argentine navy in Ushuaia they could barely crew one ship
However all this is replying to the mood music of Britain in retreat. Giving up the Elgin marbles. Handing back Diego Garcia. London shrinking as a world city
I can see why the argies might think now is a time to strike - psychologically - as the Uk seems in perpetual decline and in a funk of self doubt
They can think what they want, the UK on its own could still beat most nations in a war apart from the US and China, France and India would probably be a stalemate, Russia can't even beat Ukraine.
Argentina also has declined well past its peak when it was one of the wealthiest nations in the world, even in the Falklands war it had far bigger armed forces than now
Have a look at the RN and RAF in 1981 vs today - abvoe all the long range stuff.
And the Merchant Navy, when it comes to the critical STUFT ships of 1981
The Army is about as useful as a fart in a hurricane without those two when it comes to the Flaklands.
Yes we have enough submarines to sink most of the Argentine navy within a day or 2.
Plus enough aircraft carriers and submarines with Cruise Missiles to bomb the Argentine army into submission too if they ever tried invading the Falklands again even without setting any troops on land beyond the garrison already there
What a pathetic post and as so often you just talk codswallop
Indeed having been to the remote Falkland Islands with its rugged terrain and cliff lined coasts with hundreds of Islands and inlets makes it a very difficult place to wage warfare and anyway the whole idea is ridiculous
Weak, wet, pathetic, useless. If Thatcher had had your defeatist attitude in 1982 we would never have recaptured the Falklands then
Sadly you are being utterly ridiculous
You have no knowledge of the territory, our present capabilities, and the fact is we nearly didn't capture them in 1982
Indeed the loss of the Welsh guards at Bluff Cove was shocking as was the sinking of the Sheffield
1982 was very different to today
No, you are being a pathetic, defeatist wet lettuce.
The Argentine forces have also been so cut back since 1982 they are far weaker than they were then. Our submarines could sink the entire Argentine navy within a week
You have no idea just how controversial the sinking of the Belgrano was have you
I was the late Wyn Roberts driver at the following GE and we had to field many questions about that event as it was highly controversial
I do not know how old you are but to blithely talk of sinking the Argentine fleet in a week when I had to explain the sinking of one vessel shows how utterly out of touch you are
And his talk of torpedoing ships in harbour. What does he think the Navy have, Fairey ****ing Swordfish??
Spearfish torpedoes carried by our Astute class submarines are able to provide anti surface warfare capability as well as anti submarine warfare capability
Are you trolling us, or are you genuinely making what you consider to be a valid proposal? Stuff like this post could come back to haunt you when your political ambitions for high office are about to be realised.
No it wouldn't, any Tory seeking elected office, especially nationally not prepared to use all means necessary to defend the Falklands hasn't got a hope of being selected by the party, or indeed winning the country.
Are you really so deluded as to think the average member of the UK population, let alone the average Conservative member and the tabloids and GB news and the Mail and Telegraph etc would not want as hard a response as possible to any Argentine threat to the Falklands?
@TLDRNewsUK 🇦🇷 Argentina has told the UK that it wants to start new talks over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands and has pulled out of a 2016 cooperation pact.
Could a Sunak Falklands moment save his chances of reelection?
Bloody hell not again. The Argentinians need to give this a rest.
Of course national fervour doesn't make sense, we have our own examples of that, but the Argentinian passion on this issue really doesn't seem to make sense to me when it's noted their claim to the islands is a rather technical one based on inheriting rights from former Spanish sovereignty, and talk about natives who don't exist. Yes there are other complexities, but the point being it's actually a rather arcane legal dispute, yet it's talked about in terms of colonialism as if someone seized Buenos Aires 2 years ago.
There is nothing Argentina can do about it anyway. The UK has a veto on any UN decision as a permanent member of the UN Security Council unlike them.
The UK also has a bigger navy and army and airforce than Argentina now
The Argies forces must be minuscule!
Google tells me Arg: 70,600 (2022) vs UK 78,000 (2020). Not sure if this is chalk and apples eg whole of HMF vs army...but it's a close run thing.
We absolutely couldn't mount another Falklands tomorrow morning that's for sure.
From what I’ve seen of the Argentine navy in Ushuaia they could barely crew one ship
However all this is replying to the mood music of Britain in retreat. Giving up the Elgin marbles. Handing back Diego Garcia. London shrinking as a world city
I can see why the argies might think now is a time to strike - psychologically - as the Uk seems in perpetual decline and in a funk of self doubt
They can think what they want, the UK on its own could still beat most nations in a war apart from the US and China, France and India would probably be a stalemate, Russia can't even beat Ukraine.
Argentina also has declined well past its peak when it was one of the wealthiest nations in the world, even in the Falklands war it had far bigger armed forces than now
Have a look at the RN and RAF in 1981 vs today - abvoe all the long range stuff.
And the Merchant Navy, when it comes to the critical STUFT ships of 1981
The Army is about as useful as a fart in a hurricane without those two when it comes to the Flaklands.
Yes we have enough submarines to sink most of the Argentine navy within a day or 2.
Plus enough aircraft carriers and submarines with Cruise Missiles to bomb the Argentine army into submission too if they ever tried invading the Falklands again even without setting any troops on land beyond the garrison already there
What a pathetic post and as so often you just talk codswallop
Indeed having been to the remote Falkland Islands with its rugged terrain and cliff lined coasts with hundreds of Islands and inlets makes it a very difficult place to wage warfare and anyway the whole idea is ridiculous
Weak, wet, pathetic, useless. If Thatcher had had your defeatist attitude in 1982 we would never have recaptured the Falklands then
Sadly you are being utterly ridiculous
You have no knowledge of the territory, our present capabilities, and the fact is we nearly didn't capture them in 1982
Indeed the loss of the Welsh guards at Bluff Cove was shocking as was the sinking of the Sheffield
1982 was very different to today
No, you are being a pathetic, defeatist wet lettuce.
The Argentine forces have also been so cut back since 1982 they are far weaker than they were then. Our submarines could sink the entire Argentine navy within a week
You have no idea just how controversial the sinking of the Belgrano was have you
I was the late Wyn Roberts driver at the following GE and we had to field many questions about that event as it was highly controversial
I do not know how old you are but to blithely talk of sinking the Argentine fleet in a week when I had to explain the sinking of one vessel shows how utterly out of touch you are
I was told at the time by an Army Captain who was out there not long after the recapture, that it was fortunate the Argentinians surrendered first. The distance between victory and defeat was, I was led to believe, much slimmer than it appeared from the justifiable jingoism that followed.
@TLDRNewsUK 🇦🇷 Argentina has told the UK that it wants to start new talks over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands and has pulled out of a 2016 cooperation pact.
Could a Sunak Falklands moment save his chances of reelection?
Bloody hell not again. The Argentinians need to give this a rest.
Of course national fervour doesn't make sense, we have our own examples of that, but the Argentinian passion on this issue really doesn't seem to make sense to me when it's noted their claim to the islands is a rather technical one based on inheriting rights from former Spanish sovereignty, and talk about natives who don't exist. Yes there are other complexities, but the point being it's actually a rather arcane legal dispute, yet it's talked about in terms of colonialism as if someone seized Buenos Aires 2 years ago.
There is nothing Argentina can do about it anyway. The UK has a veto on any UN decision as a permanent member of the UN Security Council unlike them.
The UK also has a bigger navy and army and airforce than Argentina now
Have a look at an atlas. It's not the Persian Gulf.
Since the Falklands War there is also a bigger permanent British garrison on the islands, a Royal Navy ship on patrol there at all times and a Royal Navy nuclear submarine patrols regularly nearby (though the exact times and location of the latter are obviously classified)
"ship" is a posh way to describe a patrol boat. And the forces, at the far end of a long supply line, are very small.
I remember 1981 - you obviously don't.
Yes, Argentina has cut its armed forces back to far fewer than they were in Galtieri's day.
The UK does not have an army of 153,000. That is the total size of our armed forces - Army, Navy and Airforce - including reservists. Our regular army is just over 80,000 and there are another 30,000 reservists. And gven our other commitments, not least on the Eastern flank of NATO, how many of those do you seriously think we could deploy?
We are much stronger on the ground in the Falklands than we were in 1982 but at the same time much weaker overall. So I could see our forces putting up a reasonable defence but I am certainly not confident they could hold. And if they did fall then we have no chance at all of reclaiming the islands as we did in 1982.
Our commitments on the Eastern flank of NATO would obviously be temporarily abandoned given British sovereign territory had been invaded.
We have a bigger armed forces than Argentina's which are also far weaker than they were in 1982
I am sorry but you really are deluded. What we did in 1982 was extraordinary but we could do it now. We simply don't have the ships.
As an example in 1982 we sent 8 destroyers and 16 frigates as part of the task force (and that was not our entire contingent of those vessel types in the navy). The entire Royal Navy only has 6 destroyers and 12 frigates. And we don't have the crews even for all of those.
Yes we do. we have 10 times the submarines Argentina do, enough to sink most of the Argentine navy alone for starters.
We also have more surface ships too, Argentina now literally has just 1 destroyer and not a single frigate!
You do realise that the size of their navy is pretty much immaterial given they wouldn't be the ones trying to mount a recapture 8000 miles away? What mattered in 1982 was our ability to get men to the South Atlantic and retake the islands. We no longer have the capability to do that. As I said you are deluded. I will add remarkably ignorant as well.
Yes it is, we could sink their entire fleet whether in port in Buenos Aires or Falklands waters within a week.
Once that is done we then send the aircraft carriers to quickly support the Islands, using submarines to send missiles on any Argentine troops who have got on the islands in the meantime
I would suggest you get a cup of tea and a rich tea biscuit rather than continuing this nonsense
We should relax about this. No one - Argentina or anyone else - will be invading the Falklands at any time in the foreseeable future.
That being said, we are not going to be visited by aliens in the foreseeable future, but this doesn't stop us from discussing that! 😈
Not sure where this idea Argentina could invade has come from. Not only are its armed forces in a poor state and the country has no money but the Falklands are far better protected now than they were in 1982. Any Argentinian attack would fail full stop.
The Falklands are not actually that well protected. No heavy arty, just 4 RAF Typhoon, and so on.
ANd when did Typhoon have anti-shipping missiles? None planned tilol 2030 or so, IIRC.
"Why did you sit in Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet for three years when anti-semitism was rife in the Labour Party?"
No answer to that I've heard.....
If that's the best you have got I don't think Starmer has much to worry about. He's shown where he stands by throwing Corbyn out of the party on that very issue. It won't move a thousand votes.
Not sure the people who actually live there would agree but I’m sure they would appreciate someone miles away telling them they can’t belong to whichever country they want to.
I think we tried telling people who they belonged to a while ago and that isn’t looked back on particularly well these days. Self-determination and all that.
Edit, sorry just saw you referred to them as the Malvinas so you will clearly be happy to give the falklands to the French who have a better claim than Argentina. The people of St Malo send their thanks and support to you.
Wait. So if Burkino Faso wanted to be a part of Britain, they can choose that?
I’m sort of sure they could if both sides were massively in favour and all that but not really comparing apples with apples.
The population, and a long standing one at that consider themselves British, they prob ought to declare themselves an independent country and be more protected by the UN but there you go.
I’m guessing that people in “contested” areas of Ukraine who consider themselves “Ukrainian” aren’t being pressured here that they should just roll over and accept some weird historical jigsaw makes them Russian? Or are we now accepting it’s cool again to invade a population and say they are your people because hundreds of years ago shit happened?
But I welcome our new parliamentary seat of Burkina Faso and their Member of Parliament Lee Anderson to our wonderful Union.
Absolutely not, Ukraine and Taiwan are not British Overseas Territory, the Falklands are.
By all means continue to supply Ukraine and with the US and Australia and Japan and S Korea try and deter China from invading Taiwan but the government's first job is to defend British territory
Taiwan falling would have a bigger impact on the UK than losing The Malvinas.
No it woudn't, we have not had a direct interest in the Far East since we handed back Hong Kong to China when our lease on it ran out.
Taiwan falling to Chinese invasion would be a far bigger threat to Japan and South Korea and indeed Australia and US power than to the UK now.
The Falkland Islands falling and being held by Argentina would however be a humiliation for the UK and hugely weaken our standing in the world
@TLDRNewsUK 🇦🇷 Argentina has told the UK that it wants to start new talks over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands and has pulled out of a 2016 cooperation pact.
Could a Sunak Falklands moment save his chances of reelection?
Bloody hell not again. The Argentinians need to give this a rest.
Of course national fervour doesn't make sense, we have our own examples of that, but the Argentinian passion on this issue really doesn't seem to make sense to me when it's noted their claim to the islands is a rather technical one based on inheriting rights from former Spanish sovereignty, and talk about natives who don't exist. Yes there are other complexities, but the point being it's actually a rather arcane legal dispute, yet it's talked about in terms of colonialism as if someone seized Buenos Aires 2 years ago.
There is nothing Argentina can do about it anyway. The UK has a veto on any UN decision as a permanent member of the UN Security Council unlike them.
The UK also has a bigger navy and army and airforce than Argentina now
Have a look at an atlas. It's not the Persian Gulf.
Since the Falklands War there is also a bigger permanent British garrison on the islands, a Royal Navy ship on patrol there at all times and a Royal Navy nuclear submarine patrols regularly nearby (though the exact times and location of the latter are obviously classified)
"ship" is a posh way to describe a patrol boat. And the forces, at the far end of a long supply line, are very small.
I remember 1981 - you obviously don't.
Yes, Argentina has cut its armed forces back to far fewer than they were in Galtieri's day.
The UK does not have an army of 153,000. That is the total size of our armed forces - Army, Navy and Airforce - including reservists. Our regular army is just over 80,000 and there are another 30,000 reservists. And gven our other commitments, not least on the Eastern flank of NATO, how many of those do you seriously think we could deploy?
We are much stronger on the ground in the Falklands than we were in 1982 but at the same time much weaker overall. So I could see our forces putting up a reasonable defence but I am certainly not confident they could hold. And if they did fall then we have no chance at all of reclaiming the islands as we did in 1982.
Our commitments on the Eastern flank of NATO would obviously be temporarily abandoned given British sovereign territory had been invaded.
We have a bigger armed forces than Argentina's which are also far weaker than they were in 1982
I am sorry but you really are deluded. What we did in 1982 was extraordinary but we could do it now. We simply don't have the ships.
As an example in 1982 we sent 8 destroyers and 16 frigates as part of the task force (and that was not our entire contingent of those vessel types in the navy). The entire Royal Navy only has 6 destroyers and 12 frigates. And we don't have the crews even for all of those.
Yes we do. we have 10 times the submarines Argentina do, enough to sink most of the Argentine navy alone for starters.
We also have more surface ships too, Argentina now literally has just 1 destroyer and not a single frigate!
You do realise that the size of their navy is pretty much immaterial given they wouldn't be the ones trying to mount a recapture 8000 miles away? What mattered in 1982 was our ability to get men to the South Atlantic and retake the islands. We no longer have the capability to do that. As I said you are deluded. I will add remarkably ignorant as well.
Yes it is, we could sink their entire fleet whether in port in Buenos Aires or Falklands waters within a week.
Once that is done we then send the aircraft carriers to quickly recapture the Islands, using submarines to send missiles on any Argentine troops still on the islands in the meantime
Fucking hell.
Any missile strike on the Falklands is likely to wipe out the Islanders as well.
Not if well targeted, a Tomahawk missile or 2 would do the trick
On this one, I don't think the Argentine Air Force currently has a single war plane that can fly to the Falklands. A couple of transports, but that's about it, afaics.
I'd say the greatest threat to the Falklands for the next 15-20 years is Treasury salami-slicing, or if China buys Argentina.
@TLDRNewsUK 🇦🇷 Argentina has told the UK that it wants to start new talks over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands and has pulled out of a 2016 cooperation pact.
Could a Sunak Falklands moment save his chances of reelection?
Bloody hell not again. The Argentinians need to give this a rest.
Of course national fervour doesn't make sense, we have our own examples of that, but the Argentinian passion on this issue really doesn't seem to make sense to me when it's noted their claim to the islands is a rather technical one based on inheriting rights from former Spanish sovereignty, and talk about natives who don't exist. Yes there are other complexities, but the point being it's actually a rather arcane legal dispute, yet it's talked about in terms of colonialism as if someone seized Buenos Aires 2 years ago.
There is nothing Argentina can do about it anyway. The UK has a veto on any UN decision as a permanent member of the UN Security Council unlike them.
The UK also has a bigger navy and army and airforce than Argentina now
The Argies forces must be minuscule!
Google tells me Arg: 70,600 (2022) vs UK 78,000 (2020). Not sure if this is chalk and apples eg whole of HMF vs army...but it's a close run thing.
We absolutely couldn't mount another Falklands tomorrow morning that's for sure.
From what I’ve seen of the Argentine navy in Ushuaia they could barely crew one ship
However all this is replying to the mood music of Britain in retreat. Giving up the Elgin marbles. Handing back Diego Garcia. London shrinking as a world city
I can see why the argies might think now is a time to strike - psychologically - as the Uk seems in perpetual decline and in a funk of self doubt
They can think what they want, the UK on its own could still beat most nations in a war apart from the US and China, France and India would probably be a stalemate, Russia can't even beat Ukraine.
Argentina also has declined well past its peak when it was one of the wealthiest nations in the world, even in the Falklands war it had far bigger armed forces than now
Have a look at the RN and RAF in 1981 vs today - abvoe all the long range stuff.
And the Merchant Navy, when it comes to the critical STUFT ships of 1981
The Army is about as useful as a fart in a hurricane without those two when it comes to the Flaklands.
Yes we have enough submarines to sink most of the Argentine navy within a day or 2.
Plus enough aircraft carriers and submarines with Cruise Missiles to bomb the Argentine army into submission too if they ever tried invading the Falklands again even without setting any troops on land beyond the garrison already there
What a pathetic post and as so often you just talk codswallop
Indeed having been to the remote Falkland Islands with its rugged terrain and cliff lined coasts with hundreds of Islands and inlets makes it a very difficult place to wage warfare and anyway the whole idea is ridiculous
Weak, wet, pathetic, useless. If Thatcher had had your defeatist attitude in 1982 we would never have recaptured the Falklands then
Sadly you are being utterly ridiculous
You have no knowledge of the territory, our present capabilities, and the fact is we nearly didn't capture them in 1982
Indeed the loss of the Welsh guards at Bluff Cove was shocking as was the sinking of the Sheffield
1982 was very different to today
No, you are being a pathetic, defeatist wet lettuce.
The Argentine forces have also been so cut back since 1982 they are far weaker than they were then. Our submarines could sink the entire Argentine navy within a week
You have no idea just how controversial the sinking of the Belgrano was have you
I was the late Wyn Roberts driver at the following GE and we had to field many questions about that event as it was highly controversial
I do not know how old you are but to blithely talk of sinking the Argentine fleet in a week when I had to explain the sinking of one vessel shows how utterly out of touch you are
And his talk of torpedoing ships in harbour. What does he think the Navy have, Fairey ****ing Swordfish??
Spearfish torpedoes carried by our Astute class submarines are able to provide anti surface warfare capability as well as anti submarine warfare capability
Are you trolling us, or are you genuinely making what you consider to be a valid proposal? Stuff like this post could come back to haunt you when your political ambitions for high office are about to be realised.
No it wouldn't, any Tory seeking elected office, especially nationally not prepared to use all means necessary to defend the Falklands hasn't got a hope of being selected by the party, or indeed winning the country.
Are you really so deluded as to think the average member of the UK population, let alone the average Conservative member and the tabloids would not want as hard a response as possible to any Argentine threat to the Falklands?
@TLDRNewsUK 🇦🇷 Argentina has told the UK that it wants to start new talks over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands and has pulled out of a 2016 cooperation pact.
Could a Sunak Falklands moment save his chances of reelection?
Bloody hell not again. The Argentinians need to give this a rest.
Of course national fervour doesn't make sense, we have our own examples of that, but the Argentinian passion on this issue really doesn't seem to make sense to me when it's noted their claim to the islands is a rather technical one based on inheriting rights from former Spanish sovereignty, and talk about natives who don't exist. Yes there are other complexities, but the point being it's actually a rather arcane legal dispute, yet it's talked about in terms of colonialism as if someone seized Buenos Aires 2 years ago.
There is nothing Argentina can do about it anyway. The UK has a veto on any UN decision as a permanent member of the UN Security Council unlike them.
The UK also has a bigger navy and army and airforce than Argentina now
Have a look at an atlas. It's not the Persian Gulf.
Since the Falklands War there is also a bigger permanent British garrison on the islands, a Royal Navy ship on patrol there at all times and a Royal Navy nuclear submarine patrols regularly nearby (though the exact times and location of the latter are obviously classified)
"ship" is a posh way to describe a patrol boat. And the forces, at the far end of a long supply line, are very small.
I remember 1981 - you obviously don't.
Yes, Argentina has cut its armed forces back to far fewer than they were in Galtieri's day.
The UK does not have an army of 153,000. That is the total size of our armed forces - Army, Navy and Airforce - including reservists. Our regular army is just over 80,000 and there are another 30,000 reservists. And gven our other commitments, not least on the Eastern flank of NATO, how many of those do you seriously think we could deploy?
We are much stronger on the ground in the Falklands than we were in 1982 but at the same time much weaker overall. So I could see our forces putting up a reasonable defence but I am certainly not confident they could hold. And if they did fall then we have no chance at all of reclaiming the islands as we did in 1982.
Our commitments on the Eastern flank of NATO would obviously be temporarily abandoned given British sovereign territory had been invaded.
We have a bigger armed forces than Argentina's which are also far weaker than they were in 1982
I am sorry but you really are deluded. What we did in 1982 was extraordinary but we could do it now. We simply don't have the ships.
As an example in 1982 we sent 8 destroyers and 16 frigates as part of the task force (and that was not our entire contingent of those vessel types in the navy). The entire Royal Navy only has 6 destroyers and 12 frigates. And we don't have the crews even for all of those.
Yes we do. we have 10 times the submarines Argentina do, enough to sink most of the Argentine navy alone for starters.
We also have more surface ships too, Argentina now literally has just 1 destroyer and not a single frigate!
You do realise that the size of their navy is pretty much immaterial given they wouldn't be the ones trying to mount a recapture 8000 miles away? What mattered in 1982 was our ability to get men to the South Atlantic and retake the islands. We no longer have the capability to do that. As I said you are deluded. I will add remarkably ignorant as well.
Yes it is, we could sink their entire fleet whether in port in Buenos Aires or Falklands waters within a week.
Once that is done we then send the aircraft carriers to quickly recapture the Islands, using submarines to send missiles on any Argentine troops still on the islands in the meantime
Fucking hell.
Any missile strike on the Falklands is likely to wipe out the Islanders as well.
Not if well targeted, a Tomahawk missile or 2 would do the trick
On this one, I don't think the Argentine Air Force currently has a single war plane that can fly to the Falklands. A couple of transports, but that's about it, afaics.
I'd say the greatest threat to the Falklands for the next 15-20 years is Treasury salami-slicing, or if China buys Argentina.
@TLDRNewsUK 🇦🇷 Argentina has told the UK that it wants to start new talks over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands and has pulled out of a 2016 cooperation pact.
Could a Sunak Falklands moment save his chances of reelection?
Bloody hell not again. The Argentinians need to give this a rest.
Of course national fervour doesn't make sense, we have our own examples of that, but the Argentinian passion on this issue really doesn't seem to make sense to me when it's noted their claim to the islands is a rather technical one based on inheriting rights from former Spanish sovereignty, and talk about natives who don't exist. Yes there are other complexities, but the point being it's actually a rather arcane legal dispute, yet it's talked about in terms of colonialism as if someone seized Buenos Aires 2 years ago.
There is nothing Argentina can do about it anyway. The UK has a veto on any UN decision as a permanent member of the UN Security Council unlike them.
The UK also has a bigger navy and army and airforce than Argentina now
The Argies forces must be minuscule!
Google tells me Arg: 70,600 (2022) vs UK 78,000 (2020). Not sure if this is chalk and apples eg whole of HMF vs army...but it's a close run thing.
We absolutely couldn't mount another Falklands tomorrow morning that's for sure.
From what I’ve seen of the Argentine navy in Ushuaia they could barely crew one ship
However all this is replying to the mood music of Britain in retreat. Giving up the Elgin marbles. Handing back Diego Garcia. London shrinking as a world city
I can see why the argies might think now is a time to strike - psychologically - as the Uk seems in perpetual decline and in a funk of self doubt
They can think what they want, the UK on its own could still beat most nations in a war apart from the US and China, France and India would probably be a stalemate, Russia can't even beat Ukraine.
Argentina also has declined well past its peak when it was one of the wealthiest nations in the world, even in the Falklands war it had far bigger armed forces than now
Have a look at the RN and RAF in 1981 vs today - abvoe all the long range stuff.
And the Merchant Navy, when it comes to the critical STUFT ships of 1981
The Army is about as useful as a fart in a hurricane without those two when it comes to the Flaklands.
Yes we have enough submarines to sink most of the Argentine navy within a day or 2.
Plus enough aircraft carriers and submarines with Cruise Missiles to bomb the Argentine army into submission too if they ever tried invading the Falklands again even without setting any troops on land beyond the garrison already there
What a pathetic post and as so often you just talk codswallop
Indeed having been to the remote Falkland Islands with its rugged terrain and cliff lined coasts with hundreds of Islands and inlets makes it a very difficult place to wage warfare and anyway the whole idea is ridiculous
Weak, wet, pathetic, useless. If Thatcher had had your defeatist attitude in 1982 we would never have recaptured the Falklands then
Sadly you are being utterly ridiculous
You have no knowledge of the territory, our present capabilities, and the fact is we nearly didn't capture them in 1982
Indeed the loss of the Welsh guards at Bluff Cove was shocking as was the sinking of the Sheffield
1982 was very different to today
No, you are being a pathetic, defeatist wet lettuce.
The Argentine forces have also been so cut back since 1982 they are far weaker than they were then. Our submarines could sink the entire Argentine navy within a week
You have no idea just how controversial the sinking of the Belgrano was have you
I was the late Wyn Roberts driver at the following GE and we had to field many questions about that event as it was highly controversial
I do not know how old you are but to blithely talk of sinking the Argentine fleet in a week when I had to explain the sinking of one vessel shows how utterly out of touch you are
And his talk of torpedoing ships in harbour. What does he think the Navy have, Fairey ****ing Swordfish??
Spearfish torpedoes carried by our Astute class submarines are able to provide anti surface warfare capability as well as anti submarine warfare capability
Are you trolling us, or are you genuinely making what you consider to be a valid proposal? Stuff like this post could come back to haunt you when your political ambitions for high office are about to be realised.
No it wouldn't, any Tory seeking elected office, especially nationally not prepared to use all means necessary to defend the Falklands hasn't got a hope of being selected by the party, or indeed winning the country.
Are you really so deluded as to think the average member of the UK population, let alone the average Conservative member and the tabloids would not want as hard a response as possible to any Argentine threat to the Falklands?
Are you General Galtieri?
Galtieri never contemplated invading Scotland to be fair.
@TLDRNewsUK 🇦🇷 Argentina has told the UK that it wants to start new talks over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands and has pulled out of a 2016 cooperation pact.
Could a Sunak Falklands moment save his chances of reelection?
Bloody hell not again. The Argentinians need to give this a rest.
Of course national fervour doesn't make sense, we have our own examples of that, but the Argentinian passion on this issue really doesn't seem to make sense to me when it's noted their claim to the islands is a rather technical one based on inheriting rights from former Spanish sovereignty, and talk about natives who don't exist. Yes there are other complexities, but the point being it's actually a rather arcane legal dispute, yet it's talked about in terms of colonialism as if someone seized Buenos Aires 2 years ago.
There is nothing Argentina can do about it anyway. The UK has a veto on any UN decision as a permanent member of the UN Security Council unlike them.
The UK also has a bigger navy and army and airforce than Argentina now
Have a look at an atlas. It's not the Persian Gulf.
Since the Falklands War there is also a bigger permanent British garrison on the islands, a Royal Navy ship on patrol there at all times and a Royal Navy nuclear submarine patrols regularly nearby (though the exact times and location of the latter are obviously classified)
"ship" is a posh way to describe a patrol boat. And the forces, at the far end of a long supply line, are very small.
I remember 1981 - you obviously don't.
Yes, Argentina has cut its armed forces back to far fewer than they were in Galtieri's day.
The UK does not have an army of 153,000. That is the total size of our armed forces - Army, Navy and Airforce - including reservists. Our regular army is just over 80,000 and there are another 30,000 reservists. And gven our other commitments, not least on the Eastern flank of NATO, how many of those do you seriously think we could deploy?
We are much stronger on the ground in the Falklands than we were in 1982 but at the same time much weaker overall. So I could see our forces putting up a reasonable defence but I am certainly not confident they could hold. And if they did fall then we have no chance at all of reclaiming the islands as we did in 1982.
Our commitments on the Eastern flank of NATO would obviously be temporarily abandoned given British sovereign territory had been invaded.
We have a bigger armed forces than Argentina's which are also far weaker than they were in 1982
I am sorry but you really are deluded. What we did in 1982 was extraordinary but we could do it now. We simply don't have the ships.
As an example in 1982 we sent 8 destroyers and 16 frigates as part of the task force (and that was not our entire contingent of those vessel types in the navy). The entire Royal Navy only has 6 destroyers and 12 frigates. And we don't have the crews even for all of those.
Yes we do. we have 10 times the submarines Argentina do, enough to sink most of the Argentine navy alone for starters.
We also have more surface ships too, Argentina now literally has just 1 destroyer and not a single frigate!
You do realise that the size of their navy is pretty much immaterial given they wouldn't be the ones trying to mount a recapture 8000 miles away? What mattered in 1982 was our ability to get men to the South Atlantic and retake the islands. We no longer have the capability to do that. As I said you are deluded. I will add remarkably ignorant as well.
Yes it is, we could sink their entire fleet whether in port in Buenos Aires or Falklands waters within a week.
Once that is done we then send the aircraft carriers to quickly recapture the Islands, using submarines to send missiles on any Argentine troops still on the islands in the meantime
Fucking hell.
Any missile strike on the Falklands is likely to wipe out the Islanders as well.
Not if well targeted, a Tomahawk missile or 2 would do the trick
On this one, I don't think the Argentine Air Force currently has a single war plane that can fly to the Falklands. A couple of transports, but that's about it, afaics.
I'd say the greatest threat to the Falklands for the next 15-20 years is Treasury salami-slicing, or if China buys Argentina.
@TLDRNewsUK 🇦🇷 Argentina has told the UK that it wants to start new talks over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands and has pulled out of a 2016 cooperation pact.
Could a Sunak Falklands moment save his chances of reelection?
Bloody hell not again. The Argentinians need to give this a rest.
Of course national fervour doesn't make sense, we have our own examples of that, but the Argentinian passion on this issue really doesn't seem to make sense to me when it's noted their claim to the islands is a rather technical one based on inheriting rights from former Spanish sovereignty, and talk about natives who don't exist. Yes there are other complexities, but the point being it's actually a rather arcane legal dispute, yet it's talked about in terms of colonialism as if someone seized Buenos Aires 2 years ago.
There is nothing Argentina can do about it anyway. The UK has a veto on any UN decision as a permanent member of the UN Security Council unlike them.
The UK also has a bigger navy and army and airforce than Argentina now
The Argies forces must be minuscule!
Google tells me Arg: 70,600 (2022) vs UK 78,000 (2020). Not sure if this is chalk and apples eg whole of HMF vs army...but it's a close run thing.
We absolutely couldn't mount another Falklands tomorrow morning that's for sure.
From what I’ve seen of the Argentine navy in Ushuaia they could barely crew one ship
However all this is replying to the mood music of Britain in retreat. Giving up the Elgin marbles. Handing back Diego Garcia. London shrinking as a world city
I can see why the argies might think now is a time to strike - psychologically - as the Uk seems in perpetual decline and in a funk of self doubt
They can think what they want, the UK on its own could still beat most nations in a war apart from the US and China, France and India would probably be a stalemate, Russia can't even beat Ukraine.
Argentina also has declined well past its peak when it was one of the wealthiest nations in the world, even in the Falklands war it had far bigger armed forces than now
Have a look at the RN and RAF in 1981 vs today - abvoe all the long range stuff.
And the Merchant Navy, when it comes to the critical STUFT ships of 1981
The Army is about as useful as a fart in a hurricane without those two when it comes to the Flaklands.
Yes we have enough submarines to sink most of the Argentine navy within a day or 2.
Plus enough aircraft carriers and submarines with Cruise Missiles to bomb the Argentine army into submission too if they ever tried invading the Falklands again even without setting any troops on land beyond the garrison already there
What a pathetic post and as so often you just talk codswallop
Indeed having been to the remote Falkland Islands with its rugged terrain and cliff lined coasts with hundreds of Islands and inlets makes it a very difficult place to wage warfare and anyway the whole idea is ridiculous
Weak, wet, pathetic, useless. If Thatcher had had your defeatist attitude in 1982 we would never have recaptured the Falklands then
Sadly you are being utterly ridiculous
You have no knowledge of the territory, our present capabilities, and the fact is we nearly didn't capture them in 1982
Indeed the loss of the Welsh guards at Bluff Cove was shocking as was the sinking of the Sheffield
1982 was very different to today
No, you are being a pathetic, defeatist wet lettuce.
The Argentine forces have also been so cut back since 1982 they are far weaker than they were then. Our submarines could sink the entire Argentine navy within a week
You have no idea just how controversial the sinking of the Belgrano was have you
I was the late Wyn Roberts driver at the following GE and we had to field many questions about that event as it was highly controversial
I do not know how old you are but to blithely talk of sinking the Argentine fleet in a week when I had to explain the sinking of one vessel shows how utterly out of touch you are
And his talk of torpedoing ships in harbour. What does he think the Navy have, Fairey ****ing Swordfish??
Spearfish torpedoes carried by our Astute class submarines are able to provide anti surface warfare capability as well as anti submarine warfare capability
Are you trolling us, or are you genuinely making what you consider to be a valid proposal? Stuff like this post could come back to haunt you when your political ambitions for high office are about to be realised.
No it wouldn't, any Tory seeking elected office, especially nationally not prepared to use all means necessary to defend the Falklands hasn't got a hope of being selected by the party, or indeed winning the country.
Are you really so deluded as to think the average member of the UK population, let alone the average Conservative member and the tabloids would not want as hard a response as possible to any Argentine threat to the Falklands?
Nadine Dorries speaking total sense. Sadly this was in the past.
The facts have changed however. Now we know that she supports Labour sufficiently to take a major position in the party.
That doesn't mean she could not perform her job in an independent fashion. She's worked in goverment for years and apparently no one had any reason to suspect there was a Labour supporter in their midst.
Yes, it's unnecessarily awkward timing, but the attempt to say if she supports Labour she must be bent, which whatever is claimed is the essence of the allegation, is not well made. If they felt her work was excellent and independent before, then clearly she did perform her role independently since they had no reason to believe she stitched them up.
But it is now reasonable to ask the question about how impartial her judgment was. And I say this as someone that is glad Johnson was chased out.
Surely the onus is on her detractors to demonstrate where her report was incorrect or failed to be impartial. You might have grounds if the Privileges Committee comes up with significantly different conclusions but from what we have heard today that seems highly unlikely. In the meantime the only people suffering from all the Partygate stuff headlining again is Johnson and his fans.
Absolutely not, Ukraine and Taiwan are not British Overseas Territory, the Falklands are.
By all means continue to supply Ukraine and with the US and Australia and Japan and S Korea try and deter China from invading Taiwan but the government's first job is to defend British territory
Taiwan falling would have a bigger impact on the UK than losing The Malvinas.
No it woudn't, we have not had a direct interest in the Far East since we handed back Hong Kong to China when our lease on it ran out.
Taiwan falling to Chinese invasion would be a far bigger threat to Japan and South Korea and indeed Australia and US power than to the UK now.
The Falkland Islands falling and being held by Argentina would however be a humiliation for the UK and hugely weaken our standing in the world
The world economy will seize up if China invades Taiwan.
It will make the last few years look like the golden years.
@TLDRNewsUK 🇦🇷 Argentina has told the UK that it wants to start new talks over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands and has pulled out of a 2016 cooperation pact.
Could a Sunak Falklands moment save his chances of reelection?
Bloody hell not again. The Argentinians need to give this a rest.
Of course national fervour doesn't make sense, we have our own examples of that, but the Argentinian passion on this issue really doesn't seem to make sense to me when it's noted their claim to the islands is a rather technical one based on inheriting rights from former Spanish sovereignty, and talk about natives who don't exist. Yes there are other complexities, but the point being it's actually a rather arcane legal dispute, yet it's talked about in terms of colonialism as if someone seized Buenos Aires 2 years ago.
There is nothing Argentina can do about it anyway. The UK has a veto on any UN decision as a permanent member of the UN Security Council unlike them.
The UK also has a bigger navy and army and airforce than Argentina now
Have a look at an atlas. It's not the Persian Gulf.
Since the Falklands War there is also a bigger permanent British garrison on the islands, a Royal Navy ship on patrol there at all times and a Royal Navy nuclear submarine patrols regularly nearby (though the exact times and location of the latter are obviously classified)
"ship" is a posh way to describe a patrol boat. And the forces, at the far end of a long supply line, are very small.
I remember 1981 - you obviously don't.
Yes, Argentina has cut its armed forces back to far fewer than they were in Galtieri's day.
The UK does not have an army of 153,000. That is the total size of our armed forces - Army, Navy and Airforce - including reservists. Our regular army is just over 80,000 and there are another 30,000 reservists. And gven our other commitments, not least on the Eastern flank of NATO, how many of those do you seriously think we could deploy?
We are much stronger on the ground in the Falklands than we were in 1982 but at the same time much weaker overall. So I could see our forces putting up a reasonable defence but I am certainly not confident they could hold. And if they did fall then we have no chance at all of reclaiming the islands as we did in 1982.
Our commitments on the Eastern flank of NATO would obviously be temporarily abandoned given British sovereign territory had been invaded.
We have a bigger armed forces than Argentina's which are also far weaker than they were in 1982
I am sorry but you really are deluded. What we did in 1982 was extraordinary but we could do it now. We simply don't have the ships.
As an example in 1982 we sent 8 destroyers and 16 frigates as part of the task force (and that was not our entire contingent of those vessel types in the navy). The entire Royal Navy only has 6 destroyers and 12 frigates. And we don't have the crews even for all of those.
Yes we do. we have 10 times the submarines Argentina do, enough to sink most of the Argentine navy alone for starters.
We also have more surface ships too, Argentina now literally has just 1 destroyer and not a single frigate!
You do realise that the size of their navy is pretty much immaterial given they wouldn't be the ones trying to mount a recapture 8000 miles away? What mattered in 1982 was our ability to get men to the South Atlantic and retake the islands. We no longer have the capability to do that. As I said you are deluded. I will add remarkably ignorant as well.
Yes it is, we could sink their entire fleet whether in port in Buenos Aires or Falklands waters within a week.
Once that is done we then send the aircraft carriers to quickly recapture the Islands, using submarines to send missiles on any Argentine troops still on the islands in the meantime
Fucking hell.
Any missile strike on the Falklands is likely to wipe out the Islanders as well.
Not if well targeted, a Tomahawk missile or 2 would do the trick
On this one, I don't think the Argentine Air Force currently has a single war plane that can fly to the Falklands. A couple of transports, but that's about it, afaics.
I'd say the greatest threat to the Falklands for the next 15-20 years is Treasury salami-slicing, or if China buys Argentina.
@TLDRNewsUK 🇦🇷 Argentina has told the UK that it wants to start new talks over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands and has pulled out of a 2016 cooperation pact.
Could a Sunak Falklands moment save his chances of reelection?
Bloody hell not again. The Argentinians need to give this a rest.
Of course national fervour doesn't make sense, we have our own examples of that, but the Argentinian passion on this issue really doesn't seem to make sense to me when it's noted their claim to the islands is a rather technical one based on inheriting rights from former Spanish sovereignty, and talk about natives who don't exist. Yes there are other complexities, but the point being it's actually a rather arcane legal dispute, yet it's talked about in terms of colonialism as if someone seized Buenos Aires 2 years ago.
There is nothing Argentina can do about it anyway. The UK has a veto on any UN decision as a permanent member of the UN Security Council unlike them.
The UK also has a bigger navy and army and airforce than Argentina now
The Argies forces must be minuscule!
Google tells me Arg: 70,600 (2022) vs UK 78,000 (2020). Not sure if this is chalk and apples eg whole of HMF vs army...but it's a close run thing.
We absolutely couldn't mount another Falklands tomorrow morning that's for sure.
From what I’ve seen of the Argentine navy in Ushuaia they could barely crew one ship
However all this is replying to the mood music of Britain in retreat. Giving up the Elgin marbles. Handing back Diego Garcia. London shrinking as a world city
I can see why the argies might think now is a time to strike - psychologically - as the Uk seems in perpetual decline and in a funk of self doubt
They can think what they want, the UK on its own could still beat most nations in a war apart from the US and China, France and India would probably be a stalemate, Russia can't even beat Ukraine.
Argentina also has declined well past its peak when it was one of the wealthiest nations in the world, even in the Falklands war it had far bigger armed forces than now
Have a look at the RN and RAF in 1981 vs today - abvoe all the long range stuff.
And the Merchant Navy, when it comes to the critical STUFT ships of 1981
The Army is about as useful as a fart in a hurricane without those two when it comes to the Flaklands.
Yes we have enough submarines to sink most of the Argentine navy within a day or 2.
Plus enough aircraft carriers and submarines with Cruise Missiles to bomb the Argentine army into submission too if they ever tried invading the Falklands again even without setting any troops on land beyond the garrison already there
What a pathetic post and as so often you just talk codswallop
Indeed having been to the remote Falkland Islands with its rugged terrain and cliff lined coasts with hundreds of Islands and inlets makes it a very difficult place to wage warfare and anyway the whole idea is ridiculous
Weak, wet, pathetic, useless. If Thatcher had had your defeatist attitude in 1982 we would never have recaptured the Falklands then
Sadly you are being utterly ridiculous
You have no knowledge of the territory, our present capabilities, and the fact is we nearly didn't capture them in 1982
Indeed the loss of the Welsh guards at Bluff Cove was shocking as was the sinking of the Sheffield
1982 was very different to today
No, you are being a pathetic, defeatist wet lettuce.
The Argentine forces have also been so cut back since 1982 they are far weaker than they were then. Our submarines could sink the entire Argentine navy within a week
You have no idea just how controversial the sinking of the Belgrano was have you
I was the late Wyn Roberts driver at the following GE and we had to field many questions about that event as it was highly controversial
I do not know how old you are but to blithely talk of sinking the Argentine fleet in a week when I had to explain the sinking of one vessel shows how utterly out of touch you are
And his talk of torpedoing ships in harbour. What does he think the Navy have, Fairey ****ing Swordfish??
Spearfish torpedoes carried by our Astute class submarines are able to provide anti surface warfare capability as well as anti submarine warfare capability
Are you trolling us, or are you genuinely making what you consider to be a valid proposal? Stuff like this post could come back to haunt you when your political ambitions for high office are about to be realised.
No it wouldn't, any Tory seeking elected office, especially nationally not prepared to use all means necessary to defend the Falklands hasn't got a hope of being selected by the party, or indeed winning the country.
Are you really so deluded as to think the average member of the UK population, let alone the average Conservative member and the tabloids would not want as hard a response as possible to any Argentine threat to the Falklands?
Are you General Galtieri?
Galtieri never contemplated invading Scotland to be fair.
Scotland is part of the UK, there is no reason to invade part of the same sovereign country as England
@TLDRNewsUK 🇦🇷 Argentina has told the UK that it wants to start new talks over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands and has pulled out of a 2016 cooperation pact.
Could a Sunak Falklands moment save his chances of reelection?
Bloody hell not again. The Argentinians need to give this a rest.
Of course national fervour doesn't make sense, we have our own examples of that, but the Argentinian passion on this issue really doesn't seem to make sense to me when it's noted their claim to the islands is a rather technical one based on inheriting rights from former Spanish sovereignty, and talk about natives who don't exist. Yes there are other complexities, but the point being it's actually a rather arcane legal dispute, yet it's talked about in terms of colonialism as if someone seized Buenos Aires 2 years ago.
There is nothing Argentina can do about it anyway. The UK has a veto on any UN decision as a permanent member of the UN Security Council unlike them.
The UK also has a bigger navy and army and airforce than Argentina now
Have a look at an atlas. It's not the Persian Gulf.
Since the Falklands War there is also a bigger permanent British garrison on the islands, a Royal Navy ship on patrol there at all times and a Royal Navy nuclear submarine patrols regularly nearby (though the exact times and location of the latter are obviously classified)
"ship" is a posh way to describe a patrol boat. And the forces, at the far end of a long supply line, are very small.
I remember 1981 - you obviously don't.
Yes, Argentina has cut its armed forces back to far fewer than they were in Galtieri's day.
The UK does not have an army of 153,000. That is the total size of our armed forces - Army, Navy and Airforce - including reservists. Our regular army is just over 80,000 and there are another 30,000 reservists. And gven our other commitments, not least on the Eastern flank of NATO, how many of those do you seriously think we could deploy?
We are much stronger on the ground in the Falklands than we were in 1982 but at the same time much weaker overall. So I could see our forces putting up a reasonable defence but I am certainly not confident they could hold. And if they did fall then we have no chance at all of reclaiming the islands as we did in 1982.
Our commitments on the Eastern flank of NATO would obviously be temporarily abandoned given British sovereign territory had been invaded.
We have a bigger armed forces than Argentina's which are also far weaker than they were in 1982
I am sorry but you really are deluded. What we did in 1982 was extraordinary but we could do it now. We simply don't have the ships.
As an example in 1982 we sent 8 destroyers and 16 frigates as part of the task force (and that was not our entire contingent of those vessel types in the navy). The entire Royal Navy only has 6 destroyers and 12 frigates. And we don't have the crews even for all of those.
Yes we do. we have 10 times the submarines Argentina do, enough to sink most of the Argentine navy alone for starters.
We also have more surface ships too, Argentina now literally has just 1 destroyer and not a single frigate!
You do realise that the size of their navy is pretty much immaterial given they wouldn't be the ones trying to mount a recapture 8000 miles away? What mattered in 1982 was our ability to get men to the South Atlantic and retake the islands. We no longer have the capability to do that. As I said you are deluded. I will add remarkably ignorant as well.
Yes it is, we could sink their entire fleet whether in port in Buenos Aires or Falklands waters within a week.
Once that is done we then send the aircraft carriers to quickly support the Islands, using submarines to send missiles on any Argentine troops who have got on the islands in the meantime
I would suggest you get a cup of tea and a rich tea biscuit rather than continuing this nonsense
We should relax about this. No one - Argentina or anyone else - will be invading the Falklands at any time in the foreseeable future.
That being said, we are not going to be visited by aliens in the foreseeable future, but this doesn't stop us from discussing that! 😈
Not sure where this idea Argentina could invade has come from. Not only are its armed forces in a poor state and the country has no money but the Falklands are far better protected now than they were in 1982. Any Argentinian attack would fail full stop.
The Falklands are not actually that well protected. No heavy arty, just 4 RAF Typhoon, and so on.
ANd when did Typhoon have anti-shipping missiles? None planned tilol 2030 or so, IIRC.
Our submarines could sink the Argentine fleet within a week with Spearfish torpedoes
Absolutely not, Ukraine and Taiwan are not British Overseas Territory, the Falklands are.
By all means continue to supply Ukraine and with the US and Australia and Japan and S Korea try and deter China from invading Taiwan but the government's first job is to defend British territory
Taiwan falling would have a bigger impact on the UK than losing The Malvinas.
No it woudn't, we have not had a direct interest in the Far East since we handed back Hong Kong to China when our lease on it ran out.
Taiwan falling to Chinese invasion would be a far bigger threat to Japan and South Korea and indeed Australia and US power than to the UK now.
The Falkland Islands falling and being held by Argentina would however be a humiliation for the UK and hugely weaken our standing in the world
You mean, worse than Mr Johnson and Ms Truss? Really?
@TLDRNewsUK 🇦🇷 Argentina has told the UK that it wants to start new talks over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands and has pulled out of a 2016 cooperation pact.
Could a Sunak Falklands moment save his chances of reelection?
Bloody hell not again. The Argentinians need to give this a rest.
Of course national fervour doesn't make sense, we have our own examples of that, but the Argentinian passion on this issue really doesn't seem to make sense to me when it's noted their claim to the islands is a rather technical one based on inheriting rights from former Spanish sovereignty, and talk about natives who don't exist. Yes there are other complexities, but the point being it's actually a rather arcane legal dispute, yet it's talked about in terms of colonialism as if someone seized Buenos Aires 2 years ago.
There is nothing Argentina can do about it anyway. The UK has a veto on any UN decision as a permanent member of the UN Security Council unlike them.
The UK also has a bigger navy and army and airforce than Argentina now
Have a look at an atlas. It's not the Persian Gulf.
Since the Falklands War there is also a bigger permanent British garrison on the islands, a Royal Navy ship on patrol there at all times and a Royal Navy nuclear submarine patrols regularly nearby (though the exact times and location of the latter are obviously classified)
"ship" is a posh way to describe a patrol boat. And the forces, at the far end of a long supply line, are very small.
I remember 1981 - you obviously don't.
Yes, Argentina has cut its armed forces back to far fewer than they were in Galtieri's day.
The UK does not have an army of 153,000. That is the total size of our armed forces - Army, Navy and Airforce - including reservists. Our regular army is just over 80,000 and there are another 30,000 reservists. And gven our other commitments, not least on the Eastern flank of NATO, how many of those do you seriously think we could deploy?
We are much stronger on the ground in the Falklands than we were in 1982 but at the same time much weaker overall. So I could see our forces putting up a reasonable defence but I am certainly not confident they could hold. And if they did fall then we have no chance at all of reclaiming the islands as we did in 1982.
Our commitments on the Eastern flank of NATO would obviously be temporarily abandoned given British sovereign territory had been invaded.
We have a bigger armed forces than Argentina's which are also far weaker than they were in 1982
I am sorry but you really are deluded. What we did in 1982 was extraordinary but we could do it now. We simply don't have the ships.
As an example in 1982 we sent 8 destroyers and 16 frigates as part of the task force (and that was not our entire contingent of those vessel types in the navy). The entire Royal Navy only has 6 destroyers and 12 frigates. And we don't have the crews even for all of those.
Yes we do. we have 10 times the submarines Argentina do, enough to sink most of the Argentine navy alone for starters.
We also have more surface ships too, Argentina now literally has just 1 destroyer and not a single frigate!
You do realise that the size of their navy is pretty much immaterial given they wouldn't be the ones trying to mount a recapture 8000 miles away? What mattered in 1982 was our ability to get men to the South Atlantic and retake the islands. We no longer have the capability to do that. As I said you are deluded. I will add remarkably ignorant as well.
Yes it is, we could sink their entire fleet whether in port in Buenos Aires or Falklands waters within a week.
Once that is done we then send the aircraft carriers to quickly support the Islands, using submarines to send missiles on any Argentine troops who have got on the islands in the meantime
I would suggest you get a cup of tea and a rich tea biscuit rather than continuing this nonsense
We should relax about this. No one - Argentina or anyone else - will be invading the Falklands at any time in the foreseeable future.
That being said, we are not going to be visited by aliens in the foreseeable future, but this doesn't stop us from discussing that! 😈
Not sure where this idea Argentina could invade has come from. Not only are its armed forces in a poor state and the country has no money but the Falklands are far better protected now than they were in 1982. Any Argentinian attack would fail full stop.
The Falklands are not actually that well protected. No heavy arty, just 4 RAF Typhoon, and so on.
ANd when did Typhoon have anti-shipping missiles? None planned tilol 2030 or so, IIRC.
Our submarines could sink the Argentine fleet within a week with Spearfish torpedoes
And where are the submarines most of the time? And where can they replenish?
@TLDRNewsUK 🇦🇷 Argentina has told the UK that it wants to start new talks over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands and has pulled out of a 2016 cooperation pact.
Could a Sunak Falklands moment save his chances of reelection?
Bloody hell not again. The Argentinians need to give this a rest.
Of course national fervour doesn't make sense, we have our own examples of that, but the Argentinian passion on this issue really doesn't seem to make sense to me when it's noted their claim to the islands is a rather technical one based on inheriting rights from former Spanish sovereignty, and talk about natives who don't exist. Yes there are other complexities, but the point being it's actually a rather arcane legal dispute, yet it's talked about in terms of colonialism as if someone seized Buenos Aires 2 years ago.
There is nothing Argentina can do about it anyway. The UK has a veto on any UN decision as a permanent member of the UN Security Council unlike them.
The UK also has a bigger navy and army and airforce than Argentina now
Have a look at an atlas. It's not the Persian Gulf.
Since the Falklands War there is also a bigger permanent British garrison on the islands, a Royal Navy ship on patrol there at all times and a Royal Navy nuclear submarine patrols regularly nearby (though the exact times and location of the latter are obviously classified)
"ship" is a posh way to describe a patrol boat. And the forces, at the far end of a long supply line, are very small.
I remember 1981 - you obviously don't.
Yes, Argentina has cut its armed forces back to far fewer than they were in Galtieri's day.
The UK does not have an army of 153,000. That is the total size of our armed forces - Army, Navy and Airforce - including reservists. Our regular army is just over 80,000 and there are another 30,000 reservists. And gven our other commitments, not least on the Eastern flank of NATO, how many of those do you seriously think we could deploy?
We are much stronger on the ground in the Falklands than we were in 1982 but at the same time much weaker overall. So I could see our forces putting up a reasonable defence but I am certainly not confident they could hold. And if they did fall then we have no chance at all of reclaiming the islands as we did in 1982.
Our commitments on the Eastern flank of NATO would obviously be temporarily abandoned given British sovereign territory had been invaded.
We have a bigger armed forces than Argentina's which are also far weaker than they were in 1982
I am sorry but you really are deluded. What we did in 1982 was extraordinary but we could do it now. We simply don't have the ships.
As an example in 1982 we sent 8 destroyers and 16 frigates as part of the task force (and that was not our entire contingent of those vessel types in the navy). The entire Royal Navy only has 6 destroyers and 12 frigates. And we don't have the crews even for all of those.
Yes we do. we have 10 times the submarines Argentina do, enough to sink most of the Argentine navy alone for starters.
We also have more surface ships too, Argentina now literally has just 1 destroyer and not a single frigate!
You do realise that the size of their navy is pretty much immaterial given they wouldn't be the ones trying to mount a recapture 8000 miles away? What mattered in 1982 was our ability to get men to the South Atlantic and retake the islands. We no longer have the capability to do that. As I said you are deluded. I will add remarkably ignorant as well.
Yes it is, we could sink their entire fleet whether in port in Buenos Aires or Falklands waters within a week.
Once that is done we then send the aircraft carriers to quickly recapture the Islands, using submarines to send missiles on any Argentine troops still on the islands in the meantime
Fucking hell.
Any missile strike on the Falklands is likely to wipe out the Islanders as well.
Not if well targeted, a Tomahawk missile or 2 would do the trick
On this one, I don't think the Argentine Air Force currently has a single war plane that can fly to the Falklands. A couple of transports, but that's about it, afaics.
I'd say the greatest threat to the Falklands for the next 15-20 years is Treasury salami-slicing, or if China buys Argentina.
@TLDRNewsUK 🇦🇷 Argentina has told the UK that it wants to start new talks over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands and has pulled out of a 2016 cooperation pact.
Could a Sunak Falklands moment save his chances of reelection?
Bloody hell not again. The Argentinians need to give this a rest.
Of course national fervour doesn't make sense, we have our own examples of that, but the Argentinian passion on this issue really doesn't seem to make sense to me when it's noted their claim to the islands is a rather technical one based on inheriting rights from former Spanish sovereignty, and talk about natives who don't exist. Yes there are other complexities, but the point being it's actually a rather arcane legal dispute, yet it's talked about in terms of colonialism as if someone seized Buenos Aires 2 years ago.
There is nothing Argentina can do about it anyway. The UK has a veto on any UN decision as a permanent member of the UN Security Council unlike them.
The UK also has a bigger navy and army and airforce than Argentina now
The Argies forces must be minuscule!
Google tells me Arg: 70,600 (2022) vs UK 78,000 (2020). Not sure if this is chalk and apples eg whole of HMF vs army...but it's a close run thing.
We absolutely couldn't mount another Falklands tomorrow morning that's for sure.
From what I’ve seen of the Argentine navy in Ushuaia they could barely crew one ship
However all this is replying to the mood music of Britain in retreat. Giving up the Elgin marbles. Handing back Diego Garcia. London shrinking as a world city
I can see why the argies might think now is a time to strike - psychologically - as the Uk seems in perpetual decline and in a funk of self doubt
They can think what they want, the UK on its own could still beat most nations in a war apart from the US and China, France and India would probably be a stalemate, Russia can't even beat Ukraine.
Argentina also has declined well past its peak when it was one of the wealthiest nations in the world, even in the Falklands war it had far bigger armed forces than now
Have a look at the RN and RAF in 1981 vs today - abvoe all the long range stuff.
And the Merchant Navy, when it comes to the critical STUFT ships of 1981
The Army is about as useful as a fart in a hurricane without those two when it comes to the Flaklands.
Yes we have enough submarines to sink most of the Argentine navy within a day or 2.
Plus enough aircraft carriers and submarines with Cruise Missiles to bomb the Argentine army into submission too if they ever tried invading the Falklands again even without setting any troops on land beyond the garrison already there
What a pathetic post and as so often you just talk codswallop
Indeed having been to the remote Falkland Islands with its rugged terrain and cliff lined coasts with hundreds of Islands and inlets makes it a very difficult place to wage warfare and anyway the whole idea is ridiculous
Weak, wet, pathetic, useless. If Thatcher had had your defeatist attitude in 1982 we would never have recaptured the Falklands then
Sadly you are being utterly ridiculous
You have no knowledge of the territory, our present capabilities, and the fact is we nearly didn't capture them in 1982
Indeed the loss of the Welsh guards at Bluff Cove was shocking as was the sinking of the Sheffield
1982 was very different to today
No, you are being a pathetic, defeatist wet lettuce.
The Argentine forces have also been so cut back since 1982 they are far weaker than they were then. Our submarines could sink the entire Argentine navy within a week
You have no idea just how controversial the sinking of the Belgrano was have you
I was the late Wyn Roberts driver at the following GE and we had to field many questions about that event as it was highly controversial
I do not know how old you are but to blithely talk of sinking the Argentine fleet in a week when I had to explain the sinking of one vessel shows how utterly out of touch you are
And his talk of torpedoing ships in harbour. What does he think the Navy have, Fairey ****ing Swordfish??
Spearfish torpedoes carried by our Astute class submarines are able to provide anti surface warfare capability as well as anti submarine warfare capability
Are you trolling us, or are you genuinely making what you consider to be a valid proposal? Stuff like this post could come back to haunt you when your political ambitions for high office are about to be realised.
No it wouldn't, any Tory seeking elected office, especially nationally not prepared to use all means necessary to defend the Falklands hasn't got a hope of being selected by the party, or indeed winning the country.
Are you really so deluded as to think the average member of the UK population, let alone the average Conservative member and the tabloids would not want as hard a response as possible to any Argentine threat to the Falklands?
Are you General Galtieri?
Galtieri never contemplated invading Scotland to be fair.
Scotland is part of the UK, there is no reason to invade part of the same sovereign country as England
Your brand of comedy is quite remarkable, an acquired taste but remarkable nonetheless, and you are on fire tonight.
BJO seems to have never taken part in any Labour leadership election.
Compare what Corbyn said before and after he became leader.
Compare what Ed M said before and after he became leader.
Compare what Gordon Brown said before and after he became leader.
Compare what Tony Blair said before and after he became leader.
Compare what John Smith said before and after he became leader.
Labour leaders always go left wing in leadership contests and then move more to the centre when elected. The degree to which they do is the difference, not what they say before they are elected.
I said here at the time, KS will not do anything he said he would do, his promises were incredibly vague so as to be irrelevant. And that's before the left decided to self-destruct and try to bring him down from literally day two of him being voted in.
"Why did you sit in Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet for three years when anti-semitism was rife in the Labour Party?"
No answer to that I've heard.....
If that's the best you have got I don't think Starmer has much to worry about. He's shown where he stands by throwing Corbyn out of the party on that very issue. It won't move a thousand votes.
Tony Blair said Thatcher's reforms had destroyed society. They tried to bring this up in 1997 and people said the Tories are crap, why are you still living in the 1980s
@TLDRNewsUK 🇦🇷 Argentina has told the UK that it wants to start new talks over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands and has pulled out of a 2016 cooperation pact.
Could a Sunak Falklands moment save his chances of reelection?
Bloody hell not again. The Argentinians need to give this a rest.
Of course national fervour doesn't make sense, we have our own examples of that, but the Argentinian passion on this issue really doesn't seem to make sense to me when it's noted their claim to the islands is a rather technical one based on inheriting rights from former Spanish sovereignty, and talk about natives who don't exist. Yes there are other complexities, but the point being it's actually a rather arcane legal dispute, yet it's talked about in terms of colonialism as if someone seized Buenos Aires 2 years ago.
There is nothing Argentina can do about it anyway. The UK has a veto on any UN decision as a permanent member of the UN Security Council unlike them.
The UK also has a bigger navy and army and airforce than Argentina now
Have a look at an atlas. It's not the Persian Gulf.
Since the Falklands War there is also a bigger permanent British garrison on the islands, a Royal Navy ship on patrol there at all times and a Royal Navy nuclear submarine patrols regularly nearby (though the exact times and location of the latter are obviously classified)
"ship" is a posh way to describe a patrol boat. And the forces, at the far end of a long supply line, are very small.
I remember 1981 - you obviously don't.
Yes, Argentina has cut its armed forces back to far fewer than they were in Galtieri's day.
The UK does not have an army of 153,000. That is the total size of our armed forces - Army, Navy and Airforce - including reservists. Our regular army is just over 80,000 and there are another 30,000 reservists. And gven our other commitments, not least on the Eastern flank of NATO, how many of those do you seriously think we could deploy?
We are much stronger on the ground in the Falklands than we were in 1982 but at the same time much weaker overall. So I could see our forces putting up a reasonable defence but I am certainly not confident they could hold. And if they did fall then we have no chance at all of reclaiming the islands as we did in 1982.
Our commitments on the Eastern flank of NATO would obviously be temporarily abandoned given British sovereign territory had been invaded.
We have a bigger armed forces than Argentina's which are also far weaker than they were in 1982
I am sorry but you really are deluded. What we did in 1982 was extraordinary but we could do it now. We simply don't have the ships.
As an example in 1982 we sent 8 destroyers and 16 frigates as part of the task force (and that was not our entire contingent of those vessel types in the navy). The entire Royal Navy only has 6 destroyers and 12 frigates. And we don't have the crews even for all of those.
Yes we do. we have 10 times the submarines Argentina do, enough to sink most of the Argentine navy alone for starters.
We also have more surface ships too, Argentina now literally has just 1 destroyer and not a single frigate!
You do realise that the size of their navy is pretty much immaterial given they wouldn't be the ones trying to mount a recapture 8000 miles away? What mattered in 1982 was our ability to get men to the South Atlantic and retake the islands. We no longer have the capability to do that. As I said you are deluded. I will add remarkably ignorant as well.
Yes it is, we could sink their entire fleet whether in port in Buenos Aires or Falklands waters within a week.
Once that is done we then send the aircraft carriers to quickly support the Islands, using submarines to send missiles on any Argentine troops who have got on the islands in the meantime
I would suggest you get a cup of tea and a rich tea biscuit rather than continuing this nonsense
We should relax about this. No one - Argentina or anyone else - will be invading the Falklands at any time in the foreseeable future.
That being said, we are not going to be visited by aliens in the foreseeable future, but this doesn't stop us from discussing that! 😈
Not sure where this idea Argentina could invade has come from. Not only are its armed forces in a poor state and the country has no money but the Falklands are far better protected now than they were in 1982. Any Argentinian attack would fail full stop.
The Falklands are not actually that well protected. No heavy arty, just 4 RAF Typhoon, and so on.
ANd when did Typhoon have anti-shipping missiles? None planned tilol 2030 or so, IIRC.
Our submarines could sink the Argentine fleet within a week with Spearfish torpedoes
And where are the submarines most of the time? And where can they replenish?
Our submarines are now able to remain at sea for months at a time without needing to replenish, they could sink the entire Argentine fleet within a week
@TLDRNewsUK 🇦🇷 Argentina has told the UK that it wants to start new talks over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands and has pulled out of a 2016 cooperation pact.
Could a Sunak Falklands moment save his chances of reelection?
Bloody hell not again. The Argentinians need to give this a rest.
Of course national fervour doesn't make sense, we have our own examples of that, but the Argentinian passion on this issue really doesn't seem to make sense to me when it's noted their claim to the islands is a rather technical one based on inheriting rights from former Spanish sovereignty, and talk about natives who don't exist. Yes there are other complexities, but the point being it's actually a rather arcane legal dispute, yet it's talked about in terms of colonialism as if someone seized Buenos Aires 2 years ago.
There is nothing Argentina can do about it anyway. The UK has a veto on any UN decision as a permanent member of the UN Security Council unlike them.
The UK also has a bigger navy and army and airforce than Argentina now
Have a look at an atlas. It's not the Persian Gulf.
Since the Falklands War there is also a bigger permanent British garrison on the islands, a Royal Navy ship on patrol there at all times and a Royal Navy nuclear submarine patrols regularly nearby (though the exact times and location of the latter are obviously classified)
"ship" is a posh way to describe a patrol boat. And the forces, at the far end of a long supply line, are very small.
I remember 1981 - you obviously don't.
Yes, Argentina has cut its armed forces back to far fewer than they were in Galtieri's day.
The UK does not have an army of 153,000. That is the total size of our armed forces - Army, Navy and Airforce - including reservists. Our regular army is just over 80,000 and there are another 30,000 reservists. And gven our other commitments, not least on the Eastern flank of NATO, how many of those do you seriously think we could deploy?
We are much stronger on the ground in the Falklands than we were in 1982 but at the same time much weaker overall. So I could see our forces putting up a reasonable defence but I am certainly not confident they could hold. And if they did fall then we have no chance at all of reclaiming the islands as we did in 1982.
Our commitments on the Eastern flank of NATO would obviously be temporarily abandoned given British sovereign territory had been invaded.
We have a bigger armed forces than Argentina's which are also far weaker than they were in 1982
I am sorry but you really are deluded. What we did in 1982 was extraordinary but we could do it now. We simply don't have the ships.
As an example in 1982 we sent 8 destroyers and 16 frigates as part of the task force (and that was not our entire contingent of those vessel types in the navy). The entire Royal Navy only has 6 destroyers and 12 frigates. And we don't have the crews even for all of those.
Yes we do. we have 10 times the submarines Argentina do, enough to sink most of the Argentine navy alone for starters.
We also have more surface ships too, Argentina now literally has just 1 destroyer and not a single frigate!
You do realise that the size of their navy is pretty much immaterial given they wouldn't be the ones trying to mount a recapture 8000 miles away? What mattered in 1982 was our ability to get men to the South Atlantic and retake the islands. We no longer have the capability to do that. As I said you are deluded. I will add remarkably ignorant as well.
Yes it is, we could sink their entire fleet whether in port in Buenos Aires or Falklands waters within a week.
Once that is done we then send the aircraft carriers to quickly support the Islands, using submarines to send missiles on any Argentine troops who have got on the islands in the meantime
I would suggest you get a cup of tea and a rich tea biscuit rather than continuing this nonsense
We should relax about this. No one - Argentina or anyone else - will be invading the Falklands at any time in the foreseeable future.
That being said, we are not going to be visited by aliens in the foreseeable future, but this doesn't stop us from discussing that! 😈
Not sure where this idea Argentina could invade has come from. Not only are its armed forces in a poor state and the country has no money but the Falklands are far better protected now than they were in 1982. Any Argentinian attack would fail full stop.
The Falklands are not actually that well protected. No heavy arty, just 4 RAF Typhoon, and so on.
ANd when did Typhoon have anti-shipping missiles? None planned tilol 2030 or so, IIRC.
Whilst that's true, attacking is always much harder than defending: and that's doubly so for a contested maritime landing. In addition, it's likely our troops are rather better trained than the Argentinians.
I've long been of the view that with the current state of forces, the 'best' way for Argentina to get the Falklands would be to team up with another country: say Brazil. That would provide the UK with a much more difficult military and diplomatic situation.
But Argentina on its own, in the next decade? Unless something remarkable happens, then it's really unlikely.
Is HYUFD that same bloke as the one on Twitter who posts on every Tory tweet, Big Alba or whatever their name is, they have a very similar posting style + they talk about the Falklands and Scotland a lot
Not sure the people who actually live there would agree but I’m sure they would appreciate someone miles away telling them they can’t belong to whichever country they want to.
I think we tried telling people who they belonged to a while ago and that isn’t looked back on particularly well these days. Self-determination and all that.
Edit, sorry just saw you referred to them as the Malvinas so you will clearly be happy to give the falklands to the French who have a better claim than Argentina. The people of St Malo send their thanks and support to you.
No, that's Les Isles Malouines. Malvinas is defo Argy.
Absolutely not, Ukraine and Taiwan are not British Overseas Territory, the Falklands are.
By all means continue to supply Ukraine and with the US and Australia and Japan and S Korea try and deter China from invading Taiwan but the government's first job is to defend British territory
Taiwan falling would have a bigger impact on the UK than losing The Malvinas.
No it woudn't, we have not had a direct interest in the Far East since we handed back Hong Kong to China when our lease on it ran out.
Taiwan falling to Chinese invasion would be a far bigger threat to Japan and South Korea and indeed Australia and US power than to the UK now.
The Falkland Islands falling and being held by Argentina would however be a humiliation for the UK and hugely weaken our standing in the world
The world economy will seize up if China invades Taiwan.
It will make the last few years look like the golden years.
So what, that hits the whole world, it doesn't weaken the UKs relative position like losing the Falklands would
Plenty of attack lines against SKS best saved for nearer a GE methinks
He is a Liar of Johnson proportions, changes his mind about everything, has no principles at all, cant be trusted etc etc etc
1. He may well be a liar, but he's not a liar of Johnson proportions. 2. Changing your mind when the facts change is not a weakness, it's a strength. Unbending views in an ever changing world is the weakness.
1. He makes Johnson look like an amateur
2. About everything, whether or not facts have changed, makes him completely unsuitable
Is HYUFD that same bloke as the one on Twitter who posts on every Tory tweet, Big Alba or whatever their name is, they have a very similar posting style + they talk about the Falklands and Scotland a lot
Starmer in some ways has something Cameron had. Totally different characters and one hopes Starmer is a much better PM than that chancer, but in the sense that he infuriates opponents who struggled to land blows because could only see through the prism of their politics. Both know their party's perceived weaknesses and are pretty relentless at addressing them. Labour struggled to brand Cameron another heartless Tory when made sure the NHS got its cash and made caring noises, despite saying with some justification that the latter were a PR con trick. The Tories can't brand Starmer a mad leftie - mad lefties don't tend to have been DPP - nor a fanatical remainer when he annoys those who are by sticking to the line that needs to make Brexit work. Think people recognise he's a pragmatist and after Truss and Johnson wildly flailing around that might just have an appeal.
@TLDRNewsUK 🇦🇷 Argentina has told the UK that it wants to start new talks over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands and has pulled out of a 2016 cooperation pact.
Could a Sunak Falklands moment save his chances of reelection?
Bloody hell not again. The Argentinians need to give this a rest.
Of course national fervour doesn't make sense, we have our own examples of that, but the Argentinian passion on this issue really doesn't seem to make sense to me when it's noted their claim to the islands is a rather technical one based on inheriting rights from former Spanish sovereignty, and talk about natives who don't exist. Yes there are other complexities, but the point being it's actually a rather arcane legal dispute, yet it's talked about in terms of colonialism as if someone seized Buenos Aires 2 years ago.
There is nothing Argentina can do about it anyway. The UK has a veto on any UN decision as a permanent member of the UN Security Council unlike them.
The UK also has a bigger navy and army and airforce than Argentina now
Have a look at an atlas. It's not the Persian Gulf.
Since the Falklands War there is also a bigger permanent British garrison on the islands, a Royal Navy ship on patrol there at all times and a Royal Navy nuclear submarine patrols regularly nearby (though the exact times and location of the latter are obviously classified)
"ship" is a posh way to describe a patrol boat. And the forces, at the far end of a long supply line, are very small.
I remember 1981 - you obviously don't.
Yes, Argentina has cut its armed forces back to far fewer than they were in Galtieri's day.
The UK does not have an army of 153,000. That is the total size of our armed forces - Army, Navy and Airforce - including reservists. Our regular army is just over 80,000 and there are another 30,000 reservists. And gven our other commitments, not least on the Eastern flank of NATO, how many of those do you seriously think we could deploy?
We are much stronger on the ground in the Falklands than we were in 1982 but at the same time much weaker overall. So I could see our forces putting up a reasonable defence but I am certainly not confident they could hold. And if they did fall then we have no chance at all of reclaiming the islands as we did in 1982.
Our commitments on the Eastern flank of NATO would obviously be temporarily abandoned given British sovereign territory had been invaded.
We have a bigger armed forces than Argentina's which are also far weaker than they were in 1982
I am sorry but you really are deluded. What we did in 1982 was extraordinary but we could do it now. We simply don't have the ships.
As an example in 1982 we sent 8 destroyers and 16 frigates as part of the task force (and that was not our entire contingent of those vessel types in the navy). The entire Royal Navy only has 6 destroyers and 12 frigates. And we don't have the crews even for all of those.
Yes we do. we have 10 times the submarines Argentina do, enough to sink most of the Argentine navy alone for starters.
We also have more surface ships too, Argentina now literally has just 1 destroyer and not a single frigate!
You do realise that the size of their navy is pretty much immaterial given they wouldn't be the ones trying to mount a recapture 8000 miles away? What mattered in 1982 was our ability to get men to the South Atlantic and retake the islands. We no longer have the capability to do that. As I said you are deluded. I will add remarkably ignorant as well.
Yes it is, we could sink their entire fleet whether in port in Buenos Aires or Falklands waters within a week.
Once that is done we then send the aircraft carriers to quickly support the Islands, using submarines to send missiles on any Argentine troops who have got on the islands in the meantime
I would suggest you get a cup of tea and a rich tea biscuit rather than continuing this nonsense
We should relax about this. No one - Argentina or anyone else - will be invading the Falklands at any time in the foreseeable future.
That being said, we are not going to be visited by aliens in the foreseeable future, but this doesn't stop us from discussing that! 😈
Not sure where this idea Argentina could invade has come from. Not only are its armed forces in a poor state and the country has no money but the Falklands are far better protected now than they were in 1982. Any Argentinian attack would fail full stop.
The Falklands are not actually that well protected. No heavy arty, just 4 RAF Typhoon, and so on.
ANd when did Typhoon have anti-shipping missiles? None planned tilol 2030 or so, IIRC.
Whilst that's true, attacking is always much harder than defending: and that's doubly so for a contested maritime landing. In addition, it's likely our troops are rather better trained than the Argentinians.
I've long been of the view that with the current state of forces, the 'best' way for Argentina to get the Falklands would be to team up with another country: say Brazil. That would provide the UK with a much more difficult military and diplomatic situation.
But Argentina on its own, in the next decade? Unless something remarkable happens, then it's really unlikely.
Given Brazil and Argentina are rivals very unlikely
@TLDRNewsUK 🇦🇷 Argentina has told the UK that it wants to start new talks over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands and has pulled out of a 2016 cooperation pact.
Could a Sunak Falklands moment save his chances of reelection?
Bloody hell not again. The Argentinians need to give this a rest.
Of course national fervour doesn't make sense, we have our own examples of that, but the Argentinian passion on this issue really doesn't seem to make sense to me when it's noted their claim to the islands is a rather technical one based on inheriting rights from former Spanish sovereignty, and talk about natives who don't exist. Yes there are other complexities, but the point being it's actually a rather arcane legal dispute, yet it's talked about in terms of colonialism as if someone seized Buenos Aires 2 years ago.
There is nothing Argentina can do about it anyway. The UK has a veto on any UN decision as a permanent member of the UN Security Council unlike them.
The UK also has a bigger navy and army and airforce than Argentina now
Have a look at an atlas. It's not the Persian Gulf.
Since the Falklands War there is also a bigger permanent British garrison on the islands, a Royal Navy ship on patrol there at all times and a Royal Navy nuclear submarine patrols regularly nearby (though the exact times and location of the latter are obviously classified)
"ship" is a posh way to describe a patrol boat. And the forces, at the far end of a long supply line, are very small.
I remember 1981 - you obviously don't.
Yes, Argentina has cut its armed forces back to far fewer than they were in Galtieri's day.
The UK does not have an army of 153,000. That is the total size of our armed forces - Army, Navy and Airforce - including reservists. Our regular army is just over 80,000 and there are another 30,000 reservists. And gven our other commitments, not least on the Eastern flank of NATO, how many of those do you seriously think we could deploy?
We are much stronger on the ground in the Falklands than we were in 1982 but at the same time much weaker overall. So I could see our forces putting up a reasonable defence but I am certainly not confident they could hold. And if they did fall then we have no chance at all of reclaiming the islands as we did in 1982.
Our commitments on the Eastern flank of NATO would obviously be temporarily abandoned given British sovereign territory had been invaded.
We have a bigger armed forces than Argentina's which are also far weaker than they were in 1982
I am sorry but you really are deluded. What we did in 1982 was extraordinary but we could do it now. We simply don't have the ships.
As an example in 1982 we sent 8 destroyers and 16 frigates as part of the task force (and that was not our entire contingent of those vessel types in the navy). The entire Royal Navy only has 6 destroyers and 12 frigates. And we don't have the crews even for all of those.
Yes we do. we have 10 times the submarines Argentina do, enough to sink most of the Argentine navy alone for starters.
We also have more surface ships too, Argentina now literally has just 1 destroyer and not a single frigate!
You do realise that the size of their navy is pretty much immaterial given they wouldn't be the ones trying to mount a recapture 8000 miles away? What mattered in 1982 was our ability to get men to the South Atlantic and retake the islands. We no longer have the capability to do that. As I said you are deluded. I will add remarkably ignorant as well.
Yes it is, we could sink their entire fleet whether in port in Buenos Aires or Falklands waters within a week.
Once that is done we then send the aircraft carriers to quickly recapture the Islands, using submarines to send missiles on any Argentine troops still on the islands in the meantime
Fucking hell.
Any missile strike on the Falklands is likely to wipe out the Islanders as well.
Not if well targeted, a Tomahawk missile or 2 would do the trick
On this one, I don't think the Argentine Air Force currently has a single war plane that can fly to the Falklands. A couple of transports, but that's about it, afaics.
I'd say the greatest threat to the Falklands for the next 15-20 years is Treasury salami-slicing, or if China buys Argentina.
@TLDRNewsUK 🇦🇷 Argentina has told the UK that it wants to start new talks over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands and has pulled out of a 2016 cooperation pact.
Could a Sunak Falklands moment save his chances of reelection?
Bloody hell not again. The Argentinians need to give this a rest.
Of course national fervour doesn't make sense, we have our own examples of that, but the Argentinian passion on this issue really doesn't seem to make sense to me when it's noted their claim to the islands is a rather technical one based on inheriting rights from former Spanish sovereignty, and talk about natives who don't exist. Yes there are other complexities, but the point being it's actually a rather arcane legal dispute, yet it's talked about in terms of colonialism as if someone seized Buenos Aires 2 years ago.
There is nothing Argentina can do about it anyway. The UK has a veto on any UN decision as a permanent member of the UN Security Council unlike them.
The UK also has a bigger navy and army and airforce than Argentina now
The Argies forces must be minuscule!
Google tells me Arg: 70,600 (2022) vs UK 78,000 (2020). Not sure if this is chalk and apples eg whole of HMF vs army...but it's a close run thing.
We absolutely couldn't mount another Falklands tomorrow morning that's for sure.
From what I’ve seen of the Argentine navy in Ushuaia they could barely crew one ship
However all this is replying to the mood music of Britain in retreat. Giving up the Elgin marbles. Handing back Diego Garcia. London shrinking as a world city
I can see why the argies might think now is a time to strike - psychologically - as the Uk seems in perpetual decline and in a funk of self doubt
They can think what they want, the UK on its own could still beat most nations in a war apart from the US and China, France and India would probably be a stalemate, Russia can't even beat Ukraine.
Argentina also has declined well past its peak when it was one of the wealthiest nations in the world, even in the Falklands war it had far bigger armed forces than now
Have a look at the RN and RAF in 1981 vs today - abvoe all the long range stuff.
And the Merchant Navy, when it comes to the critical STUFT ships of 1981
The Army is about as useful as a fart in a hurricane without those two when it comes to the Flaklands.
Yes we have enough submarines to sink most of the Argentine navy within a day or 2.
Plus enough aircraft carriers and submarines with Cruise Missiles to bomb the Argentine army into submission too if they ever tried invading the Falklands again even without setting any troops on land beyond the garrison already there
What a pathetic post and as so often you just talk codswallop
Indeed having been to the remote Falkland Islands with its rugged terrain and cliff lined coasts with hundreds of Islands and inlets makes it a very difficult place to wage warfare and anyway the whole idea is ridiculous
Weak, wet, pathetic, useless. If Thatcher had had your defeatist attitude in 1982 we would never have recaptured the Falklands then
Sadly you are being utterly ridiculous
You have no knowledge of the territory, our present capabilities, and the fact is we nearly didn't capture them in 1982
Indeed the loss of the Welsh guards at Bluff Cove was shocking as was the sinking of the Sheffield
1982 was very different to today
No, you are being a pathetic, defeatist wet lettuce.
The Argentine forces have also been so cut back since 1982 they are far weaker than they were then. Our submarines could sink the entire Argentine navy within a week
You have no idea just how controversial the sinking of the Belgrano was have you
I was the late Wyn Roberts driver at the following GE and we had to field many questions about that event as it was highly controversial
I do not know how old you are but to blithely talk of sinking the Argentine fleet in a week when I had to explain the sinking of one vessel shows how utterly out of touch you are
And his talk of torpedoing ships in harbour. What does he think the Navy have, Fairey ****ing Swordfish??
Spearfish torpedoes carried by our Astute class submarines are able to provide anti surface warfare capability as well as anti submarine warfare capability
Are you trolling us, or are you genuinely making what you consider to be a valid proposal? Stuff like this post could come back to haunt you when your political ambitions for high office are about to be realised.
No it wouldn't, any Tory seeking elected office, especially nationally not prepared to use all means necessary to defend the Falklands hasn't got a hope of being selected by the party, or indeed winning the country.
Are you really so deluded as to think the average member of the UK population, let alone the average Conservative member and the tabloids would not want as hard a response as possible to any Argentine threat to the Falklands?
Are you General Galtieri?
Galtieri never contemplated invading Scotland to be fair.
Scotland is part of the UK, there is no reason to invade part of the same sovereign country as England
Your brand of comedy is quite remarkable, an acquired taste but remarkable nonetheless, and you are on fire tonight.
The left thinking defending UK territory is 'comedy' is partly why you have lost 4 general elections in a row! At least Sir Keir is somewhat more of a patriot at least
@TLDRNewsUK 🇦🇷 Argentina has told the UK that it wants to start new talks over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands and has pulled out of a 2016 cooperation pact.
Could a Sunak Falklands moment save his chances of reelection?
Bloody hell not again. The Argentinians need to give this a rest.
Of course national fervour doesn't make sense, we have our own examples of that, but the Argentinian passion on this issue really doesn't seem to make sense to me when it's noted their claim to the islands is a rather technical one based on inheriting rights from former Spanish sovereignty, and talk about natives who don't exist. Yes there are other complexities, but the point being it's actually a rather arcane legal dispute, yet it's talked about in terms of colonialism as if someone seized Buenos Aires 2 years ago.
There is nothing Argentina can do about it anyway. The UK has a veto on any UN decision as a permanent member of the UN Security Council unlike them.
The UK also has a bigger navy and army and airforce than Argentina now
Have a look at an atlas. It's not the Persian Gulf.
Since the Falklands War there is also a bigger permanent British garrison on the islands, a Royal Navy ship on patrol there at all times and a Royal Navy nuclear submarine patrols regularly nearby (though the exact times and location of the latter are obviously classified)
"ship" is a posh way to describe a patrol boat. And the forces, at the far end of a long supply line, are very small.
I remember 1981 - you obviously don't.
Yes, Argentina has cut its armed forces back to far fewer than they were in Galtieri's day.
The UK does not have an army of 153,000. That is the total size of our armed forces - Army, Navy and Airforce - including reservists. Our regular army is just over 80,000 and there are another 30,000 reservists. And gven our other commitments, not least on the Eastern flank of NATO, how many of those do you seriously think we could deploy?
We are much stronger on the ground in the Falklands than we were in 1982 but at the same time much weaker overall. So I could see our forces putting up a reasonable defence but I am certainly not confident they could hold. And if they did fall then we have no chance at all of reclaiming the islands as we did in 1982.
Our commitments on the Eastern flank of NATO would obviously be temporarily abandoned given British sovereign territory had been invaded.
We have a bigger armed forces than Argentina's which are also far weaker than they were in 1982
I am sorry but you really are deluded. What we did in 1982 was extraordinary but we could do it now. We simply don't have the ships.
As an example in 1982 we sent 8 destroyers and 16 frigates as part of the task force (and that was not our entire contingent of those vessel types in the navy). The entire Royal Navy only has 6 destroyers and 12 frigates. And we don't have the crews even for all of those.
Yes we do. we have 10 times the submarines Argentina do, enough to sink most of the Argentine navy alone for starters.
We also have more surface ships too, Argentina now literally has just 1 destroyer and not a single frigate!
You do realise that the size of their navy is pretty much immaterial given they wouldn't be the ones trying to mount a recapture 8000 miles away? What mattered in 1982 was our ability to get men to the South Atlantic and retake the islands. We no longer have the capability to do that. As I said you are deluded. I will add remarkably ignorant as well.
Yes it is, we could sink their entire fleet whether in port in Buenos Aires or Falklands waters within a week.
Once that is done we then send the aircraft carriers to quickly support the Islands, using submarines to send missiles on any Argentine troops who have got on the islands in the meantime
I would suggest you get a cup of tea and a rich tea biscuit rather than continuing this nonsense
We should relax about this. No one - Argentina or anyone else - will be invading the Falklands at any time in the foreseeable future.
That being said, we are not going to be visited by aliens in the foreseeable future, but this doesn't stop us from discussing that! 😈
Not sure where this idea Argentina could invade has come from. Not only are its armed forces in a poor state and the country has no money but the Falklands are far better protected now than they were in 1982. Any Argentinian attack would fail full stop.
The Falklands are not actually that well protected. No heavy arty, just 4 RAF Typhoon, and so on.
ANd when did Typhoon have anti-shipping missiles? None planned tilol 2030 or so, IIRC.
Whilst that's true, attacking is always much harder than defending: and that's doubly so for a contested maritime landing. In addition, it's likely our troops are rather better trained than the Argentinians.
I've long been of the view that with the current state of forces, the 'best' way for Argentina to get the Falklands would be to team up with another country: say Brazil. That would provide the UK with a much more difficult military and diplomatic situation.
But Argentina on its own, in the next decade? Unless something remarkable happens, then it's really unlikely.
There are two other major risks (a) something underhand (coup de main, drones, S-300 on a cargo ship, and so on), and (b) ditto only UK (Treasury) as one of us has pointed out. It's early days yet, and if the Argentinians start rearming it will be much more worrying. Even making the UK increase its garrison will pose a huge strain on MoD.
@TLDRNewsUK 🇦🇷 Argentina has told the UK that it wants to start new talks over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands and has pulled out of a 2016 cooperation pact.
Could a Sunak Falklands moment save his chances of reelection?
Bloody hell not again. The Argentinians need to give this a rest.
Of course national fervour doesn't make sense, we have our own examples of that, but the Argentinian passion on this issue really doesn't seem to make sense to me when it's noted their claim to the islands is a rather technical one based on inheriting rights from former Spanish sovereignty, and talk about natives who don't exist. Yes there are other complexities, but the point being it's actually a rather arcane legal dispute, yet it's talked about in terms of colonialism as if someone seized Buenos Aires 2 years ago.
There is nothing Argentina can do about it anyway. The UK has a veto on any UN decision as a permanent member of the UN Security Council unlike them.
The UK also has a bigger navy and army and airforce than Argentina now
Have a look at an atlas. It's not the Persian Gulf.
Since the Falklands War there is also a bigger permanent British garrison on the islands, a Royal Navy ship on patrol there at all times and a Royal Navy nuclear submarine patrols regularly nearby (though the exact times and location of the latter are obviously classified)
"ship" is a posh way to describe a patrol boat. And the forces, at the far end of a long supply line, are very small.
I remember 1981 - you obviously don't.
Yes, Argentina has cut its armed forces back to far fewer than they were in Galtieri's day.
The UK does not have an army of 153,000. That is the total size of our armed forces - Army, Navy and Airforce - including reservists. Our regular army is just over 80,000 and there are another 30,000 reservists. And gven our other commitments, not least on the Eastern flank of NATO, how many of those do you seriously think we could deploy?
We are much stronger on the ground in the Falklands than we were in 1982 but at the same time much weaker overall. So I could see our forces putting up a reasonable defence but I am certainly not confident they could hold. And if they did fall then we have no chance at all of reclaiming the islands as we did in 1982.
Our commitments on the Eastern flank of NATO would obviously be temporarily abandoned given British sovereign territory had been invaded.
We have a bigger armed forces than Argentina's which are also far weaker than they were in 1982
I am sorry but you really are deluded. What we did in 1982 was extraordinary but we could do it now. We simply don't have the ships.
As an example in 1982 we sent 8 destroyers and 16 frigates as part of the task force (and that was not our entire contingent of those vessel types in the navy). The entire Royal Navy only has 6 destroyers and 12 frigates. And we don't have the crews even for all of those.
Yes we do. we have 10 times the submarines Argentina do, enough to sink most of the Argentine navy alone for starters.
We also have more surface ships too, Argentina now literally has just 1 destroyer and not a single frigate!
You do realise that the size of their navy is pretty much immaterial given they wouldn't be the ones trying to mount a recapture 8000 miles away? What mattered in 1982 was our ability to get men to the South Atlantic and retake the islands. We no longer have the capability to do that. As I said you are deluded. I will add remarkably ignorant as well.
Yes it is, we could sink their entire fleet whether in port in Buenos Aires or Falklands waters within a week.
Once that is done we then send the aircraft carriers to quickly support the Islands, using submarines to send missiles on any Argentine troops who have got on the islands in the meantime
I would suggest you get a cup of tea and a rich tea biscuit rather than continuing this nonsense
We should relax about this. No one - Argentina or anyone else - will be invading the Falklands at any time in the foreseeable future.
That being said, we are not going to be visited by aliens in the foreseeable future, but this doesn't stop us from discussing that! 😈
Not sure where this idea Argentina could invade has come from. Not only are its armed forces in a poor state and the country has no money but the Falklands are far better protected now than they were in 1982. Any Argentinian attack would fail full stop.
The Falklands are not actually that well protected. No heavy arty, just 4 RAF Typhoon, and so on.
ANd when did Typhoon have anti-shipping missiles? None planned tilol 2030 or so, IIRC.
Our submarines could sink the Argentine fleet within a week with Spearfish torpedoes
And where are the submarines most of the time? And where can they replenish?
Our submarines are now able to remain at sea for months at a time without needing to replenish, they could sink the entire Argentine fleet within a week
Which ones?
You're confusing SSBN and attack subs. The latter run out of weapons and need to rearm and get other consumables and spares.
Is HYUFD that same bloke as the one on Twitter who posts on every Tory tweet, Big Alba or whatever their name is, they have a very similar posting style + they talk about the Falklands and Scotland a lot
No I am not Big Alba
Oh ok mate, just thought you posted similarly, not an issue, keep doing what you're doing for what it's worth I completely disagree with what you're saying but people are jumping on you unfairly as usual
@TLDRNewsUK 🇦🇷 Argentina has told the UK that it wants to start new talks over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands and has pulled out of a 2016 cooperation pact.
Could a Sunak Falklands moment save his chances of reelection?
Bloody hell not again. The Argentinians need to give this a rest.
Of course national fervour doesn't make sense, we have our own examples of that, but the Argentinian passion on this issue really doesn't seem to make sense to me when it's noted their claim to the islands is a rather technical one based on inheriting rights from former Spanish sovereignty, and talk about natives who don't exist. Yes there are other complexities, but the point being it's actually a rather arcane legal dispute, yet it's talked about in terms of colonialism as if someone seized Buenos Aires 2 years ago.
There is nothing Argentina can do about it anyway. The UK has a veto on any UN decision as a permanent member of the UN Security Council unlike them.
The UK also has a bigger navy and army and airforce than Argentina now
Have a look at an atlas. It's not the Persian Gulf.
Since the Falklands War there is also a bigger permanent British garrison on the islands, a Royal Navy ship on patrol there at all times and a Royal Navy nuclear submarine patrols regularly nearby (though the exact times and location of the latter are obviously classified)
"ship" is a posh way to describe a patrol boat. And the forces, at the far end of a long supply line, are very small.
I remember 1981 - you obviously don't.
Yes, Argentina has cut its armed forces back to far fewer than they were in Galtieri's day.
The UK does not have an army of 153,000. That is the total size of our armed forces - Army, Navy and Airforce - including reservists. Our regular army is just over 80,000 and there are another 30,000 reservists. And gven our other commitments, not least on the Eastern flank of NATO, how many of those do you seriously think we could deploy?
We are much stronger on the ground in the Falklands than we were in 1982 but at the same time much weaker overall. So I could see our forces putting up a reasonable defence but I am certainly not confident they could hold. And if they did fall then we have no chance at all of reclaiming the islands as we did in 1982.
Our commitments on the Eastern flank of NATO would obviously be temporarily abandoned given British sovereign territory had been invaded.
We have a bigger armed forces than Argentina's which are also far weaker than they were in 1982
I am sorry but you really are deluded. What we did in 1982 was extraordinary but we could do it now. We simply don't have the ships.
As an example in 1982 we sent 8 destroyers and 16 frigates as part of the task force (and that was not our entire contingent of those vessel types in the navy). The entire Royal Navy only has 6 destroyers and 12 frigates. And we don't have the crews even for all of those.
Yes we do. we have 10 times the submarines Argentina do, enough to sink most of the Argentine navy alone for starters.
We also have more surface ships too, Argentina now literally has just 1 destroyer and not a single frigate!
You do realise that the size of their navy is pretty much immaterial given they wouldn't be the ones trying to mount a recapture 8000 miles away? What mattered in 1982 was our ability to get men to the South Atlantic and retake the islands. We no longer have the capability to do that. As I said you are deluded. I will add remarkably ignorant as well.
Yes it is, we could sink their entire fleet whether in port in Buenos Aires or Falklands waters within a week.
Once that is done we then send the aircraft carriers to quickly support the Islands, using submarines to send missiles on any Argentine troops who have got on the islands in the meantime
I would suggest you get a cup of tea and a rich tea biscuit rather than continuing this nonsense
We should relax about this. No one - Argentina or anyone else - will be invading the Falklands at any time in the foreseeable future.
That being said, we are not going to be visited by aliens in the foreseeable future, but this doesn't stop us from discussing that! 😈
Not sure where this idea Argentina could invade has come from. Not only are its armed forces in a poor state and the country has no money but the Falklands are far better protected now than they were in 1982. Any Argentinian attack would fail full stop.
The Falklands are not actually that well protected. No heavy arty, just 4 RAF Typhoon, and so on.
ANd when did Typhoon have anti-shipping missiles? None planned tilol 2030 or so, IIRC.
Whilst that's true, attacking is always much harder than defending: and that's doubly so for a contested maritime landing. In addition, it's likely our troops are rather better trained than the Argentinians.
I've long been of the view that with the current state of forces, the 'best' way for Argentina to get the Falklands would be to team up with another country: say Brazil. That would provide the UK with a much more difficult military and diplomatic situation.
But Argentina on its own, in the next decade? Unless something remarkable happens, then it's really unlikely.
Given Brazil and Argentina are rivals very unlikely
They're rivals, yes, but also close in other ways. Especially now Lula's back.
@TLDRNewsUK 🇦🇷 Argentina has told the UK that it wants to start new talks over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands and has pulled out of a 2016 cooperation pact.
Could a Sunak Falklands moment save his chances of reelection?
Bloody hell not again. The Argentinians need to give this a rest.
Of course national fervour doesn't make sense, we have our own examples of that, but the Argentinian passion on this issue really doesn't seem to make sense to me when it's noted their claim to the islands is a rather technical one based on inheriting rights from former Spanish sovereignty, and talk about natives who don't exist. Yes there are other complexities, but the point being it's actually a rather arcane legal dispute, yet it's talked about in terms of colonialism as if someone seized Buenos Aires 2 years ago.
There is nothing Argentina can do about it anyway. The UK has a veto on any UN decision as a permanent member of the UN Security Council unlike them.
The UK also has a bigger navy and army and airforce than Argentina now
Have a look at an atlas. It's not the Persian Gulf.
Since the Falklands War there is also a bigger permanent British garrison on the islands, a Royal Navy ship on patrol there at all times and a Royal Navy nuclear submarine patrols regularly nearby (though the exact times and location of the latter are obviously classified)
"ship" is a posh way to describe a patrol boat. And the forces, at the far end of a long supply line, are very small.
I remember 1981 - you obviously don't.
Yes, Argentina has cut its armed forces back to far fewer than they were in Galtieri's day.
The UK does not have an army of 153,000. That is the total size of our armed forces - Army, Navy and Airforce - including reservists. Our regular army is just over 80,000 and there are another 30,000 reservists. And gven our other commitments, not least on the Eastern flank of NATO, how many of those do you seriously think we could deploy?
We are much stronger on the ground in the Falklands than we were in 1982 but at the same time much weaker overall. So I could see our forces putting up a reasonable defence but I am certainly not confident they could hold. And if they did fall then we have no chance at all of reclaiming the islands as we did in 1982.
Our commitments on the Eastern flank of NATO would obviously be temporarily abandoned given British sovereign territory had been invaded.
We have a bigger armed forces than Argentina's which are also far weaker than they were in 1982
I am sorry but you really are deluded. What we did in 1982 was extraordinary but we could do it now. We simply don't have the ships.
As an example in 1982 we sent 8 destroyers and 16 frigates as part of the task force (and that was not our entire contingent of those vessel types in the navy). The entire Royal Navy only has 6 destroyers and 12 frigates. And we don't have the crews even for all of those.
Yes we do. we have 10 times the submarines Argentina do, enough to sink most of the Argentine navy alone for starters.
We also have more surface ships too, Argentina now literally has just 1 destroyer and not a single frigate!
You do realise that the size of their navy is pretty much immaterial given they wouldn't be the ones trying to mount a recapture 8000 miles away? What mattered in 1982 was our ability to get men to the South Atlantic and retake the islands. We no longer have the capability to do that. As I said you are deluded. I will add remarkably ignorant as well.
Yes it is, we could sink their entire fleet whether in port in Buenos Aires or Falklands waters within a week.
Once that is done we then send the aircraft carriers to quickly support the Islands, using submarines to send missiles on any Argentine troops who have got on the islands in the meantime
I would suggest you get a cup of tea and a rich tea biscuit rather than continuing this nonsense
We should relax about this. No one - Argentina or anyone else - will be invading the Falklands at any time in the foreseeable future.
That being said, we are not going to be visited by aliens in the foreseeable future, but this doesn't stop us from discussing that! 😈
Not sure where this idea Argentina could invade has come from. Not only are its armed forces in a poor state and the country has no money but the Falklands are far better protected now than they were in 1982. Any Argentinian attack would fail full stop.
The Falklands are not actually that well protected. No heavy arty, just 4 RAF Typhoon, and so on.
ANd when did Typhoon have anti-shipping missiles? None planned tilol 2030 or so, IIRC.
Whilst that's true, attacking is always much harder than defending: and that's doubly so for a contested maritime landing. In addition, it's likely our troops are rather better trained than the Argentinians.
I've long been of the view that with the current state of forces, the 'best' way for Argentina to get the Falklands would be to team up with another country: say Brazil. That would provide the UK with a much more difficult military and diplomatic situation.
But Argentina on its own, in the next decade? Unless something remarkable happens, then it's really unlikely.
There are two other major risks (a) something underhand (coup de main, drones, S-300 on a cargo ship, and so on), and (b) ditto only UK (Treasury) as one of us has pointed out. It's early days yet, and if the Argentinians start rearming it will be much more worrying. Even making the UK increase its garrison will pose a huge strain on MoD.
Argentina has a weaker economy than the UK, any strain would be bigger on them than us
@TLDRNewsUK 🇦🇷 Argentina has told the UK that it wants to start new talks over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands and has pulled out of a 2016 cooperation pact.
Could a Sunak Falklands moment save his chances of reelection?
Bloody hell not again. The Argentinians need to give this a rest.
Of course national fervour doesn't make sense, we have our own examples of that, but the Argentinian passion on this issue really doesn't seem to make sense to me when it's noted their claim to the islands is a rather technical one based on inheriting rights from former Spanish sovereignty, and talk about natives who don't exist. Yes there are other complexities, but the point being it's actually a rather arcane legal dispute, yet it's talked about in terms of colonialism as if someone seized Buenos Aires 2 years ago.
There is nothing Argentina can do about it anyway. The UK has a veto on any UN decision as a permanent member of the UN Security Council unlike them.
The UK also has a bigger navy and army and airforce than Argentina now
Have a look at an atlas. It's not the Persian Gulf.
Since the Falklands War there is also a bigger permanent British garrison on the islands, a Royal Navy ship on patrol there at all times and a Royal Navy nuclear submarine patrols regularly nearby (though the exact times and location of the latter are obviously classified)
"ship" is a posh way to describe a patrol boat. And the forces, at the far end of a long supply line, are very small.
I remember 1981 - you obviously don't.
Yes, Argentina has cut its armed forces back to far fewer than they were in Galtieri's day.
The UK does not have an army of 153,000. That is the total size of our armed forces - Army, Navy and Airforce - including reservists. Our regular army is just over 80,000 and there are another 30,000 reservists. And gven our other commitments, not least on the Eastern flank of NATO, how many of those do you seriously think we could deploy?
We are much stronger on the ground in the Falklands than we were in 1982 but at the same time much weaker overall. So I could see our forces putting up a reasonable defence but I am certainly not confident they could hold. And if they did fall then we have no chance at all of reclaiming the islands as we did in 1982.
Our commitments on the Eastern flank of NATO would obviously be temporarily abandoned given British sovereign territory had been invaded.
We have a bigger armed forces than Argentina's which are also far weaker than they were in 1982
I am sorry but you really are deluded. What we did in 1982 was extraordinary but we could do it now. We simply don't have the ships.
As an example in 1982 we sent 8 destroyers and 16 frigates as part of the task force (and that was not our entire contingent of those vessel types in the navy). The entire Royal Navy only has 6 destroyers and 12 frigates. And we don't have the crews even for all of those.
Yes we do. we have 10 times the submarines Argentina do, enough to sink most of the Argentine navy alone for starters.
We also have more surface ships too, Argentina now literally has just 1 destroyer and not a single frigate!
You do realise that the size of their navy is pretty much immaterial given they wouldn't be the ones trying to mount a recapture 8000 miles away? What mattered in 1982 was our ability to get men to the South Atlantic and retake the islands. We no longer have the capability to do that. As I said you are deluded. I will add remarkably ignorant as well.
Yes it is, we could sink their entire fleet whether in port in Buenos Aires or Falklands waters within a week.
Once that is done we then send the aircraft carriers to quickly support the Islands, using submarines to send missiles on any Argentine troops who have got on the islands in the meantime
I would suggest you get a cup of tea and a rich tea biscuit rather than continuing this nonsense
We should relax about this. No one - Argentina or anyone else - will be invading the Falklands at any time in the foreseeable future.
That being said, we are not going to be visited by aliens in the foreseeable future, but this doesn't stop us from discussing that! 😈
Not sure where this idea Argentina could invade has come from. Not only are its armed forces in a poor state and the country has no money but the Falklands are far better protected now than they were in 1982. Any Argentinian attack would fail full stop.
The Falklands are not actually that well protected. No heavy arty, just 4 RAF Typhoon, and so on.
ANd when did Typhoon have anti-shipping missiles? None planned tilol 2030 or so, IIRC.
Our submarines could sink the Argentine fleet within a week with Spearfish torpedoes
I absolutely love you HYUFD. You are the stoutest of yeomen who would have been in Henry V’s tent on the eve of Agincourt, maybe recommending he uses the trebuchet rather than the archers but you believe.
You are an immovable Easter Island Statue of belief, but very very good with facts about polling and election comparisons, little details that I think you get knocked for but are just quite unemotionally sound on.
I just wish you could be a little nuanced, falklands aren’t going to be invaded, if they do it’s going to be a mess but we aren’t going to be flinging tomahawks etc around. We don’t have a massive sub fleet sitting there watching “the battle of river plate” and reliving old glories.
I love your passion, patriotism and certainty but things aren’t as certain as you are.
Ultimately I know we could have a fun very long lunch and agree on a lot but my god you are very bullish on here sometimes.
@TLDRNewsUK 🇦🇷 Argentina has told the UK that it wants to start new talks over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands and has pulled out of a 2016 cooperation pact.
Could a Sunak Falklands moment save his chances of reelection?
Bloody hell not again. The Argentinians need to give this a rest.
Of course national fervour doesn't make sense, we have our own examples of that, but the Argentinian passion on this issue really doesn't seem to make sense to me when it's noted their claim to the islands is a rather technical one based on inheriting rights from former Spanish sovereignty, and talk about natives who don't exist. Yes there are other complexities, but the point being it's actually a rather arcane legal dispute, yet it's talked about in terms of colonialism as if someone seized Buenos Aires 2 years ago.
There is nothing Argentina can do about it anyway. The UK has a veto on any UN decision as a permanent member of the UN Security Council unlike them.
The UK also has a bigger navy and army and airforce than Argentina now
Have a look at an atlas. It's not the Persian Gulf.
Since the Falklands War there is also a bigger permanent British garrison on the islands, a Royal Navy ship on patrol there at all times and a Royal Navy nuclear submarine patrols regularly nearby (though the exact times and location of the latter are obviously classified)
"ship" is a posh way to describe a patrol boat. And the forces, at the far end of a long supply line, are very small.
I remember 1981 - you obviously don't.
Yes, Argentina has cut its armed forces back to far fewer than they were in Galtieri's day.
The UK does not have an army of 153,000. That is the total size of our armed forces - Army, Navy and Airforce - including reservists. Our regular army is just over 80,000 and there are another 30,000 reservists. And gven our other commitments, not least on the Eastern flank of NATO, how many of those do you seriously think we could deploy?
We are much stronger on the ground in the Falklands than we were in 1982 but at the same time much weaker overall. So I could see our forces putting up a reasonable defence but I am certainly not confident they could hold. And if they did fall then we have no chance at all of reclaiming the islands as we did in 1982.
Our commitments on the Eastern flank of NATO would obviously be temporarily abandoned given British sovereign territory had been invaded.
We have a bigger armed forces than Argentina's which are also far weaker than they were in 1982
I am sorry but you really are deluded. What we did in 1982 was extraordinary but we could do it now. We simply don't have the ships.
As an example in 1982 we sent 8 destroyers and 16 frigates as part of the task force (and that was not our entire contingent of those vessel types in the navy). The entire Royal Navy only has 6 destroyers and 12 frigates. And we don't have the crews even for all of those.
Yes we do. we have 10 times the submarines Argentina do, enough to sink most of the Argentine navy alone for starters.
We also have more surface ships too, Argentina now literally has just 1 destroyer and not a single frigate!
You do realise that the size of their navy is pretty much immaterial given they wouldn't be the ones trying to mount a recapture 8000 miles away? What mattered in 1982 was our ability to get men to the South Atlantic and retake the islands. We no longer have the capability to do that. As I said you are deluded. I will add remarkably ignorant as well.
Yes it is, we could sink their entire fleet whether in port in Buenos Aires or Falklands waters within a week.
Once that is done we then send the aircraft carriers to quickly support the Islands, using submarines to send missiles on any Argentine troops who have got on the islands in the meantime
I would suggest you get a cup of tea and a rich tea biscuit rather than continuing this nonsense
We should relax about this. No one - Argentina or anyone else - will be invading the Falklands at any time in the foreseeable future.
That being said, we are not going to be visited by aliens in the foreseeable future, but this doesn't stop us from discussing that! 😈
Not sure where this idea Argentina could invade has come from. Not only are its armed forces in a poor state and the country has no money but the Falklands are far better protected now than they were in 1982. Any Argentinian attack would fail full stop.
The Falklands are not actually that well protected. No heavy arty, just 4 RAF Typhoon, and so on.
ANd when did Typhoon have anti-shipping missiles? None planned tilol 2030 or so, IIRC.
They don't need to be extensive defences. The Argentinian navy are in no shape to conduct any offensive capabilities. Most of their ships are 40+ years old
They also have no amphibious landing capabilities which means that they would have to rely on a Crete-style operation of flying their troops in - which is slightly unlikely to succeed
Plenty of attack lines against SKS best saved for nearer a GE methinks
He is a Liar of Johnson proportions, changes his mind about everything, has no principles at all, cant be trusted etc etc etc
1. He may well be a liar, but he's not a liar of Johnson proportions. 2. Changing your mind when the facts change is not a weakness, it's a strength. Unbending views in an ever changing world is the weakness.
1. He makes Johnson look like an amateur
2. About everything, whether or not facts have changed, makes him completely unsuitable
You are a one trick pony BJO.
Starmer may be the world's most uninspiring character. From his upbringing he nonetheless has an empathy and a compassion your boy Corbyn could never muster. Yes Corbyn was as "right-on" as the latest Morning Star editorial, but he was a million miles away from understanding what made the average Joe tick.
@TLDRNewsUK 🇦🇷 Argentina has told the UK that it wants to start new talks over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands and has pulled out of a 2016 cooperation pact.
Could a Sunak Falklands moment save his chances of reelection?
Bloody hell not again. The Argentinians need to give this a rest.
Of course national fervour doesn't make sense, we have our own examples of that, but the Argentinian passion on this issue really doesn't seem to make sense to me when it's noted their claim to the islands is a rather technical one based on inheriting rights from former Spanish sovereignty, and talk about natives who don't exist. Yes there are other complexities, but the point being it's actually a rather arcane legal dispute, yet it's talked about in terms of colonialism as if someone seized Buenos Aires 2 years ago.
There is nothing Argentina can do about it anyway. The UK has a veto on any UN decision as a permanent member of the UN Security Council unlike them.
The UK also has a bigger navy and army and airforce than Argentina now
Have a look at an atlas. It's not the Persian Gulf.
Since the Falklands War there is also a bigger permanent British garrison on the islands, a Royal Navy ship on patrol there at all times and a Royal Navy nuclear submarine patrols regularly nearby (though the exact times and location of the latter are obviously classified)
"ship" is a posh way to describe a patrol boat. And the forces, at the far end of a long supply line, are very small.
I remember 1981 - you obviously don't.
Yes, Argentina has cut its armed forces back to far fewer than they were in Galtieri's day.
The UK does not have an army of 153,000. That is the total size of our armed forces - Army, Navy and Airforce - including reservists. Our regular army is just over 80,000 and there are another 30,000 reservists. And gven our other commitments, not least on the Eastern flank of NATO, how many of those do you seriously think we could deploy?
We are much stronger on the ground in the Falklands than we were in 1982 but at the same time much weaker overall. So I could see our forces putting up a reasonable defence but I am certainly not confident they could hold. And if they did fall then we have no chance at all of reclaiming the islands as we did in 1982.
Our commitments on the Eastern flank of NATO would obviously be temporarily abandoned given British sovereign territory had been invaded.
We have a bigger armed forces than Argentina's which are also far weaker than they were in 1982
I am sorry but you really are deluded. What we did in 1982 was extraordinary but we could do it now. We simply don't have the ships.
As an example in 1982 we sent 8 destroyers and 16 frigates as part of the task force (and that was not our entire contingent of those vessel types in the navy). The entire Royal Navy only has 6 destroyers and 12 frigates. And we don't have the crews even for all of those.
Yes we do. we have 10 times the submarines Argentina do, enough to sink most of the Argentine navy alone for starters.
We also have more surface ships too, Argentina now literally has just 1 destroyer and not a single frigate!
You do realise that the size of their navy is pretty much immaterial given they wouldn't be the ones trying to mount a recapture 8000 miles away? What mattered in 1982 was our ability to get men to the South Atlantic and retake the islands. We no longer have the capability to do that. As I said you are deluded. I will add remarkably ignorant as well.
Yes it is, we could sink their entire fleet whether in port in Buenos Aires or Falklands waters within a week.
Once that is done we then send the aircraft carriers to quickly support the Islands, using submarines to send missiles on any Argentine troops who have got on the islands in the meantime
I would suggest you get a cup of tea and a rich tea biscuit rather than continuing this nonsense
We should relax about this. No one - Argentina or anyone else - will be invading the Falklands at any time in the foreseeable future.
That being said, we are not going to be visited by aliens in the foreseeable future, but this doesn't stop us from discussing that! 😈
Not sure where this idea Argentina could invade has come from. Not only are its armed forces in a poor state and the country has no money but the Falklands are far better protected now than they were in 1982. Any Argentinian attack would fail full stop.
The Falklands are not actually that well protected. No heavy arty, just 4 RAF Typhoon, and so on.
ANd when did Typhoon have anti-shipping missiles? None planned tilol 2030 or so, IIRC.
They don't need to be extensive defences. The Argentinian navy are in no shape to conduct any offensive capabilities. Most of their ships are 40+ years old
They also have no amphibious landing capabilities which means that they would have to rely on a Crete-style operation of flying their troops in - which is slightly unlikely to succeed
So how do you kill a ro-ro ferry? Too many assumptions on here tonight.
@TLDRNewsUK 🇦🇷 Argentina has told the UK that it wants to start new talks over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands and has pulled out of a 2016 cooperation pact.
Could a Sunak Falklands moment save his chances of reelection?
Bloody hell not again. The Argentinians need to give this a rest.
Of course national fervour doesn't make sense, we have our own examples of that, but the Argentinian passion on this issue really doesn't seem to make sense to me when it's noted their claim to the islands is a rather technical one based on inheriting rights from former Spanish sovereignty, and talk about natives who don't exist. Yes there are other complexities, but the point being it's actually a rather arcane legal dispute, yet it's talked about in terms of colonialism as if someone seized Buenos Aires 2 years ago.
There is nothing Argentina can do about it anyway. The UK has a veto on any UN decision as a permanent member of the UN Security Council unlike them.
The UK also has a bigger navy and army and airforce than Argentina now
Have a look at an atlas. It's not the Persian Gulf.
Since the Falklands War there is also a bigger permanent British garrison on the islands, a Royal Navy ship on patrol there at all times and a Royal Navy nuclear submarine patrols regularly nearby (though the exact times and location of the latter are obviously classified)
"ship" is a posh way to describe a patrol boat. And the forces, at the far end of a long supply line, are very small.
I remember 1981 - you obviously don't.
Yes, Argentina has cut its armed forces back to far fewer than they were in Galtieri's day.
The UK does not have an army of 153,000. That is the total size of our armed forces - Army, Navy and Airforce - including reservists. Our regular army is just over 80,000 and there are another 30,000 reservists. And gven our other commitments, not least on the Eastern flank of NATO, how many of those do you seriously think we could deploy?
We are much stronger on the ground in the Falklands than we were in 1982 but at the same time much weaker overall. So I could see our forces putting up a reasonable defence but I am certainly not confident they could hold. And if they did fall then we have no chance at all of reclaiming the islands as we did in 1982.
Our commitments on the Eastern flank of NATO would obviously be temporarily abandoned given British sovereign territory had been invaded.
We have a bigger armed forces than Argentina's which are also far weaker than they were in 1982
I am sorry but you really are deluded. What we did in 1982 was extraordinary but we could do it now. We simply don't have the ships.
As an example in 1982 we sent 8 destroyers and 16 frigates as part of the task force (and that was not our entire contingent of those vessel types in the navy). The entire Royal Navy only has 6 destroyers and 12 frigates. And we don't have the crews even for all of those.
Yes we do. we have 10 times the submarines Argentina do, enough to sink most of the Argentine navy alone for starters.
We also have more surface ships too, Argentina now literally has just 1 destroyer and not a single frigate!
You do realise that the size of their navy is pretty much immaterial given they wouldn't be the ones trying to mount a recapture 8000 miles away? What mattered in 1982 was our ability to get men to the South Atlantic and retake the islands. We no longer have the capability to do that. As I said you are deluded. I will add remarkably ignorant as well.
Yes it is, we could sink their entire fleet whether in port in Buenos Aires or Falklands waters within a week.
Once that is done we then send the aircraft carriers to quickly support the Islands, using submarines to send missiles on any Argentine troops who have got on the islands in the meantime
I would suggest you get a cup of tea and a rich tea biscuit rather than continuing this nonsense
We should relax about this. No one - Argentina or anyone else - will be invading the Falklands at any time in the foreseeable future.
That being said, we are not going to be visited by aliens in the foreseeable future, but this doesn't stop us from discussing that! 😈
Not sure where this idea Argentina could invade has come from. Not only are its armed forces in a poor state and the country has no money but the Falklands are far better protected now than they were in 1982. Any Argentinian attack would fail full stop.
The Falklands are not actually that well protected. No heavy arty, just 4 RAF Typhoon, and so on.
ANd when did Typhoon have anti-shipping missiles? None planned tilol 2030 or so, IIRC.
Our submarines could sink the Argentine fleet within a week with Spearfish torpedoes
And where are the submarines most of the time? And where can they replenish?
Our submarines are now able to remain at sea for months at a time without needing to replenish, they could sink the entire Argentine fleet within a week
Which ones?
You're confusing SSBN and attack subs. The latter run out of weapons and need to rearm and get other consumables and spares.
Astute class submarines with Spearfish submarines can now stay underwater for 90 days.
As the Argentine navy literally consists of 4 destroyers, 9 corvettes, 2 non operational submarines and some patrol and auxiliary ships now, our submarines could probably sink all of it within 3 days https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_Argentine_Navy_ships
@TLDRNewsUK 🇦🇷 Argentina has told the UK that it wants to start new talks over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands and has pulled out of a 2016 cooperation pact.
Could a Sunak Falklands moment save his chances of reelection?
Bloody hell not again. The Argentinians need to give this a rest.
Of course national fervour doesn't make sense, we have our own examples of that, but the Argentinian passion on this issue really doesn't seem to make sense to me when it's noted their claim to the islands is a rather technical one based on inheriting rights from former Spanish sovereignty, and talk about natives who don't exist. Yes there are other complexities, but the point being it's actually a rather arcane legal dispute, yet it's talked about in terms of colonialism as if someone seized Buenos Aires 2 years ago.
There is nothing Argentina can do about it anyway. The UK has a veto on any UN decision as a permanent member of the UN Security Council unlike them.
The UK also has a bigger navy and army and airforce than Argentina now
Have a look at an atlas. It's not the Persian Gulf.
Since the Falklands War there is also a bigger permanent British garrison on the islands, a Royal Navy ship on patrol there at all times and a Royal Navy nuclear submarine patrols regularly nearby (though the exact times and location of the latter are obviously classified)
"ship" is a posh way to describe a patrol boat. And the forces, at the far end of a long supply line, are very small.
I remember 1981 - you obviously don't.
Yes, Argentina has cut its armed forces back to far fewer than they were in Galtieri's day.
The UK does not have an army of 153,000. That is the total size of our armed forces - Army, Navy and Airforce - including reservists. Our regular army is just over 80,000 and there are another 30,000 reservists. And gven our other commitments, not least on the Eastern flank of NATO, how many of those do you seriously think we could deploy?
We are much stronger on the ground in the Falklands than we were in 1982 but at the same time much weaker overall. So I could see our forces putting up a reasonable defence but I am certainly not confident they could hold. And if they did fall then we have no chance at all of reclaiming the islands as we did in 1982.
Our commitments on the Eastern flank of NATO would obviously be temporarily abandoned given British sovereign territory had been invaded.
We have a bigger armed forces than Argentina's which are also far weaker than they were in 1982
I am sorry but you really are deluded. What we did in 1982 was extraordinary but we could do it now. We simply don't have the ships.
As an example in 1982 we sent 8 destroyers and 16 frigates as part of the task force (and that was not our entire contingent of those vessel types in the navy). The entire Royal Navy only has 6 destroyers and 12 frigates. And we don't have the crews even for all of those.
Yes we do. we have 10 times the submarines Argentina do, enough to sink most of the Argentine navy alone for starters.
We also have more surface ships too, Argentina now literally has just 1 destroyer and not a single frigate!
You do realise that the size of their navy is pretty much immaterial given they wouldn't be the ones trying to mount a recapture 8000 miles away? What mattered in 1982 was our ability to get men to the South Atlantic and retake the islands. We no longer have the capability to do that. As I said you are deluded. I will add remarkably ignorant as well.
Yes it is, we could sink their entire fleet whether in port in Buenos Aires or Falklands waters within a week.
Once that is done we then send the aircraft carriers to quickly support the Islands, using submarines to send missiles on any Argentine troops who have got on the islands in the meantime
I would suggest you get a cup of tea and a rich tea biscuit rather than continuing this nonsense
We should relax about this. No one - Argentina or anyone else - will be invading the Falklands at any time in the foreseeable future.
That being said, we are not going to be visited by aliens in the foreseeable future, but this doesn't stop us from discussing that! 😈
Not sure where this idea Argentina could invade has come from. Not only are its armed forces in a poor state and the country has no money but the Falklands are far better protected now than they were in 1982. Any Argentinian attack would fail full stop.
The Falklands are not actually that well protected. No heavy arty, just 4 RAF Typhoon, and so on.
ANd when did Typhoon have anti-shipping missiles? None planned tilol 2030 or so, IIRC.
Our submarines could sink the Argentine fleet within a week with Spearfish torpedoes
And where are the submarines most of the time? And where can they replenish?
Our submarines are now able to remain at sea for months at a time without needing to replenish, they could sink the entire Argentine fleet within a week
Which ones?
You're confusing SSBN and attack subs. The latter run out of weapons and need to rearm and get other consumables and spares.
Astute class submarines with Spearfish submarines can now stay underwater for 90 days.
@TLDRNewsUK 🇦🇷 Argentina has told the UK that it wants to start new talks over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands and has pulled out of a 2016 cooperation pact.
Could a Sunak Falklands moment save his chances of reelection?
Bloody hell not again. The Argentinians need to give this a rest.
Of course national fervour doesn't make sense, we have our own examples of that, but the Argentinian passion on this issue really doesn't seem to make sense to me when it's noted their claim to the islands is a rather technical one based on inheriting rights from former Spanish sovereignty, and talk about natives who don't exist. Yes there are other complexities, but the point being it's actually a rather arcane legal dispute, yet it's talked about in terms of colonialism as if someone seized Buenos Aires 2 years ago.
There is nothing Argentina can do about it anyway. The UK has a veto on any UN decision as a permanent member of the UN Security Council unlike them.
The UK also has a bigger navy and army and airforce than Argentina now
Have a look at an atlas. It's not the Persian Gulf.
Since the Falklands War there is also a bigger permanent British garrison on the islands, a Royal Navy ship on patrol there at all times and a Royal Navy nuclear submarine patrols regularly nearby (though the exact times and location of the latter are obviously classified)
"ship" is a posh way to describe a patrol boat. And the forces, at the far end of a long supply line, are very small.
I remember 1981 - you obviously don't.
Yes, Argentina has cut its armed forces back to far fewer than they were in Galtieri's day.
The UK does not have an army of 153,000. That is the total size of our armed forces - Army, Navy and Airforce - including reservists. Our regular army is just over 80,000 and there are another 30,000 reservists. And gven our other commitments, not least on the Eastern flank of NATO, how many of those do you seriously think we could deploy?
We are much stronger on the ground in the Falklands than we were in 1982 but at the same time much weaker overall. So I could see our forces putting up a reasonable defence but I am certainly not confident they could hold. And if they did fall then we have no chance at all of reclaiming the islands as we did in 1982.
Our commitments on the Eastern flank of NATO would obviously be temporarily abandoned given British sovereign territory had been invaded.
We have a bigger armed forces than Argentina's which are also far weaker than they were in 1982
I am sorry but you really are deluded. What we did in 1982 was extraordinary but we could do it now. We simply don't have the ships.
As an example in 1982 we sent 8 destroyers and 16 frigates as part of the task force (and that was not our entire contingent of those vessel types in the navy). The entire Royal Navy only has 6 destroyers and 12 frigates. And we don't have the crews even for all of those.
Yes we do. we have 10 times the submarines Argentina do, enough to sink most of the Argentine navy alone for starters.
We also have more surface ships too, Argentina now literally has just 1 destroyer and not a single frigate!
You do realise that the size of their navy is pretty much immaterial given they wouldn't be the ones trying to mount a recapture 8000 miles away? What mattered in 1982 was our ability to get men to the South Atlantic and retake the islands. We no longer have the capability to do that. As I said you are deluded. I will add remarkably ignorant as well.
Yes it is, we could sink their entire fleet whether in port in Buenos Aires or Falklands waters within a week.
Once that is done we then send the aircraft carriers to quickly support the Islands, using submarines to send missiles on any Argentine troops who have got on the islands in the meantime
I would suggest you get a cup of tea and a rich tea biscuit rather than continuing this nonsense
We should relax about this. No one - Argentina or anyone else - will be invading the Falklands at any time in the foreseeable future.
That being said, we are not going to be visited by aliens in the foreseeable future, but this doesn't stop us from discussing that! 😈
Not sure where this idea Argentina could invade has come from. Not only are its armed forces in a poor state and the country has no money but the Falklands are far better protected now than they were in 1982. Any Argentinian attack would fail full stop.
The Falklands are not actually that well protected. No heavy arty, just 4 RAF Typhoon, and so on.
ANd when did Typhoon have anti-shipping missiles? None planned tilol 2030 or so, IIRC.
Whilst that's true, attacking is always much harder than defending: and that's doubly so for a contested maritime landing. In addition, it's likely our troops are rather better trained than the Argentinians.
I've long been of the view that with the current state of forces, the 'best' way for Argentina to get the Falklands would be to team up with another country: say Brazil. That would provide the UK with a much more difficult military and diplomatic situation.
But Argentina on its own, in the next decade? Unless something remarkable happens, then it's really unlikely.
There are two other major risks (a) something underhand (coup de main, drones, S-300 on a cargo ship, and so on), and (b) ditto only UK (Treasury) as one of us has pointed out. It's early days yet, and if the Argentinians start rearming it will be much more worrying. Even making the UK increase its garrison will pose a huge strain on MoD.
Something underhand would be the main risk. I understand there are a fair few Argentines working n the Falklands now. If you were to arrange to get whatever passes for Argentine special forces jobs as menial workers on the island over the course of a few months, and then bribe a few key personnel at the RAF base - well, it sounds more like the plot of an airport novel* than a military plan, but it's a bit more feasible than anything else I can think of.
Long term I guess the main risk is what happens when all the loans the UK has start coming due. Keeping a garrison there is an expensive commitment, which is why the place was so poorly defended in the early 80s in the first place. And, perhaps, at some point China approaches Britain with the offer of a bridging loan to tide the country over, and wants something in return to make friends in South America.
Unless someone can breathe new life into the British economy at some point unpalatable sacrifices will have to be made.
"Britain spends £350m a year on defending the Falkland Islands. Let's spend it on the NHS instead."
Coming to the side of a bus near you in the 2030s?
@TLDRNewsUK 🇦🇷 Argentina has told the UK that it wants to start new talks over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands and has pulled out of a 2016 cooperation pact.
Could a Sunak Falklands moment save his chances of reelection?
Bloody hell not again. The Argentinians need to give this a rest.
Of course national fervour doesn't make sense, we have our own examples of that, but the Argentinian passion on this issue really doesn't seem to make sense to me when it's noted their claim to the islands is a rather technical one based on inheriting rights from former Spanish sovereignty, and talk about natives who don't exist. Yes there are other complexities, but the point being it's actually a rather arcane legal dispute, yet it's talked about in terms of colonialism as if someone seized Buenos Aires 2 years ago.
There is nothing Argentina can do about it anyway. The UK has a veto on any UN decision as a permanent member of the UN Security Council unlike them.
The UK also has a bigger navy and army and airforce than Argentina now
Have a look at an atlas. It's not the Persian Gulf.
Since the Falklands War there is also a bigger permanent British garrison on the islands, a Royal Navy ship on patrol there at all times and a Royal Navy nuclear submarine patrols regularly nearby (though the exact times and location of the latter are obviously classified)
"ship" is a posh way to describe a patrol boat. And the forces, at the far end of a long supply line, are very small.
I remember 1981 - you obviously don't.
Yes, Argentina has cut its armed forces back to far fewer than they were in Galtieri's day.
The UK does not have an army of 153,000. That is the total size of our armed forces - Army, Navy and Airforce - including reservists. Our regular army is just over 80,000 and there are another 30,000 reservists. And gven our other commitments, not least on the Eastern flank of NATO, how many of those do you seriously think we could deploy?
We are much stronger on the ground in the Falklands than we were in 1982 but at the same time much weaker overall. So I could see our forces putting up a reasonable defence but I am certainly not confident they could hold. And if they did fall then we have no chance at all of reclaiming the islands as we did in 1982.
Our commitments on the Eastern flank of NATO would obviously be temporarily abandoned given British sovereign territory had been invaded.
We have a bigger armed forces than Argentina's which are also far weaker than they were in 1982
I am sorry but you really are deluded. What we did in 1982 was extraordinary but we could do it now. We simply don't have the ships.
As an example in 1982 we sent 8 destroyers and 16 frigates as part of the task force (and that was not our entire contingent of those vessel types in the navy). The entire Royal Navy only has 6 destroyers and 12 frigates. And we don't have the crews even for all of those.
Yes we do. we have 10 times the submarines Argentina do, enough to sink most of the Argentine navy alone for starters.
We also have more surface ships too, Argentina now literally has just 1 destroyer and not a single frigate!
You do realise that the size of their navy is pretty much immaterial given they wouldn't be the ones trying to mount a recapture 8000 miles away? What mattered in 1982 was our ability to get men to the South Atlantic and retake the islands. We no longer have the capability to do that. As I said you are deluded. I will add remarkably ignorant as well.
Yes it is, we could sink their entire fleet whether in port in Buenos Aires or Falklands waters within a week.
Once that is done we then send the aircraft carriers to quickly support the Islands, using submarines to send missiles on any Argentine troops who have got on the islands in the meantime
I would suggest you get a cup of tea and a rich tea biscuit rather than continuing this nonsense
We should relax about this. No one - Argentina or anyone else - will be invading the Falklands at any time in the foreseeable future.
That being said, we are not going to be visited by aliens in the foreseeable future, but this doesn't stop us from discussing that! 😈
Not sure where this idea Argentina could invade has come from. Not only are its armed forces in a poor state and the country has no money but the Falklands are far better protected now than they were in 1982. Any Argentinian attack would fail full stop.
The Falklands are not actually that well protected. No heavy arty, just 4 RAF Typhoon, and so on.
ANd when did Typhoon have anti-shipping missiles? None planned tilol 2030 or so, IIRC.
Our submarines could sink the Argentine fleet within a week with Spearfish torpedoes
I absolutely love you HYUFD. You are the stoutest of yeomen who would have been in Henry V’s tent on the eve of Agincourt, maybe recommending he uses the trebuchet rather than the archers but you believe.
You are an immovable Easter Island Statue of belief, but very very good with facts about polling and election comparisons, little details that I think you get knocked for but are just quite unemotionally sound on.
I just wish you could be a little nuanced, falklands aren’t going to be invaded, if they do it’s going to be a mess but we aren’t going to be flinging tomahawks etc around. We don’t have a massive sub fleet sitting there watching “the battle of river plate” and reliving old glories.
I love your passion, patriotism and certainty but things aren’t as certain as you are.
Ultimately I know we could have a fun very long lunch and agree on a lot but my god you are very bullish on here sometimes.
Unfortunately some of the wet lettuces on here had they been at Agincourt would have run away at the first sight of a French Knight, dropped their bows and told Henry Vth to barter with Croissants and Brie and hope the French showed them mercy!
@TLDRNewsUK 🇦🇷 Argentina has told the UK that it wants to start new talks over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands and has pulled out of a 2016 cooperation pact.
Could a Sunak Falklands moment save his chances of reelection?
Bloody hell not again. The Argentinians need to give this a rest.
Of course national fervour doesn't make sense, we have our own examples of that, but the Argentinian passion on this issue really doesn't seem to make sense to me when it's noted their claim to the islands is a rather technical one based on inheriting rights from former Spanish sovereignty, and talk about natives who don't exist. Yes there are other complexities, but the point being it's actually a rather arcane legal dispute, yet it's talked about in terms of colonialism as if someone seized Buenos Aires 2 years ago.
There is nothing Argentina can do about it anyway. The UK has a veto on any UN decision as a permanent member of the UN Security Council unlike them.
The UK also has a bigger navy and army and airforce than Argentina now
Have a look at an atlas. It's not the Persian Gulf.
Since the Falklands War there is also a bigger permanent British garrison on the islands, a Royal Navy ship on patrol there at all times and a Royal Navy nuclear submarine patrols regularly nearby (though the exact times and location of the latter are obviously classified)
"ship" is a posh way to describe a patrol boat. And the forces, at the far end of a long supply line, are very small.
I remember 1981 - you obviously don't.
Yes, Argentina has cut its armed forces back to far fewer than they were in Galtieri's day.
The UK does not have an army of 153,000. That is the total size of our armed forces - Army, Navy and Airforce - including reservists. Our regular army is just over 80,000 and there are another 30,000 reservists. And gven our other commitments, not least on the Eastern flank of NATO, how many of those do you seriously think we could deploy?
We are much stronger on the ground in the Falklands than we were in 1982 but at the same time much weaker overall. So I could see our forces putting up a reasonable defence but I am certainly not confident they could hold. And if they did fall then we have no chance at all of reclaiming the islands as we did in 1982.
Our commitments on the Eastern flank of NATO would obviously be temporarily abandoned given British sovereign territory had been invaded.
We have a bigger armed forces than Argentina's which are also far weaker than they were in 1982
I am sorry but you really are deluded. What we did in 1982 was extraordinary but we could do it now. We simply don't have the ships.
As an example in 1982 we sent 8 destroyers and 16 frigates as part of the task force (and that was not our entire contingent of those vessel types in the navy). The entire Royal Navy only has 6 destroyers and 12 frigates. And we don't have the crews even for all of those.
Yes we do. we have 10 times the submarines Argentina do, enough to sink most of the Argentine navy alone for starters.
We also have more surface ships too, Argentina now literally has just 1 destroyer and not a single frigate!
You do realise that the size of their navy is pretty much immaterial given they wouldn't be the ones trying to mount a recapture 8000 miles away? What mattered in 1982 was our ability to get men to the South Atlantic and retake the islands. We no longer have the capability to do that. As I said you are deluded. I will add remarkably ignorant as well.
Yes it is, we could sink their entire fleet whether in port in Buenos Aires or Falklands waters within a week.
Once that is done we then send the aircraft carriers to quickly support the Islands, using submarines to send missiles on any Argentine troops who have got on the islands in the meantime
I would suggest you get a cup of tea and a rich tea biscuit rather than continuing this nonsense
We should relax about this. No one - Argentina or anyone else - will be invading the Falklands at any time in the foreseeable future.
That being said, we are not going to be visited by aliens in the foreseeable future, but this doesn't stop us from discussing that! 😈
Not sure where this idea Argentina could invade has come from. Not only are its armed forces in a poor state and the country has no money but the Falklands are far better protected now than they were in 1982. Any Argentinian attack would fail full stop.
The Falklands are not actually that well protected. No heavy arty, just 4 RAF Typhoon, and so on.
ANd when did Typhoon have anti-shipping missiles? None planned tilol 2030 or so, IIRC.
Whilst that's true, attacking is always much harder than defending: and that's doubly so for a contested maritime landing. In addition, it's likely our troops are rather better trained than the Argentinians.
I've long been of the view that with the current state of forces, the 'best' way for Argentina to get the Falklands would be to team up with another country: say Brazil. That would provide the UK with a much more difficult military and diplomatic situation.
But Argentina on its own, in the next decade? Unless something remarkable happens, then it's really unlikely.
There are two other major risks (a) something underhand (coup de main, drones, S-300 on a cargo ship, and so on), and (b) ditto only UK (Treasury) as one of us has pointed out. It's early days yet, and if the Argentinians start rearming it will be much more worrying. Even making the UK increase its garrison will pose a huge strain on MoD.
The Argentinians have been going round this circle for years
1) Announce they are buying new weapon X 2) Country selling it asks how they are going to pay 3) Argentina looks at its shoes. 4) Crickets
For variation, the U.K. government vetoes the sale at 1), because of British technology being involved.
The Argentine military has collapsed - I’ve got some Argentine relatives, by marriage. One distant member of the family is in the Army there. Nothing works. Barely anything flies or sails.
The Falklands gets raised in Argentina by Farage types who are looking for a political boost. Even the nuttiest don't want to start another war - it’s all performative dance.
@TLDRNewsUK 🇦🇷 Argentina has told the UK that it wants to start new talks over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands and has pulled out of a 2016 cooperation pact.
Could a Sunak Falklands moment save his chances of reelection?
Bloody hell not again. The Argentinians need to give this a rest.
Of course national fervour doesn't make sense, we have our own examples of that, but the Argentinian passion on this issue really doesn't seem to make sense to me when it's noted their claim to the islands is a rather technical one based on inheriting rights from former Spanish sovereignty, and talk about natives who don't exist. Yes there are other complexities, but the point being it's actually a rather arcane legal dispute, yet it's talked about in terms of colonialism as if someone seized Buenos Aires 2 years ago.
There is nothing Argentina can do about it anyway. The UK has a veto on any UN decision as a permanent member of the UN Security Council unlike them.
The UK also has a bigger navy and army and airforce than Argentina now
Have a look at an atlas. It's not the Persian Gulf.
Since the Falklands War there is also a bigger permanent British garrison on the islands, a Royal Navy ship on patrol there at all times and a Royal Navy nuclear submarine patrols regularly nearby (though the exact times and location of the latter are obviously classified)
"ship" is a posh way to describe a patrol boat. And the forces, at the far end of a long supply line, are very small.
I remember 1981 - you obviously don't.
Yes, Argentina has cut its armed forces back to far fewer than they were in Galtieri's day.
The UK does not have an army of 153,000. That is the total size of our armed forces - Army, Navy and Airforce - including reservists. Our regular army is just over 80,000 and there are another 30,000 reservists. And gven our other commitments, not least on the Eastern flank of NATO, how many of those do you seriously think we could deploy?
We are much stronger on the ground in the Falklands than we were in 1982 but at the same time much weaker overall. So I could see our forces putting up a reasonable defence but I am certainly not confident they could hold. And if they did fall then we have no chance at all of reclaiming the islands as we did in 1982.
Our commitments on the Eastern flank of NATO would obviously be temporarily abandoned given British sovereign territory had been invaded.
We have a bigger armed forces than Argentina's which are also far weaker than they were in 1982
I am sorry but you really are deluded. What we did in 1982 was extraordinary but we could do it now. We simply don't have the ships.
As an example in 1982 we sent 8 destroyers and 16 frigates as part of the task force (and that was not our entire contingent of those vessel types in the navy). The entire Royal Navy only has 6 destroyers and 12 frigates. And we don't have the crews even for all of those.
Yes we do. we have 10 times the submarines Argentina do, enough to sink most of the Argentine navy alone for starters.
We also have more surface ships too, Argentina now literally has just 1 destroyer and not a single frigate!
You do realise that the size of their navy is pretty much immaterial given they wouldn't be the ones trying to mount a recapture 8000 miles away? What mattered in 1982 was our ability to get men to the South Atlantic and retake the islands. We no longer have the capability to do that. As I said you are deluded. I will add remarkably ignorant as well.
Yes it is, we could sink their entire fleet whether in port in Buenos Aires or Falklands waters within a week.
Once that is done we then send the aircraft carriers to quickly support the Islands, using submarines to send missiles on any Argentine troops who have got on the islands in the meantime
I would suggest you get a cup of tea and a rich tea biscuit rather than continuing this nonsense
We should relax about this. No one - Argentina or anyone else - will be invading the Falklands at any time in the foreseeable future.
That being said, we are not going to be visited by aliens in the foreseeable future, but this doesn't stop us from discussing that! 😈
Not sure where this idea Argentina could invade has come from. Not only are its armed forces in a poor state and the country has no money but the Falklands are far better protected now than they were in 1982. Any Argentinian attack would fail full stop.
The Falklands are not actually that well protected. No heavy arty, just 4 RAF Typhoon, and so on.
ANd when did Typhoon have anti-shipping missiles? None planned tilol 2030 or so, IIRC.
They don't need to be extensive defences. The Argentinian navy are in no shape to conduct any offensive capabilities. Most of their ships are 40+ years old
They also have no amphibious landing capabilities which means that they would have to rely on a Crete-style operation of flying their troops in - which is slightly unlikely to succeed
The interesting thing would be the international reaction. Quite possible, unlike in 1982, that the EU and US might put economic sanctions on Argentina. There’s a lot less tolerance for imperial wars of conquest these days.
(1) It is far from clear that the Argentinians have the ability to successfully invade the islands, given they are rather better defended, and the fact that the Argentine military is a shadow of its former self.
(2) In the event that they did successfully invade, the UK would be in a worse position to get them back, given the cuts to our armed services,
@TLDRNewsUK 🇦🇷 Argentina has told the UK that it wants to start new talks over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands and has pulled out of a 2016 cooperation pact.
Could a Sunak Falklands moment save his chances of reelection?
Bloody hell not again. The Argentinians need to give this a rest.
Of course national fervour doesn't make sense, we have our own examples of that, but the Argentinian passion on this issue really doesn't seem to make sense to me when it's noted their claim to the islands is a rather technical one based on inheriting rights from former Spanish sovereignty, and talk about natives who don't exist. Yes there are other complexities, but the point being it's actually a rather arcane legal dispute, yet it's talked about in terms of colonialism as if someone seized Buenos Aires 2 years ago.
There is nothing Argentina can do about it anyway. The UK has a veto on any UN decision as a permanent member of the UN Security Council unlike them.
The UK also has a bigger navy and army and airforce than Argentina now
Have a look at an atlas. It's not the Persian Gulf.
Since the Falklands War there is also a bigger permanent British garrison on the islands, a Royal Navy ship on patrol there at all times and a Royal Navy nuclear submarine patrols regularly nearby (though the exact times and location of the latter are obviously classified)
"ship" is a posh way to describe a patrol boat. And the forces, at the far end of a long supply line, are very small.
I remember 1981 - you obviously don't.
Yes, Argentina has cut its armed forces back to far fewer than they were in Galtieri's day.
The UK does not have an army of 153,000. That is the total size of our armed forces - Army, Navy and Airforce - including reservists. Our regular army is just over 80,000 and there are another 30,000 reservists. And gven our other commitments, not least on the Eastern flank of NATO, how many of those do you seriously think we could deploy?
We are much stronger on the ground in the Falklands than we were in 1982 but at the same time much weaker overall. So I could see our forces putting up a reasonable defence but I am certainly not confident they could hold. And if they did fall then we have no chance at all of reclaiming the islands as we did in 1982.
Our commitments on the Eastern flank of NATO would obviously be temporarily abandoned given British sovereign territory had been invaded.
We have a bigger armed forces than Argentina's which are also far weaker than they were in 1982
I am sorry but you really are deluded. What we did in 1982 was extraordinary but we could do it now. We simply don't have the ships.
As an example in 1982 we sent 8 destroyers and 16 frigates as part of the task force (and that was not our entire contingent of those vessel types in the navy). The entire Royal Navy only has 6 destroyers and 12 frigates. And we don't have the crews even for all of those.
Yes we do. we have 10 times the submarines Argentina do, enough to sink most of the Argentine navy alone for starters.
We also have more surface ships too, Argentina now literally has just 1 destroyer and not a single frigate!
You do realise that the size of their navy is pretty much immaterial given they wouldn't be the ones trying to mount a recapture 8000 miles away? What mattered in 1982 was our ability to get men to the South Atlantic and retake the islands. We no longer have the capability to do that. As I said you are deluded. I will add remarkably ignorant as well.
Yes it is, we could sink their entire fleet whether in port in Buenos Aires or Falklands waters within a week.
Once that is done we then send the aircraft carriers to quickly support the Islands, using submarines to send missiles on any Argentine troops who have got on the islands in the meantime
I would suggest you get a cup of tea and a rich tea biscuit rather than continuing this nonsense
We should relax about this. No one - Argentina or anyone else - will be invading the Falklands at any time in the foreseeable future.
That being said, we are not going to be visited by aliens in the foreseeable future, but this doesn't stop us from discussing that! 😈
Not sure where this idea Argentina could invade has come from. Not only are its armed forces in a poor state and the country has no money but the Falklands are far better protected now than they were in 1982. Any Argentinian attack would fail full stop.
The Falklands are not actually that well protected. No heavy arty, just 4 RAF Typhoon, and so on.
ANd when did Typhoon have anti-shipping missiles? None planned tilol 2030 or so, IIRC.
Our submarines could sink the Argentine fleet within a week with Spearfish torpedoes
And where are the submarines most of the time? And where can they replenish?
Our submarines are now able to remain at sea for months at a time without needing to replenish, they could sink the entire Argentine fleet within a week
Which ones?
You're confusing SSBN and attack subs. The latter run out of weapons and need to rearm and get other consumables and spares.
Astute class submarines with Spearfish submarines can now stay underwater for 90 days.
As the Argentine navy literally consists of 4 destroyers, 9 corvettes, 2 non operational submarines and some patrol and auxiliary ships now, our submarines could probably sink all of it within 3 days https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_Argentine_Navy_ships
This involves the rather large assumption that the ships of the Armada de la República Argentina are currently capable of floating !
I can think of definite ways to sink a Ro-Ro, but we are being well-behaved tonight so so will I be.
The Argentinians have been going round this circle for years
1) Announce they are buying new weapon X 2) Country selling it asks how they are going to pay 3) Argentina looks at its shoes. 4) Crickets
For variation, the U.K. government vetoes the sale at 1), because of British technology being involved.
The Argentine military has collapsed - I’ve got some Argentine relatives, by marriage. One distant member of the family is in the Army there. Nothing works. Barely anything flies or sails.
The Falklands gets raised in Argentina by Farage types who are looking for a political boost. Even the nuttiest don't want to start another war - it’s all performative dance.
Correct. This hypothetical Argentine suicide mission would make the Russians look smart.
@TLDRNewsUK 🇦🇷 Argentina has told the UK that it wants to start new talks over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands and has pulled out of a 2016 cooperation pact.
Could a Sunak Falklands moment save his chances of reelection?
Bloody hell not again. The Argentinians need to give this a rest.
Of course national fervour doesn't make sense, we have our own examples of that, but the Argentinian passion on this issue really doesn't seem to make sense to me when it's noted their claim to the islands is a rather technical one based on inheriting rights from former Spanish sovereignty, and talk about natives who don't exist. Yes there are other complexities, but the point being it's actually a rather arcane legal dispute, yet it's talked about in terms of colonialism as if someone seized Buenos Aires 2 years ago.
There is nothing Argentina can do about it anyway. The UK has a veto on any UN decision as a permanent member of the UN Security Council unlike them.
The UK also has a bigger navy and army and airforce than Argentina now
Have a look at an atlas. It's not the Persian Gulf.
Since the Falklands War there is also a bigger permanent British garrison on the islands, a Royal Navy ship on patrol there at all times and a Royal Navy nuclear submarine patrols regularly nearby (though the exact times and location of the latter are obviously classified)
"ship" is a posh way to describe a patrol boat. And the forces, at the far end of a long supply line, are very small.
I remember 1981 - you obviously don't.
Yes, Argentina has cut its armed forces back to far fewer than they were in Galtieri's day.
The UK does not have an army of 153,000. That is the total size of our armed forces - Army, Navy and Airforce - including reservists. Our regular army is just over 80,000 and there are another 30,000 reservists. And gven our other commitments, not least on the Eastern flank of NATO, how many of those do you seriously think we could deploy?
We are much stronger on the ground in the Falklands than we were in 1982 but at the same time much weaker overall. So I could see our forces putting up a reasonable defence but I am certainly not confident they could hold. And if they did fall then we have no chance at all of reclaiming the islands as we did in 1982.
Our commitments on the Eastern flank of NATO would obviously be temporarily abandoned given British sovereign territory had been invaded.
We have a bigger armed forces than Argentina's which are also far weaker than they were in 1982
I am sorry but you really are deluded. What we did in 1982 was extraordinary but we could do it now. We simply don't have the ships.
As an example in 1982 we sent 8 destroyers and 16 frigates as part of the task force (and that was not our entire contingent of those vessel types in the navy). The entire Royal Navy only has 6 destroyers and 12 frigates. And we don't have the crews even for all of those.
Yes we do. we have 10 times the submarines Argentina do, enough to sink most of the Argentine navy alone for starters.
We also have more surface ships too, Argentina now literally has just 1 destroyer and not a single frigate!
You do realise that the size of their navy is pretty much immaterial given they wouldn't be the ones trying to mount a recapture 8000 miles away? What mattered in 1982 was our ability to get men to the South Atlantic and retake the islands. We no longer have the capability to do that. As I said you are deluded. I will add remarkably ignorant as well.
Yes it is, we could sink their entire fleet whether in port in Buenos Aires or Falklands waters within a week.
Once that is done we then send the aircraft carriers to quickly support the Islands, using submarines to send missiles on any Argentine troops who have got on the islands in the meantime
I would suggest you get a cup of tea and a rich tea biscuit rather than continuing this nonsense
We should relax about this. No one - Argentina or anyone else - will be invading the Falklands at any time in the foreseeable future.
That being said, we are not going to be visited by aliens in the foreseeable future, but this doesn't stop us from discussing that! 😈
Not sure where this idea Argentina could invade has come from. Not only are its armed forces in a poor state and the country has no money but the Falklands are far better protected now than they were in 1982. Any Argentinian attack would fail full stop.
The Falklands are not actually that well protected. No heavy arty, just 4 RAF Typhoon, and so on.
ANd when did Typhoon have anti-shipping missiles? None planned tilol 2030 or so, IIRC.
Our submarines could sink the Argentine fleet within a week with Spearfish torpedoes
And where are the submarines most of the time? And where can they replenish?
Our submarines are now able to remain at sea for months at a time without needing to replenish, they could sink the entire Argentine fleet within a week
Which ones?
You're confusing SSBN and attack subs. The latter run out of weapons and need to rearm and get other consumables and spares.
Astute class submarines with Spearfish submarines can now stay underwater for 90 days.
@TLDRNewsUK 🇦🇷 Argentina has told the UK that it wants to start new talks over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands and has pulled out of a 2016 cooperation pact.
Could a Sunak Falklands moment save his chances of reelection?
Bloody hell not again. The Argentinians need to give this a rest.
Of course national fervour doesn't make sense, we have our own examples of that, but the Argentinian passion on this issue really doesn't seem to make sense to me when it's noted their claim to the islands is a rather technical one based on inheriting rights from former Spanish sovereignty, and talk about natives who don't exist. Yes there are other complexities, but the point being it's actually a rather arcane legal dispute, yet it's talked about in terms of colonialism as if someone seized Buenos Aires 2 years ago.
There is nothing Argentina can do about it anyway. The UK has a veto on any UN decision as a permanent member of the UN Security Council unlike them.
The UK also has a bigger navy and army and airforce than Argentina now
Have a look at an atlas. It's not the Persian Gulf.
Since the Falklands War there is also a bigger permanent British garrison on the islands, a Royal Navy ship on patrol there at all times and a Royal Navy nuclear submarine patrols regularly nearby (though the exact times and location of the latter are obviously classified)
"ship" is a posh way to describe a patrol boat. And the forces, at the far end of a long supply line, are very small.
I remember 1981 - you obviously don't.
Yes, Argentina has cut its armed forces back to far fewer than they were in Galtieri's day.
The UK does not have an army of 153,000. That is the total size of our armed forces - Army, Navy and Airforce - including reservists. Our regular army is just over 80,000 and there are another 30,000 reservists. And gven our other commitments, not least on the Eastern flank of NATO, how many of those do you seriously think we could deploy?
We are much stronger on the ground in the Falklands than we were in 1982 but at the same time much weaker overall. So I could see our forces putting up a reasonable defence but I am certainly not confident they could hold. And if they did fall then we have no chance at all of reclaiming the islands as we did in 1982.
Our commitments on the Eastern flank of NATO would obviously be temporarily abandoned given British sovereign territory had been invaded.
We have a bigger armed forces than Argentina's which are also far weaker than they were in 1982
I am sorry but you really are deluded. What we did in 1982 was extraordinary but we could do it now. We simply don't have the ships.
As an example in 1982 we sent 8 destroyers and 16 frigates as part of the task force (and that was not our entire contingent of those vessel types in the navy). The entire Royal Navy only has 6 destroyers and 12 frigates. And we don't have the crews even for all of those.
Yes we do. we have 10 times the submarines Argentina do, enough to sink most of the Argentine navy alone for starters.
We also have more surface ships too, Argentina now literally has just 1 destroyer and not a single frigate!
You do realise that the size of their navy is pretty much immaterial given they wouldn't be the ones trying to mount a recapture 8000 miles away? What mattered in 1982 was our ability to get men to the South Atlantic and retake the islands. We no longer have the capability to do that. As I said you are deluded. I will add remarkably ignorant as well.
Yes it is, we could sink their entire fleet whether in port in Buenos Aires or Falklands waters within a week.
Once that is done we then send the aircraft carriers to quickly support the Islands, using submarines to send missiles on any Argentine troops who have got on the islands in the meantime
I would suggest you get a cup of tea and a rich tea biscuit rather than continuing this nonsense
We should relax about this. No one - Argentina or anyone else - will be invading the Falklands at any time in the foreseeable future.
That being said, we are not going to be visited by aliens in the foreseeable future, but this doesn't stop us from discussing that! 😈
Not sure where this idea Argentina could invade has come from. Not only are its armed forces in a poor state and the country has no money but the Falklands are far better protected now than they were in 1982. Any Argentinian attack would fail full stop.
The Falklands are not actually that well protected. No heavy arty, just 4 RAF Typhoon, and so on.
ANd when did Typhoon have anti-shipping missiles? None planned tilol 2030 or so, IIRC.
Our submarines could sink the Argentine fleet within a week with Spearfish torpedoes
I absolutely love you HYUFD. You are the stoutest of yeomen who would have been in Henry V’s tent on the eve of Agincourt, maybe recommending he uses the trebuchet rather than the archers but you believe.
You are an immovable Easter Island Statue of belief, but very very good with facts about polling and election comparisons, little details that I think you get knocked for but are just quite unemotionally sound on.
I just wish you could be a little nuanced, falklands aren’t going to be invaded, if they do it’s going to be a mess but we aren’t going to be flinging tomahawks etc around. We don’t have a massive sub fleet sitting there watching “the battle of river plate” and reliving old glories.
I love your passion, patriotism and certainty but things aren’t as certain as you are.
Ultimately I know we could have a fun very long lunch and agree on a lot but my god you are very bullish on here sometimes.
Unfortunately some of the wet lettuces on here had they been at Agincourt would have run away at the first sight of a French Knight, dropped their bows and told Henry Vth to barter with Croissants and hope the French showed them mercy!
No croissants then unfortunately, they were a celebration of the end of the siege of Vienna by the Turks to troll the crescent. But otherwise your comment makes me laugh and want to go into battle alongside you, not in a tank though.
@TLDRNewsUK 🇦🇷 Argentina has told the UK that it wants to start new talks over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands and has pulled out of a 2016 cooperation pact.
Could a Sunak Falklands moment save his chances of reelection?
Bloody hell not again. The Argentinians need to give this a rest.
Of course national fervour doesn't make sense, we have our own examples of that, but the Argentinian passion on this issue really doesn't seem to make sense to me when it's noted their claim to the islands is a rather technical one based on inheriting rights from former Spanish sovereignty, and talk about natives who don't exist. Yes there are other complexities, but the point being it's actually a rather arcane legal dispute, yet it's talked about in terms of colonialism as if someone seized Buenos Aires 2 years ago.
There is nothing Argentina can do about it anyway. The UK has a veto on any UN decision as a permanent member of the UN Security Council unlike them.
The UK also has a bigger navy and army and airforce than Argentina now
Have a look at an atlas. It's not the Persian Gulf.
Since the Falklands War there is also a bigger permanent British garrison on the islands, a Royal Navy ship on patrol there at all times and a Royal Navy nuclear submarine patrols regularly nearby (though the exact times and location of the latter are obviously classified)
"ship" is a posh way to describe a patrol boat. And the forces, at the far end of a long supply line, are very small.
I remember 1981 - you obviously don't.
Yes, Argentina has cut its armed forces back to far fewer than they were in Galtieri's day.
The UK does not have an army of 153,000. That is the total size of our armed forces - Army, Navy and Airforce - including reservists. Our regular army is just over 80,000 and there are another 30,000 reservists. And gven our other commitments, not least on the Eastern flank of NATO, how many of those do you seriously think we could deploy?
We are much stronger on the ground in the Falklands than we were in 1982 but at the same time much weaker overall. So I could see our forces putting up a reasonable defence but I am certainly not confident they could hold. And if they did fall then we have no chance at all of reclaiming the islands as we did in 1982.
Our commitments on the Eastern flank of NATO would obviously be temporarily abandoned given British sovereign territory had been invaded.
We have a bigger armed forces than Argentina's which are also far weaker than they were in 1982
I am sorry but you really are deluded. What we did in 1982 was extraordinary but we could do it now. We simply don't have the ships.
As an example in 1982 we sent 8 destroyers and 16 frigates as part of the task force (and that was not our entire contingent of those vessel types in the navy). The entire Royal Navy only has 6 destroyers and 12 frigates. And we don't have the crews even for all of those.
Yes we do. we have 10 times the submarines Argentina do, enough to sink most of the Argentine navy alone for starters.
We also have more surface ships too, Argentina now literally has just 1 destroyer and not a single frigate!
You do realise that the size of their navy is pretty much immaterial given they wouldn't be the ones trying to mount a recapture 8000 miles away? What mattered in 1982 was our ability to get men to the South Atlantic and retake the islands. We no longer have the capability to do that. As I said you are deluded. I will add remarkably ignorant as well.
Yes it is, we could sink their entire fleet whether in port in Buenos Aires or Falklands waters within a week.
Once that is done we then send the aircraft carriers to quickly support the Islands, using submarines to send missiles on any Argentine troops who have got on the islands in the meantime
I would suggest you get a cup of tea and a rich tea biscuit rather than continuing this nonsense
We should relax about this. No one - Argentina or anyone else - will be invading the Falklands at any time in the foreseeable future.
That being said, we are not going to be visited by aliens in the foreseeable future, but this doesn't stop us from discussing that! 😈
Not sure where this idea Argentina could invade has come from. Not only are its armed forces in a poor state and the country has no money but the Falklands are far better protected now than they were in 1982. Any Argentinian attack would fail full stop.
The Falklands are not actually that well protected. No heavy arty, just 4 RAF Typhoon, and so on.
ANd when did Typhoon have anti-shipping missiles? None planned tilol 2030 or so, IIRC.
Our submarines could sink the Argentine fleet within a week with Spearfish torpedoes
And where are the submarines most of the time? And where can they replenish?
Our submarines are now able to remain at sea for months at a time without needing to replenish, they could sink the entire Argentine fleet within a week
Which ones?
You're confusing SSBN and attack subs. The latter run out of weapons and need to rearm and get other consumables and spares.
Astute class submarines with Spearfish submarines can now stay underwater for 90 days.
As the Argentine navy literally consists of 4 destroyers, 9 corvettes, 2 non operational submarines and some patrol and auxiliary ships now, our submarines could probably sink all of it within 3 days https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_Argentine_Navy_ships
This involves the rather large assumption that the ships of the Armada de la República Argentina are currently capable of floating !
I can think of definite ways to sink a Ro-Ro, but we are being well-behaved tonight so so will I be.
That's assuming it s recognised as something other than a civilian one, and that submarines are available.
@TLDRNewsUK 🇦🇷 Argentina has told the UK that it wants to start new talks over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands and has pulled out of a 2016 cooperation pact.
Could a Sunak Falklands moment save his chances of reelection?
Bloody hell not again. The Argentinians need to give this a rest.
Of course national fervour doesn't make sense, we have our own examples of that, but the Argentinian passion on this issue really doesn't seem to make sense to me when it's noted their claim to the islands is a rather technical one based on inheriting rights from former Spanish sovereignty, and talk about natives who don't exist. Yes there are other complexities, but the point being it's actually a rather arcane legal dispute, yet it's talked about in terms of colonialism as if someone seized Buenos Aires 2 years ago.
There is nothing Argentina can do about it anyway. The UK has a veto on any UN decision as a permanent member of the UN Security Council unlike them.
The UK also has a bigger navy and army and airforce than Argentina now
Have a look at an atlas. It's not the Persian Gulf.
Since the Falklands War there is also a bigger permanent British garrison on the islands, a Royal Navy ship on patrol there at all times and a Royal Navy nuclear submarine patrols regularly nearby (though the exact times and location of the latter are obviously classified)
"ship" is a posh way to describe a patrol boat. And the forces, at the far end of a long supply line, are very small.
I remember 1981 - you obviously don't.
Yes, Argentina has cut its armed forces back to far fewer than they were in Galtieri's day.
The UK does not have an army of 153,000. That is the total size of our armed forces - Army, Navy and Airforce - including reservists. Our regular army is just over 80,000 and there are another 30,000 reservists. And gven our other commitments, not least on the Eastern flank of NATO, how many of those do you seriously think we could deploy?
We are much stronger on the ground in the Falklands than we were in 1982 but at the same time much weaker overall. So I could see our forces putting up a reasonable defence but I am certainly not confident they could hold. And if they did fall then we have no chance at all of reclaiming the islands as we did in 1982.
Our commitments on the Eastern flank of NATO would obviously be temporarily abandoned given British sovereign territory had been invaded.
We have a bigger armed forces than Argentina's which are also far weaker than they were in 1982
I am sorry but you really are deluded. What we did in 1982 was extraordinary but we could do it now. We simply don't have the ships.
As an example in 1982 we sent 8 destroyers and 16 frigates as part of the task force (and that was not our entire contingent of those vessel types in the navy). The entire Royal Navy only has 6 destroyers and 12 frigates. And we don't have the crews even for all of those.
Yes we do. we have 10 times the submarines Argentina do, enough to sink most of the Argentine navy alone for starters.
We also have more surface ships too, Argentina now literally has just 1 destroyer and not a single frigate!
You do realise that the size of their navy is pretty much immaterial given they wouldn't be the ones trying to mount a recapture 8000 miles away? What mattered in 1982 was our ability to get men to the South Atlantic and retake the islands. We no longer have the capability to do that. As I said you are deluded. I will add remarkably ignorant as well.
Yes it is, we could sink their entire fleet whether in port in Buenos Aires or Falklands waters within a week.
Once that is done we then send the aircraft carriers to quickly recapture the Islands, using submarines to send missiles on any Argentine troops still on the islands in the meantime
Fucking hell.
Any missile strike on the Falklands is likely to wipe out the Islanders as well.
Not if well targeted, a Tomahawk missile or 2 would do the trick
On this one, I don't think the Argentine Air Force currently has a single war plane that can fly to the Falklands. A couple of transports, but that's about it, afaics.
I'd say the greatest threat to the Falklands for the next 15-20 years is Treasury salami-slicing, or if China buys Argentina.
@TLDRNewsUK 🇦🇷 Argentina has told the UK that it wants to start new talks over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands and has pulled out of a 2016 cooperation pact.
Could a Sunak Falklands moment save his chances of reelection?
Bloody hell not again. The Argentinians need to give this a rest.
Of course national fervour doesn't make sense, we have our own examples of that, but the Argentinian passion on this issue really doesn't seem to make sense to me when it's noted their claim to the islands is a rather technical one based on inheriting rights from former Spanish sovereignty, and talk about natives who don't exist. Yes there are other complexities, but the point being it's actually a rather arcane legal dispute, yet it's talked about in terms of colonialism as if someone seized Buenos Aires 2 years ago.
There is nothing Argentina can do about it anyway. The UK has a veto on any UN decision as a permanent member of the UN Security Council unlike them.
The UK also has a bigger navy and army and airforce than Argentina now
The Argies forces must be minuscule!
Google tells me Arg: 70,600 (2022) vs UK 78,000 (2020). Not sure if this is chalk and apples eg whole of HMF vs army...but it's a close run thing.
We absolutely couldn't mount another Falklands tomorrow morning that's for sure.
From what I’ve seen of the Argentine navy in Ushuaia they could barely crew one ship
However all this is replying to the mood music of Britain in retreat. Giving up the Elgin marbles. Handing back Diego Garcia. London shrinking as a world city
I can see why the argies might think now is a time to strike - psychologically - as the Uk seems in perpetual decline and in a funk of self doubt
They can think what they want, the UK on its own could still beat most nations in a war apart from the US and China, France and India would probably be a stalemate, Russia can't even beat Ukraine.
Argentina also has declined well past its peak when it was one of the wealthiest nations in the world, even in the Falklands war it had far bigger armed forces than now
Have a look at the RN and RAF in 1981 vs today - abvoe all the long range stuff.
And the Merchant Navy, when it comes to the critical STUFT ships of 1981
The Army is about as useful as a fart in a hurricane without those two when it comes to the Flaklands.
Yes we have enough submarines to sink most of the Argentine navy within a day or 2.
Plus enough aircraft carriers and submarines with Cruise Missiles to bomb the Argentine army into submission too if they ever tried invading the Falklands again even without setting any troops on land beyond the garrison already there
What a pathetic post and as so often you just talk codswallop
Indeed having been to the remote Falkland Islands with its rugged terrain and cliff lined coasts with hundreds of Islands and inlets makes it a very difficult place to wage warfare and anyway the whole idea is ridiculous
Weak, wet, pathetic, useless. If Thatcher had had your defeatist attitude in 1982 we would never have recaptured the Falklands then
Sadly you are being utterly ridiculous
You have no knowledge of the territory, our present capabilities, and the fact is we nearly didn't capture them in 1982
Indeed the loss of the Welsh guards at Bluff Cove was shocking as was the sinking of the Sheffield
1982 was very different to today
No, you are being a pathetic, defeatist wet lettuce.
The Argentine forces have also been so cut back since 1982 they are far weaker than they were then. Our submarines could sink the entire Argentine navy within a week
You have no idea just how controversial the sinking of the Belgrano was have you
I was the late Wyn Roberts driver at the following GE and we had to field many questions about that event as it was highly controversial
I do not know how old you are but to blithely talk of sinking the Argentine fleet in a week when I had to explain the sinking of one vessel shows how utterly out of touch you are
And his talk of torpedoing ships in harbour. What does he think the Navy have, Fairey ****ing Swordfish??
Spearfish torpedoes carried by our Astute class submarines are able to provide anti surface warfare capability as well as anti submarine warfare capability
Are you trolling us, or are you genuinely making what you consider to be a valid proposal? Stuff like this post could come back to haunt you when your political ambitions for high office are about to be realised.
No it wouldn't, any Tory seeking elected office, especially nationally not prepared to use all means necessary to defend the Falklands hasn't got a hope of being selected by the party, or indeed winning the country.
Are you really so deluded as to think the average member of the UK population, let alone the average Conservative member and the tabloids would not want as hard a response as possible to any Argentine threat to the Falklands?
Are you General Galtieri?
Galtieri never contemplated invading Scotland to be fair.
Scotland is part of the UK, there is no reason to invade part of the same sovereign country as England
Your brand of comedy is quite remarkable, an acquired taste but remarkable nonetheless, and you are on fire tonight.
The left thinking defending UK territory is 'comedy' is partly why you have lost 4 general elections in a row! At least Sir Keir is somewhat more of a patriot at least
I haven't lost four general elections in a row.
Sometimes your political analysis, particularly in relation to.polling is very good. However your political reality is troubling. Sending 10000 troops to a backwater to save the livelihoods of 1000 shepherds at maybe the expense of the lives of 1001 serviceman should not be a decision you take lightly. As a Christian do you not consider the moral questions associated with sending some people to their deaths for what you are suggesting is a political expediency.
Comments
A lot was learnt from the 1982 fiasco.
Any missile strike on the Falklands is likely to wipe out the Islanders as well.
But I had an unfortunate experience with a tramline.
@northern_monkey I think you need to explain to your friend that you are *returning* to your roots. Show him some films from the 1950s.
At one point he was prepared to loan us a carrier.
Not likely to happen if an America Firster is in charge.
I was the late Wyn Roberts driver at the following GE and we had to field many questions about that event as it was highly controversial
I do not know how old you are but to blithely talk of sinking the Argentine fleet in a week when I had to explain the sinking of one vessel shows how utterly out of touch you are
I'd say the greatest threat to the Falklands for the next 15-20 years is Treasury salami-slicing, or if China buys Argentina.
Look up the Falkland Islands and you will see how silly that comment is
Mind you, knowing you, you probably won't
Plenty of attack lines against SKS best saved for nearer a GE methinks
He is a Liar of Johnson proportions, changes his mind about everything, has no principles at all, cant be trusted etc etc etc
A short enough post for you @MoonRabbit?
That being said, we are not going to be visited by aliens in the foreseeable future, but this doesn't stop us from discussing that! 😈
It's very "a flagon of your finest ale, stout yeoman of the bar."
Focus our energies on Russia and China.
You know, with the shallow water near the coast, and things like piers and moles which get in the way.
By all means continue to supply Ukraine and with the US and Australia and Japan and S Korea try and deter China from invading Taiwan but the government's first job is to defend British territory
I think we tried telling people who they belonged to a while ago and that isn’t looked back on particularly well these days. Self-determination and all that.
Edit, sorry just saw you referred to them as the Malvinas so you will clearly be happy to give the falklands to the French who have a better claim than Argentina. The people of St Malo send their thanks and support to you.
2. Changing your mind when the facts change is not a weakness, it's a strength. Unbending views in an ever changing world is the weakness.
Firstly, don’t measure upticks over a time period of just a week or so. It’s only if things clearly changed month on month that matters.
It looks like I am going to have to explain how to read the main polling graph to you.
And the main lesson we take from saggy boobs and perky tits? It’s they can do all that and still the month by month line has gone nowhere. Absolutely nowhere. We can see real tangibles like saggy boobs and perky tits, but existentially there may be no meaning to them at all.
Secondly, the observed delay factor, long observed and discussed on PB (and header in the previous thread ) - political narrative to polling so often takes weeks to properly show up. The latest half of a saggy boob, or perky tit* the Tory line is drawing, actually pre dates the one or two days this week Torys actually got positive coverage for once.
*though nb Tories have been groping in the dark for a perky tit of late
Hope this helps
And frankly the flippant way you talk about this is an insult to the Welsh Guards who so tragically lost their lives in Bluff Cove on the 8th June 1982
Are you really so deluded as to think the average member of the UK population, let alone the average Conservative member and the tabloids and GB news and the Mail and Telegraph etc would not want as hard a response as possible to any Argentine threat to the Falklands?
ANd when did Typhoon have anti-shipping missiles? None planned tilol 2030 or so, IIRC.
The population, and a long standing one at that consider themselves British, they prob ought to declare themselves an independent country and be more protected by the UN but there you go.
I’m guessing that people in “contested” areas of Ukraine who consider themselves “Ukrainian” aren’t being pressured here that they should just roll over and accept some weird historical jigsaw makes them Russian? Or are we now accepting it’s cool again to invade a population and say they are your people because hundreds of years ago shit happened?
But I welcome our new parliamentary seat of Burkina Faso and their Member of Parliament Lee Anderson to our wonderful Union.
Taiwan falling to Chinese invasion would be a far bigger threat to Japan and South Korea and indeed Australia and US power than to the UK now.
The Falkland Islands falling and being held by Argentina would however be a humiliation for the UK and hugely weaken our standing in the world
It will make the last few years look like the golden years.
Compare what Corbyn said before and after he became leader.
Compare what Ed M said before and after he became leader.
Compare what Gordon Brown said before and after he became leader.
Compare what Tony Blair said before and after he became leader.
Compare what John Smith said before and after he became leader.
Labour leaders always go left wing in leadership contests and then move more to the centre when elected. The degree to which they do is the difference, not what they say before they are elected.
I said here at the time, KS will not do anything he said he would do, his promises were incredibly vague so as to be irrelevant. And that's before the left decided to self-destruct and try to bring him down from literally day two of him being voted in.
I've long been of the view that with the current state of forces, the 'best' way for Argentina to get the Falklands would be to team up with another country: say Brazil. That would provide the UK with a much more difficult military and diplomatic situation.
But Argentina on its own, in the next decade? Unless something remarkable happens, then it's really unlikely.
2. About everything, whether or not facts have changed, makes him completely unsuitable
You're confusing SSBN and attack subs. The latter run out of weapons and need to rearm and get other consumables and spares.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentina–Brazil_relations
You are an immovable Easter Island Statue of belief, but very very good with facts about polling and election comparisons, little details that I think you get knocked for but are just quite unemotionally sound on.
I just wish you could be a little nuanced, falklands aren’t going to be invaded, if they do it’s going to be a mess but we aren’t going to be flinging tomahawks etc around. We don’t have a massive sub fleet sitting there watching “the battle of river plate” and reliving old glories.
I love your passion, patriotism and certainty but things aren’t as certain as you are.
Ultimately I know we could have a fun very long lunch and agree on a lot but my god you are very bullish on here sometimes.
https://www.wdmmw.org/argentine-navy.php
They also have no amphibious landing capabilities which means that they would have to rely on a Crete-style operation of flying their troops in - which is slightly unlikely to succeed
Starmer may be the world's most uninspiring character. From his upbringing he nonetheless has an empathy and a compassion your boy Corbyn could never muster. Yes Corbyn was as "right-on" as the latest Morning Star editorial, but he was a million miles away from understanding what made the average Joe tick.
As the Argentine navy literally consists of 4 destroyers, 9 corvettes, 2 non operational submarines and some patrol and auxiliary ships now, our submarines could probably sink all of it within 3 days
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_Argentine_Navy_ships
And have oyu never heard of a fleet in being, even a small one? They don't need to go oujt to tie down UK forces.
Remember - the Tories screwed up big time by assuming their defences were OK. And withdrawing forces.
Long term I guess the main risk is what happens when all the loans the UK has start coming due. Keeping a garrison there is an expensive commitment, which is why the place was so poorly defended in the early 80s in the first place. And, perhaps, at some point China approaches Britain with the offer of a bridging loan to tide the country over, and wants something in return to make friends in South America.
Unless someone can breathe new life into the British economy at some point unpalatable sacrifices will have to be made.
"Britain spends £350m a year on defending the Falkland Islands. Let's spend it on the NHS instead."
Coming to the side of a bus near you in the 2030s?
* Okay, maybe, at a stretch, a Bond movie.
1) Announce they are buying new weapon X
2) Country selling it asks how they are going to pay
3) Argentina looks at its shoes.
4) Crickets
For variation, the U.K. government vetoes the sale at 1), because of British technology being involved.
The Argentine military has collapsed - I’ve got some Argentine relatives, by marriage. One distant member of the family is in the Army there. Nothing works. Barely anything flies or sails.
The Falklands gets raised in Argentina by Farage types who are looking for a political boost. Even the nuttiest don't want to start another war - it’s all performative dance.
Another reason they aren’t going to invade.
(1) It is far from clear that the Argentinians have the ability to successfully invade the islands, given they are rather better defended, and the fact that the Argentine military is a shadow of its former self.
(2) In the event that they did successfully invade, the UK would be in a worse position to get them back, given the cuts to our armed services,
I can think of definite ways to sink a Ro-Ro, but we are being well-behaved tonight so so will I be.
Sometimes your political analysis, particularly in relation to.polling is very good. However your political reality is troubling. Sending 10000 troops to a backwater to save the livelihoods of 1000 shepherds at maybe the expense of the lives of 1001 serviceman should not be a decision you take lightly. As a Christian do you not consider the moral questions associated with sending some people to their deaths for what you are suggesting is a political expediency.