@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.
(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,
It’s a bit like the performative pub fighter pretending to launch at his rival whilst shouting to his friends “hold me back, hold me back”.
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.
Does the average Joe warm to SKS?
Do they love establishment liars?
After the inevitable attacks by the RW Press i think he will be a massive liability
We will see I could be wrong but i think result on par with 2017
@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.
Spearfish are submarines? That's a hell of an upgrade for torpedoes.
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.
RN submarines can sink the Argentine fleet with Spearfish torpedoes in port too within a week if they try and invade the Falklands again
Now you really are talking bollocks.
No I'm not, a PM who is not a wet lettuce like you (and also not a Scottish nationalist like you who would be cheering Buenos Aires on anyway) would do exactly that if Argentina tried to invade again
(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,
Is (2) really true?
We have a couple of proper-sized carriers right now, even if one would need to be towed down to the South Atlantic, instead of the harrier carriers the Navy had in the early 80s. I think they haven't yet scrapped the amphibious landing ships. Isn't there a proper airport on Ascension Island now, which would make providing air support/supply much easier than it was in the 80s.
Yes, the overall size of the armed forces is a lot smaller than it was, but there are some key capabilities that are probably in much better shape now than then.
@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.
Defending British territory must be done no matter what the cost, the first role of any government is defence of the nation and its sovereign territory
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.
People say that the U.K. is in a poor position.
It is the considered opinion by the Argentines in the family that Argentina is much, much worse off than Peru.
Not comparative stats, so much as being able to find work, afford to live. I think Peru is poorer, but there is more opportunity to get by there, at a reduced living standard. If that makes sense.
@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 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.
Defending British territory must be done no matter what the cost, the first role of any government is defence of the nation and its sovereign territory
Wow.
Defending British lives I can just about see. But territory no matter what the cost? Like the Isle of Eigg is invaded and we kill 300m people to get it back?
I was a leaflet delivering party foot soldier until just after I voted for the wrong Miliband. After that they were better off without me, and I plough my own furrow.
President Bukele of El Salvador seems like a rare political phenomenon. He has a very good line in this speech about how in order to be like developed countries, they need to do what they did, and not what they are telling them to do.
@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.
Defending British territory must be done no matter what the cost, the first role of any government is defence of the nation and its sovereign territory
Wow.
Defending British lives I can just about see. But territory no matter what the cost? Like the Isle of Eigg is invaded and we kill 300m people to get it 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 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.
Defending British territory must be done no matter what the cost, the first role of any government is defence of the nation and its sovereign territory
Wow.
Defending British lives I can just about see. But territory no matter what the cost? Like the Isle of Eigg is invaded and we kill 300m people to get it back?
If necessary though obviously not 300m as they couldn't even all fit on the Isle of Eigg
@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.
Defending British territory must be done no matter what the cost, the first role of any government is defence of the nation and its sovereign territory
Wow.
Defending British lives I can just about see. But territory no matter what the cost? Like the Isle of Eigg is invaded and we kill 300m people to get it back?
President Bukele of El Salvador seems like a rare political phenomenon. He has a very good line in this speech about how in order to be like developed countries, they need to do what they did, and not what they are telling them to do.
@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.
Defending British territory must be done no matter what the cost, the first role of any government is defence of the nation and its sovereign territory
Wow.
Defending British lives I can just about see. But territory no matter what the cost? Like the Isle of Eigg is invaded and we kill 300m people to get it back?
(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,
Is (2) really true?
We have a couple of proper-sized carriers right now, even if one would need to be towed down to the South Atlantic, instead of the harrier carriers the Navy had in the early 80s. I think they haven't yet scrapped the amphibious landing ships. Isn't there a proper airport on Ascension Island now, which would make providing air support/supply much easier than it was in the 80s.
Yes, the overall size of the armed forces is a lot smaller than it was, but there are some key capabilities that are probably in much better shape now than then.
Yes Robert is right. It doesn't matter that you have the carriers unless you have all the other ships you need to go along with them to provide the anti-aircraft and anti-submarine screens. We have far fewer armed surface ships of that sort than we did in 1982. Whether consciously or not we have been moving more and more to the idea of our ships serving as part of a multi-national force, with the French and others. Fine for most situations but probably not going to be of any use in a Falklands type situation.
And Ascension is okay as a stop over point en route to the Falklands but it is still far to far away to be of use for providing air cover/support. Look at what they had to do just to get a couple of bombs dropped on Port Stanley airport in 1982.
The Typhoon has an operating range of around 850 miles (the F35 only 650 miles). The distance from Ascension to Falklands is just under 4000 miles.
@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.
Defending British territory must be done no matter what the cost, the first role of any government is defence of the nation and its sovereign territory
Wow.
Defending British lives I can just about see. But territory no matter what the cost? Like the Isle of Eigg is invaded and we kill 300m people to get it back?
If necessary though obviously not 300m as they couldn't even all fit on the Isle of Eigg
Nice to see you applying a little sensible logic. I was worried there.
@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.
Defending British territory must be done no matter what the cost, the first role of any government is defence of the nation and its sovereign territory
That is tough talk from the safety of your Epping Forest dacha. I would be happy if you don't conscript my sons to fight your vanity defence of sheep, farmers and a few alleged child sex offenders.
President Bukele of El Salvador seems like a rare political phenomenon. He has a very good line in this speech about how in order to be like developed countries, they need to do what they did, and not what they are telling them to do.
I need to check, but I think the slave forts in Africa are out of business.
Isn’t it the claim that only the slave trade made European development possible?
One of my favourite parts of one of my favourite films, Amistad, when the British Navy Captain is dictating the letter dripping with sardonic joy that the slave fort of Lomboko indeed doesn’t exist having just gone full HYUFD on it.
@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.
Defending British territory must be done no matter what the cost, the first role of any government is defence of the nation and its sovereign territory
Wow.
Defending British lives I can just about see. But territory no matter what the cost? Like the Isle of Eigg is invaded and we kill 300m people to get it back?
At least 8 billion people. No kill like overkill.
Where do you draw the line. The Isle of Wight?
Feels like the Scilly Isles are more appropriate...
(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,
Is (2) really true?
We have a couple of proper-sized carriers right now, even if one would need to be towed down to the South Atlantic, instead of the harrier carriers the Navy had in the early 80s. I think they haven't yet scrapped the amphibious landing ships. Isn't there a proper airport on Ascension Island now, which would make providing air support/supply much easier than it was in the 80s.
Yes, the overall size of the armed forces is a lot smaller than it was, but there are some key capabilities that are probably in much better shape now than then.
Yes Robert is right. It doesn't matter that you have the carriers unless you have all the other ships you need to go along with them to provide the anti-aircraft and anti-submarine screens. We have far fewer armed surface ships of that sort than we did in 1982. Whether consciously or not we have been moving more and more to the idea of our ships serving as part of a multi-national force, with the French and others. Fine for most situations but probably not going to be of any use in a Falklands type situation.
And Ascension is okay as a stop over point en route to the Falklands but it is still far to far away to be of use for providing air cover/support. Look at what they had to do just to get a couple of bombs dropped on Port Stanley airport in 1982.
The Typhoon has an operating range of around 850 miles (the F35 only 650 miles). The distance from Ascension to Falklands is just under 4000 miles.
Argentina has 0 submarines, the 2 it has are non operational.
If anyone wants some more interesting naval content, a couple of days ago Drachinifel from Youtube published a presentation explaining how he went from Council Civil Engineer doing roads in Croydon to Youtube naval historian with 850 vids published and a subscriber base of 400k, since 2016.
@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.
Defending British territory must be done no matter what the cost, the first role of any government is defence of the nation and its sovereign territory
Wow.
Defending British lives I can just about see. But territory no matter what the cost? Like the Isle of Eigg is invaded and we kill 300m people to get it back?
At least 8 billion people. No kill like overkill.
Where do you draw the line. The Isle of Wight?
Someone looks sideways at Rockall. Burn them down to the bedrock.
@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
Before all that though, is the power of detterent and firm diplomatic response your agree?
It certainly needs a speedy to camera piece from Sunak as quick response to this aggression, doesn’t it? As deterrent and statement of resolve?
After Argies sidle up to our team at the G20 and ripped up all our agreements with them in our faces, surely it now needs a very public reply from Sunak himself of our resolve. If it’s nothing but silence from Rishi now in response to the Argie actions against us today, merely a bit of mumbling from Cleverly on a Sunday politics show, surely that’s the green light to the Argies of a lack of resolve from a wet lettuce government, silence from Rishi will merely encourage them wouldn’t it?
(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,
Is (2) really true?
We have a couple of proper-sized carriers right now, even if one would need to be towed down to the South Atlantic, instead of the harrier carriers the Navy had in the early 80s. I think they haven't yet scrapped the amphibious landing ships. Isn't there a proper airport on Ascension Island now, which would make providing air support/supply much easier than it was in the 80s.
Yes, the overall size of the armed forces is a lot smaller than it was, but there are some key capabilities that are probably in much better shape now than then.
Yes Robert is right. It doesn't matter that you have the carriers unless you have all the other ships you need to go along with them to provide the anti-aircraft and anti-submarine screens. We have far fewer armed surface ships of that sort than we did in 1982. Whether consciously or not we have been moving more and more to the idea of our ships serving as part of a multi-national force, with the French and others. Fine for most situations but probably not going to be of any use in a Falklands type situation.
And Ascension is okay as a stop over point en route to the Falklands but it is still far to far away to be of use for providing air cover/support. Look at what they had to do just to get a couple of bombs dropped on Port Stanley airport in 1982.
The Typhoon has an operating range of around 850 miles (the F35 only 650 miles). The distance from Ascension to Falklands is just under 4000 miles.
Argentina has 0 submarines, the 2 it has are non operational.
Argentina also has 0 aircraft carriers
Argentina doesn't need an aircraft carrier. It is only a few hundred miles from the Argentine mainland to the Falklands. None of those aircraft that attacked our forces in 1982 came from an Aircraft Carrier. They all came from the mainland.
@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
Before all that though, is the power of detterent and firm diplomatic response your agree?
It certainly needs a speedy to camera piece from Sunak as quick response to this aggression, doesn’t it? As deterrent and statement of resolve?
After Argies sidle up to our team at the G20 and ripped up all our agreements with them in our faces, surely it now needs a very public reply from Sunak himself of our resolve. If it’s nothing but silence from Rishi now in response to the Argie actions against us today, merely a bit of mumbling from Cleverly on a Sunday politics show, surely that’s the green light to the Argies of a lack of resolve from a wet lettuce government, silence from Rishi will merely encourage them wouldn’t it?
No however I would be sending about 5 nuclear submarines to regularly patrol waters around the Falklands confidentially and increasing the garrison on the Falklands more visibly
@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.
Defending British territory must be done no matter what the cost, the first role of any government is defence of the nation and its sovereign territory
That is tough talk from the safety of your Epping Forest dacha. I would be happy if you don't conscript my sons to fight your vanity defence of sheep, farmers and a few alleged child sex offenders.
Three things, I think prove my creative take on the politics this week will prove not all that bad you know.
It’s not 100% sure Gray does end up in the job. What’s the point of a chief of staff so high profile mere mention of them or their existence galvanises your opponents so much, distracting from your actual message or actual misdemeanours of your opponents, when there are so many other people who can also be damn good in same role, without anyone even aware they are there?
Really the end of Johnson? He still has strong support from party members and the momentum like Conservative Democratic Organisation working for him, the Tory majority privileges star chamber has to deem it clear cut enough to agree a 10 day suspension to lead to recall - what’s to stop him not fighting for that seat instead popping up in a much more secure seat at the next election (his recall merely by passing chicken run) and returning to parliament in time for leadership election that goes to the members next year, coming back with the tag line “I’m Boris 2.0 - I made a mistake, and suitably punished for it, acknowledging it and sorry - just like Winston Churchill did actually - I’m back to put things right! (And fulfils my Churchillian destiny of the great comeback).”
And over the coming weeks, opposition to Rishi and EU’s cosy plan of having NI in both markets could build around some red lines, Rishi not having the bottle to just proceed, concedes into going back to EU to resolve the red lines, and on this it all goes quiet? I think it’s certain to happen tbh, as DUP ERG response to EU and Rishi will be a considered counter proposal, not two fingers: we see your proposal, if you give us 1, 2, 3 too, you have our support, and Stormont open too.
President Bukele of El Salvador seems like a rare political phenomenon. He has a very good line in this speech about how in order to be like developed countries, they need to do what they did, and not what they are telling them to do.
I need to check, but I think the slave forts in Africa are out of business.
Isn’t it the claim that only the slave trade made European development possible?
One of my favourite parts of one of my favourite films, Amistad, when the British Navy Captain is dictating the letter dripping with sardonic joy that the slave fort of Lomboko indeed doesn’t exist having just gone full HYUFD on it.
Yes.
Mind you, suggesting he went full HYUFD on it is a bit libellous. If said Captain wasn’t both dead and fictitious.
The Covenanter tank only has a weedy 2lbr firing solid shot. The ship in the film had far better armament.
@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.
Defending British territory must be done no matter what the cost, the first role of any government is defence of the nation and its sovereign territory
That is tough talk from the safety of your Epping Forest dacha. I would be happy if you don't conscript my sons to fight your vanity defence of sheep, farmers and a few alleged child sex offenders.
@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
Before all that though, is the power of detterent and firm diplomatic response your agree?
It certainly needs a speedy to camera piece from Sunak as quick response to this aggression, doesn’t it? As deterrent and statement of resolve?
After Argies sidle up to our team at the G20 and ripped up all our agreements with them in our faces, surely it now needs a very public reply from Sunak himself of our resolve. If it’s nothing but silence from Rishi now in response to the Argie actions against us today, merely a bit of mumbling from Cleverly on a Sunday politics show, surely that’s the green light to the Argies of a lack of resolve from a wet lettuce government, silence from Rishi will merely encourage them wouldn’t it?
Oh moonrabbit, Sunak is a submarine. He managed to defeat this week the DUP, Boris, The IRA, the EU and Nadine Dorries and nobody saw him coming. Just think what he can do to the land of Frey Bentos Pies.
He should just fix them with his steely eyes, look up at them and remind them that he is the quiet man not for turning.
@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
Before all that though, is the power of detterent and firm diplomatic response your agree?
It certainly needs a speedy to camera piece from Sunak as quick response to this aggression, doesn’t it? As deterrent and statement of resolve?
After Argies sidle up to our team at the G20 and ripped up all our agreements with them in our faces, surely it now needs a very public reply from Sunak himself of our resolve. If it’s nothing but silence from Rishi now in response to the Argie actions against us today, merely a bit of mumbling from Cleverly on a Sunday politics show, surely that’s the green light to the Argies of a lack of resolve from a wet lettuce government, silence from Rishi will merely encourage them wouldn’t it?
Oh moonrabbit, Sunak is a submarine. He managed to defeat this week the DUP, Boris, The IRA, the EU and Nadine Dorries and nobody saw him coming. Just think what he can do to the land of Frey Bentos Pies.
He should just fix them with his steely eyes, look up at them and remind them that he is the quiet man not for turning.
He'd better keep that quiet or HYUFD might have him patrolling 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
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
Before all that though, is the power of detterent and firm diplomatic response your agree?
It certainly needs a speedy to camera piece from Sunak as quick response to this aggression, doesn’t it? As deterrent and statement of resolve?
After Argies sidle up to our team at the G20 and ripped up all our agreements with them in our faces, surely it now needs a very public reply from Sunak himself of our resolve. If it’s nothing but silence from Rishi now in response to the Argie actions against us today, merely a bit of mumbling from Cleverly on a Sunday politics show, surely that’s the green light to the Argies of a lack of resolve from a wet lettuce government, silence from Rishi will merely encourage them wouldn’t it?
No however I would be sending about 5 nuclear submarines to regularly patrol waters around the Falklands confidentially and increasing the garrison on the Falklands more visibly
No, I would do the strong to camera piece from number 10 ASAP to visibly demonstrate our agility and resolve on this issue.
(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,
Is (2) really true?
We have a couple of proper-sized carriers right now, even if one would need to be towed down to the South Atlantic, instead of the harrier carriers the Navy had in the early 80s. I think they haven't yet scrapped the amphibious landing ships. Isn't there a proper airport on Ascension Island now, which would make providing air support/supply much easier than it was in the 80s.
Yes, the overall size of the armed forces is a lot smaller than it was, but there are some key capabilities that are probably in much better shape now than then.
Yes Robert is right. It doesn't matter that you have the carriers unless you have all the other ships you need to go along with them to provide the anti-aircraft and anti-submarine screens. We have far fewer armed surface ships of that sort than we did in 1982. Whether consciously or not we have been moving more and more to the idea of our ships serving as part of a multi-national force, with the French and others. Fine for most situations but probably not going to be of any use in a Falklands type situation.
And Ascension is okay as a stop over point en route to the Falklands but it is still far to far away to be of use for providing air cover/support. Look at what they had to do just to get a couple of bombs dropped on Port Stanley airport in 1982.
The Typhoon has an operating range of around 850 miles (the F35 only 650 miles). The distance from Ascension to Falklands is just under 4000 miles.
Argentina has 0 submarines, the 2 it has are non operational.
Argentina also has 0 aircraft carriers
Argentina doesn't need an aircraft carrier. It is only a few hundred miles from the Argentine mainland to the Falklands. None of those aircraft that attacked our forces in 1982 came from an Aircraft Carrier. They all came from the mainland.
And our submarines could launch Tomahawk Cruise missiles on the airfields in mainland Argentina now, the RN didn't have submarines with Cruise missiles in 1982 though
(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,
Is (2) really true?
We have a couple of proper-sized carriers right now, even if one would need to be towed down to the South Atlantic, instead of the harrier carriers the Navy had in the early 80s. I think they haven't yet scrapped the amphibious landing ships. Isn't there a proper airport on Ascension Island now, which would make providing air support/supply much easier than it was in the 80s.
Yes, the overall size of the armed forces is a lot smaller than it was, but there are some key capabilities that are probably in much better shape now than then.
Yes Robert is right. It doesn't matter that you have the carriers unless you have all the other ships you need to go along with them to provide the anti-aircraft and anti-submarine screens. We have far fewer armed surface ships of that sort than we did in 1982. Whether consciously or not we have been moving more and more to the idea of our ships serving as part of a multi-national force, with the French and others. Fine for most situations but probably not going to be of any use in a Falklands type situation.
And Ascension is okay as a stop over point en route to the Falklands but it is still far to far away to be of use for providing air cover/support. Look at what they had to do just to get a couple of bombs dropped on Port Stanley airport in 1982.
The Typhoon has an operating range of around 850 miles (the F35 only 650 miles). The distance from Ascension to Falklands is just under 4000 miles.
Argentina has 0 submarines, the 2 it has are non operational.
Argentina also has 0 aircraft carriers
Argentina doesn't need an aircraft carrier. It is only a few hundred miles from the Argentine mainland to the Falklands. None of those aircraft that attacked our forces in 1982 came from an Aircraft Carrier. They all came from the mainland.
Argentina's air force is in a dire state currently, they have very few fighter/attack aircraft operational. The RAF however has 4 typhoons based in the Falklands and anti air installed on the islands. Argentina cannot gain air superiority to protect any ships looking to land ground troops.
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
(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,
Is (2) really true?
We have a couple of proper-sized carriers right now, even if one would need to be towed down to the South Atlantic, instead of the harrier carriers the Navy had in the early 80s. I think they haven't yet scrapped the amphibious landing ships. Isn't there a proper airport on Ascension Island now, which would make providing air support/supply much easier than it was in the 80s.
Yes, the overall size of the armed forces is a lot smaller than it was, but there are some key capabilities that are probably in much better shape now than then.
Yes Robert is right. It doesn't matter that you have the carriers unless you have all the other ships you need to go along with them to provide the anti-aircraft and anti-submarine screens. We have far fewer armed surface ships of that sort than we did in 1982. Whether consciously or not we have been moving more and more to the idea of our ships serving as part of a multi-national force, with the French and others. Fine for most situations but probably not going to be of any use in a Falklands type situation.
And Ascension is okay as a stop over point en route to the Falklands but it is still far to far away to be of use for providing air cover/support. Look at what they had to do just to get a couple of bombs dropped on Port Stanley airport in 1982.
The Typhoon has an operating range of around 850 miles (the F35 only 650 miles). The distance from Ascension to Falklands is just under 4000 miles.
Argentina has 0 submarines, the 2 it has are non operational.
Argentina also has 0 aircraft carriers
Argentina doesn't need an aircraft carrier. It is only a few hundred miles from the Argentine mainland to the Falklands. None of those aircraft that attacked our forces in 1982 came from an Aircraft Carrier. They all came from the mainland.
And our submarines could launch Tomahawk cruise missiles on the airfields in mainland Argentina now, the RN didn't have submarines with Cruise missiles in 1982 though
I’m not sure that’s true in the wider idea we couldn’t strike mainland Argentina. If we had at the time it would have changed levels of support against us as it would have turned from an absolutely defensive war to a “proper” all out war.
Effectively why, as much as Ukraine could and possibly should morally be free to lob everything into Russia it changes the diplomatic and public view less in your favour.
Three things, I think prove my creative take on the politics this week will prove not all that bad you know.
It’s not 100% sure Gray does end up in the job. What’s the point of a chief of staff so high profile mere mention of them or their existence galvanises your opponents so much, distracting from your actual message or actual misdemeanours of your opponents, when there are so many other people who can also be damn good in same role, without anyone even aware they are there?
Really the end of Johnson? He still has strong support from party members and the momentum like Conservative Democratic Organisation working for him, the Tory majority privileges star chamber has to deem it clear cut enough to agree a 10 day suspension to lead to recall - what’s to stop him not fighting for that seat instead popping up in a much more secure seat at the next election (his recall merely by passing chicken run) and returning to parliament in time for leadership election that goes to the members next year, coming back with the tag line “I’m Boris 2.0 - I made a mistake, and suitably punished for it, acknowledging it and sorry - just like Winston Churchill did actually - I’m back to put things right! (And fulfils my Churchillian destiny of the great comeback).”
And over the coming weeks, opposition to Rishi and EU’s cosy plan of having NI in both markets could build around some red lines, Rishi not having the bottle to just proceed, concedes into going back to EU to resolve the red lines, and on this it all goes quiet? I think it’s certain to happen tbh, as DUP ERG response to EU and Rishi will be a considered counter proposal, not two fingers: we see your proposal, if you give us 1, 2, 3 too, you have our support, and Stormont open too.
Sunak is not going to reopen the WF and will go ahead no matter if the DUP still boycott Stormont
Sunak travels to France next week to discuss close cooperation with Macron over the boats and security and trade
Then he travels to Germany followed by Charles state visits to France and Germany to reinforce the new friendlier relationship
@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.
Defending British territory must be done no matter what the cost, the first role of any government is defence of the nation and its sovereign territory
That is tough talk from the safety of your Epping Forest dacha. I would be happy if you don't conscript my sons to fight your vanity defence of sheep, farmers and a few alleged child sex offenders.
(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,
Is (2) really true?
We have a couple of proper-sized carriers right now, even if one would need to be towed down to the South Atlantic, instead of the harrier carriers the Navy had in the early 80s. I think they haven't yet scrapped the amphibious landing ships. Isn't there a proper airport on Ascension Island now, which would make providing air support/supply much easier than it was in the 80s.
Yes, the overall size of the armed forces is a lot smaller than it was, but there are some key capabilities that are probably in much better shape now than then.
Yes Robert is right. It doesn't matter that you have the carriers unless you have all the other ships you need to go along with them to provide the anti-aircraft and anti-submarine screens. We have far fewer armed surface ships of that sort than we did in 1982. Whether consciously or not we have been moving more and more to the idea of our ships serving as part of a multi-national force, with the French and others. Fine for most situations but probably not going to be of any use in a Falklands type situation.
And Ascension is okay as a stop over point en route to the Falklands but it is still far to far away to be of use for providing air cover/support. Look at what they had to do just to get a couple of bombs dropped on Port Stanley airport in 1982.
The Typhoon has an operating range of around 850 miles (the F35 only 650 miles). The distance from Ascension to Falklands is just under 4000 miles.
Argentina has 0 submarines, the 2 it has are non operational.
Argentina also has 0 aircraft carriers
Argentina doesn't need an aircraft carrier. It is only a few hundred miles from the Argentine mainland to the Falklands. None of those aircraft that attacked our forces in 1982 came from an Aircraft Carrier. They all came from the mainland.
And our submarines could launch Tomahawk cruise missiles on the airfields in mainland Argentina now, the RN didn't have submarines with Cruise missiles in 1982 though
I’m not sure that’s true in the wider idea we couldn’t strike mainland Argentina. If we had at the time it would have changed levels of support against us as it would have turned from an absolutely defensive war to a “proper” all out war.
Effectively why, as much as Ukraine could and possibly should morally be free to lob everything into Russia it changes the diplomatic and public view less in your favour.
Ukraine has never struck in Russia.
The Sarge from Airplane has many, many Russian relatives, though. Who all smoke Lucky Strike.
@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.
Defending British territory must be done no matter what the cost, the first role of any government is defence of the nation and its sovereign territory
That is tough talk from the safety of your Epping Forest dacha. I would be happy if you don't conscript my sons to fight your vanity defence of sheep, farmers and a few alleged child sex offenders.
(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,
Is (2) really true?
We have a couple of proper-sized carriers right now, even if one would need to be towed down to the South Atlantic, instead of the harrier carriers the Navy had in the early 80s. I think they haven't yet scrapped the amphibious landing ships. Isn't there a proper airport on Ascension Island now, which would make providing air support/supply much easier than it was in the 80s.
Yes, the overall size of the armed forces is a lot smaller than it was, but there are some key capabilities that are probably in much better shape now than then.
Yes Robert is right. It doesn't matter that you have the carriers unless you have all the other ships you need to go along with them to provide the anti-aircraft and anti-submarine screens. We have far fewer armed surface ships of that sort than we did in 1982. Whether consciously or not we have been moving more and more to the idea of our ships serving as part of a multi-national force, with the French and others. Fine for most situations but probably not going to be of any use in a Falklands type situation.
And Ascension is okay as a stop over point en route to the Falklands but it is still far to far away to be of use for providing air cover/support. Look at what they had to do just to get a couple of bombs dropped on Port Stanley airport in 1982.
The Typhoon has an operating range of around 850 miles (the F35 only 650 miles). The distance from Ascension to Falklands is just under 4000 miles.
Okay. Because I'm a numbers guy I decided to put some numbers to this argument.
In the Falklands taskforce there were: 2 aircraft carriers 2 landing platform docks 8 destroyers 14 frigates 6 submarines numerous minesweepers, patrol vessels, supply ships, etc.
In the Royal Navy today there are: 2 aircraft carriers 2 transport docks 6 destroyers 12 frigates 6 submarines (not including the nuclear deterrent ones) numerous minesweepers, patrol vessels, supply ships, etc.
So, if the entire Royal Navy was deployed, it would be down a couple of destroyers and a couple of frigates on the numerical strength of the taskforce during the Falklands War, but it's really not far off.
I don't think the situation is as bad as people make out.
(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,
Is (2) really true?
We have a couple of proper-sized carriers right now, even if one would need to be towed down to the South Atlantic, instead of the harrier carriers the Navy had in the early 80s. I think they haven't yet scrapped the amphibious landing ships. Isn't there a proper airport on Ascension Island now, which would make providing air support/supply much easier than it was in the 80s.
Yes, the overall size of the armed forces is a lot smaller than it was, but there are some key capabilities that are probably in much better shape now than then.
Yes Robert is right. It doesn't matter that you have the carriers unless you have all the other ships you need to go along with them to provide the anti-aircraft and anti-submarine screens. We have far fewer armed surface ships of that sort than we did in 1982. Whether consciously or not we have been moving more and more to the idea of our ships serving as part of a multi-national force, with the French and others. Fine for most situations but probably not going to be of any use in a Falklands type situation.
And Ascension is okay as a stop over point en route to the Falklands but it is still far to far away to be of use for providing air cover/support. Look at what they had to do just to get a couple of bombs dropped on Port Stanley airport in 1982.
The Typhoon has an operating range of around 850 miles (the F35 only 650 miles). The distance from Ascension to Falklands is just under 4000 miles.
Argentina has 0 submarines, the 2 it has are non operational.
Argentina also has 0 aircraft carriers
Argentina doesn't need an aircraft carrier. It is only a few hundred miles from the Argentine mainland to the Falklands. None of those aircraft that attacked our forces in 1982 came from an Aircraft Carrier. They all came from the mainland.
And our submarines could launch Tomahawk cruise missiles on the airfields in mainland Argentina now, the RN didn't have submarines with Cruise missiles in 1982 though
I’m not sure that’s true in the wider idea we couldn’t strike mainland Argentina. If we had at the time it would have changed levels of support against us as it would have turned from an absolutely defensive war to a “proper” all out war.
Effectively why, as much as Ukraine could and possibly should morally be free to lob everything into Russia it changes the diplomatic and public view less in your favour.
If Argentina invaded the Falklands they would have started the war, their airfields in support of the invasion would therefore be legitimate targets for our submarines Cruise missiles.
If Ukraine had the missile capability of course it would bomb Russian airfields where Russian bombers were flying from to bomb Ukraine
@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.
Defending British territory must be done no matter what the cost, the first role of any government is defence of the nation and its sovereign territory
That is tough talk from the safety of your Epping Forest dacha. I would be happy if you don't conscript my sons to fight your vanity defence of sheep, farmers and a few alleged child sex offenders.
@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.
Defending British territory must be done no matter what the cost, the first role of any government is defence of the nation and its sovereign territory
That is tough talk from the safety of your Epping Forest dacha. I would be happy if you don't conscript my sons to fight your vanity defence of sheep, farmers and a few alleged child sex offenders.
I am in Liverpool. Looking out at Lime Street Station. What takes my attention - the number of Deliveroo bikes. Surely a metaphor for our times. No sighting of Maggie May.
@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.
Defending British territory must be done no matter what the cost, the first role of any government is defence of the nation and its sovereign territory
That is tough talk from the safety of your Epping Forest dacha. I would be happy if you don't conscript my sons to fight your vanity defence of sheep, farmers and a few alleged child sex offenders.
@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.
Defending British territory must be done no matter what the cost, the first role of any government is defence of the nation and its sovereign territory
That is tough talk from the safety of your Epping Forest dacha. I would be happy if you don't conscript my sons to fight your vanity defence of sheep, farmers and a few alleged child sex offenders.
You don't need conscription of your surrender monkey family, our armed forces are far bigger than Argentina's as it is
That is incredibly rude.
Wash your mouth out Lord Kitchener!
It is entirely uncalled for and he should apologise to you
No I am certainly not going to apologise to someone who would hand the Falkland Islanders over to Argentina
Surrender monkey family is simply disgraceful to a fellow poster as is refusing an apology
No it isn't, he would refuse to defend British sovereign territory from Argentine invasion and is a surrender monkey therefore, it was an entirely apt description
Unexpected expected development in Turkey; opposition's right wing constituent IYI Party declares break away from the opposition alliance, as a result of main opposition CHP's leader Kılıçdaroğlu being agreed by other parties as joint-candidate, proposing CHP mayors as candidate.
With this move, IYI Party effectively hands over an election victory to 20+ year governing Erdoğan. Unless the people make a conscious choice and rally behind one candidate, at the moment the next 74 days look grim
@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.
Defending British territory must be done no matter what the cost, the first role of any government is defence of the nation and its sovereign territory
That is tough talk from the safety of your Epping Forest dacha. I would be happy if you don't conscript my sons to fight your vanity defence of sheep, farmers and a few alleged child sex offenders.
@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.
Defending British territory must be done no matter what the cost, the first role of any government is defence of the nation and its sovereign territory
That is tough talk from the safety of your Epping Forest dacha. I would be happy if you don't conscript my sons to fight your vanity defence of sheep, farmers and a few alleged child sex offenders.
@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.
Defending British territory must be done no matter what the cost, the first role of any government is defence of the nation and its sovereign territory
That is tough talk from the safety of your Epping Forest dacha. I would be happy if you don't conscript my sons to fight your vanity defence of sheep, farmers and a few alleged child sex offenders.
I am in Liverpool. Looking out at Lime Street Station. What takes my attention - the number of Deliveroo bikes. Surely a metaphor for our times. No sighting of Maggie May.
The modern world is couch potatoes ordering in lukewarm junk food on their mobiles to be brought to their doorstep by the gig economy.
All to be sorted out by a jab of Ozempic no doubt.
@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.
Defending British territory must be done no matter what the cost, the first role of any government is defence of the nation and its sovereign territory
That is tough talk from the safety of your Epping Forest dacha. I would be happy if you don't conscript my sons to fight your vanity defence of sheep, farmers and a few alleged child sex offenders.
News this evening in Ireland stated that the number of murders and manslaughters was up on the year before, but the number of attempted murders was down, and no connection was made between these two statements. Is it so very wrong to find the coincidence of these two changes incredibly funny?
@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!"
I feel like a lot of the UK focused comments from them are because they don't want to constantly whip out the ridiculous accusations at the US right away.
Three things, I think prove my creative take on the politics this week will prove not all that bad you know.
It’s not 100% sure Gray does end up in the job. What’s the point of a chief of staff so high profile mere mention of them or their existence galvanises your opponents so much, distracting from your actual message or actual misdemeanours of your opponents, when there are so many other people who can also be damn good in same role, without anyone even aware they are there?
Really the end of Johnson? He still has strong support from party members and the momentum like Conservative Democratic Organisation working for him, the Tory majority privileges star chamber has to deem it clear cut enough to agree a 10 day suspension to lead to recall - what’s to stop him not fighting for that seat instead popping up in a much more secure seat at the next election (his recall merely by passing chicken run) and returning to parliament in time for leadership election that goes to the members next year, coming back with the tag line “I’m Boris 2.0 - I made a mistake, and suitably punished for it, acknowledging it and sorry - just like Winston Churchill did actually - I’m back to put things right! (And fulfils my Churchillian destiny of the great comeback).”
And over the coming weeks, opposition to Rishi and EU’s cosy plan of having NI in both markets could build around some red lines, Rishi not having the bottle to just proceed, concedes into going back to EU to resolve the red lines, and on this it all goes quiet? I think it’s certain to happen tbh, as DUP ERG response to EU and Rishi will be a considered counter proposal, not two fingers: we see your proposal, if you give us 1, 2, 3 too, you have our support, and Stormont open too.
Sunak is not going to reopen the WF and will go ahead no matter if the DUP still boycott Stormont
Sunak travels to France next week to discuss close cooperation with Macron over the boats and security and trade
Then he travels to Germany followed by Charles state visits to France and Germany to reinforce the new friendlier relationship
You shouldn’t be so confident about WF coming into effect anytime soon, or ever, Big G.
Bear with me as I explain it, because this sounds a bit Yes Minister.
Having not solved, merely moved the Irish Sea border to an extra focus on increased market surveillance at North-South Ireland border instead - its now VITAL for UK and EU to smooth this border as much as possible, so it can no way resemble the actual hard border our friend HY wants England Scotland border to look like, once Scotland in EU and Euro.
The idea Stormont/DUP have a real Brake or Veto has fallen apart quite quickly this week, the reason for this is Rishi and EU can’t allow a real veto. This is where in your Jim Hacker voice you ask, why not? And Sir Humphrey roll his eyes and say, because if you give the DUP a real veto minister, they wouldn’t hesitate to use it. But we want them to use it, to block all those brand new EU laws, and rules and regulations being imposed on Northern Ireland. But we’ve built it into the agreement, if the EU don’t get their way, they can scrap the Green Lane without a shred of consultation, throw the border back into the Irish Sea, and we’ll all be back to square one. We’ve agreed that? Yes. In black and white, which you clearly haven’t read all over.
News this evening in Ireland stated that the number of murders and manslaughters was up on the year before, but the number of attempted murders was down, and no connection was made between these two statements. Is it so very wrong to find the coincidence of these two changes incredibly funny?
So what you are saying is that productivity in criminal enterprises is up?
What's kicked off this Falklands chat? Owt tangible?
The Argy President just canned the cooperation agreement.
Indeed, but why now I wonder?
I explained upthread. Basically, his economy's in the toilet, his electricity grid is collapsing, his Veep's on the brink of being sent to prison and he's due for re-election in nine months.
What's kicked off this Falklands chat? Owt tangible?
The Argy President just canned the cooperation agreement.
Indeed, but why now I wonder?
I explained upthread. Basically, his economy's in the toilet, his electricity grid is collapsing, his Veep's on the brink of being sent to prison and he's due for re-election in nine months.
So - he rants about the Falklands.
Surpised it still works, even if the public are still very supportive of the aim.
In other news, the Germans have requested to buy back unused Leopard 2 tanks from Switzerland, to enable them to send more of their own tanks to Ukraine.
What's kicked off this Falklands chat? Owt tangible?
The Argy President just canned the cooperation agreement.
Indeed, but why now I wonder?
I explained upthread. Basically, his economy's in the toilet, his electricity grid is collapsing, his Veep's on the brink of being sent to prison and he's due for re-election in nine months.
So - he rants about the Falklands.
Las Malvinas is the Brussels bendy bananas of Argentinian politics.
What's kicked off this Falklands chat? Owt tangible?
The Argy President just canned the cooperation agreement.
Indeed, but why now I wonder?
I explained upthread. Basically, his economy's in the toilet, his electricity grid is collapsing, his Veep's on the brink of being sent to prison and he's due for re-election in nine months.
So - he rants about the Falklands.
Surpised it still works, even if the public are still very supportive of the aim.
Most countries voters enjoy a bit of sabre rattling and fun with flags, at least until the shooting starts.
I am in Liverpool. Looking out at Lime Street Station. What takes my attention - the number of Deliveroo bikes. Surely a metaphor for our times. No sighting of Maggie May.
The modern world is couch potatoes ordering in lukewarm junk food on their mobiles to be brought to their doorstep by the gig economy.
All to be sorted out by a jab of Ozempic no doubt.
Don't be so negative:
You'll soon be about to get it in oral form, and those same gig workers can bring it at the same time as your curry and lager.
@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?
"Tory seeking elected office" "any means necessary" *rants about nuking Argentina*
In other words, you don't give a shit how many people die, just so long as the Conservative Party remains in power, and you and your chums remain in power in the Conservative Party.
Three things, I think prove my creative take on the politics this week will prove not all that bad you know.
It’s not 100% sure Gray does end up in the job. What’s the point of a chief of staff so high profile mere mention of them or their existence galvanises your opponents so much, distracting from your actual message or actual misdemeanours of your opponents, when there are so many other people who can also be damn good in same role, without anyone even aware they are there?
Really the end of Johnson? He still has strong support from party members and the momentum like Conservative Democratic Organisation working for him, the Tory majority privileges star chamber has to deem it clear cut enough to agree a 10 day suspension to lead to recall - what’s to stop him not fighting for that seat instead popping up in a much more secure seat at the next election (his recall merely by passing chicken run) and returning to parliament in time for leadership election that goes to the members next year, coming back with the tag line “I’m Boris 2.0 - I made a mistake, and suitably punished for it, acknowledging it and sorry - just like Winston Churchill did actually - I’m back to put things right! (And fulfils my Churchillian destiny of the great comeback).”
And over the coming weeks, opposition to Rishi and EU’s cosy plan of having NI in both markets could build around some red lines, Rishi not having the bottle to just proceed, concedes into going back to EU to resolve the red lines, and on this it all goes quiet? I think it’s certain to happen tbh, as DUP ERG response to EU and Rishi will be a considered counter proposal, not two fingers: we see your proposal, if you give us 1, 2, 3 too, you have our support, and Stormont open too.
Sunak is not going to reopen the WF and will go ahead no matter if the DUP still boycott Stormont
Sunak travels to France next week to discuss close cooperation with Macron over the boats and security and trade
Then he travels to Germany followed by Charles state visits to France and Germany to reinforce the new friendlier relationship
You shouldn’t be so confident about WF coming into effect anytime soon, or ever, Big G.
Bear with me as I explain it, because this sounds a bit Yes Minister.
Having not solved, merely moved the Irish Sea border to an extra focus on increased market surveillance at North-South Ireland border instead - its now VITAL for UK and EU to smooth this border as much as possible, so it can no way resemble the actual hard border our friend HY wants England Scotland border to look like, once Scotland in EU and Euro.
The idea Stormont/DUP have a real Brake or Veto has fallen apart quite quickly this week, the reason for this is Rishi and EU can’t allow a real veto. This is where in your Jim Hacker voice you ask, why not? And Sir Humphrey roll his eyes and say, because if you give the DUP a real veto minister, they wouldn’t hesitate to use it. But we want them to use it, to block all those brand new EU laws, and rules and regulations being imposed on Northern Ireland. But we’ve built it into the agreement, if the EU don’t get their way, they can scrap the Green Lane without a shred of consultation, throw the border back into the Irish Sea, and we’ll all be back to square one. We’ve agreed that? Yes. In black and white, which you clearly haven’t read all over.
Sorry I respectively disagree and it will be in force by Easter
@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.
Defending British territory must be done no matter what the cost, the first role of any government is defence of the nation and its sovereign territory
That is tough talk from the safety of your Epping Forest dacha. I would be happy if you don't conscript my sons to fight your vanity defence of sheep, farmers and a few alleged child sex offenders.
@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.
Defending British territory must be done no matter what the cost, the first role of any government is defence of the nation and its sovereign territory
That is tough talk from the safety of your Epping Forest dacha. I would be happy if you don't conscript my sons to fight your vanity defence of sheep, farmers and a few alleged child sex offenders.
@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.
Spearfish are submarines? That's a hell of an upgrade for torpedoes.
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.
RN submarines can sink the Argentine fleet with Spearfish torpedoes in port too within a week if they try and invade the Falklands again
Now you really are talking bollocks.
No I'm not, a PM who is not a wet lettuce like you (and also not a Scottish nationalist like you who would be cheering Buenos Aires on anyway) would do exactly that if Argentina tried to invade again
I'm talking about "sink the Argentine fleet with Spearfish torpedoes in port", as you put it.
How do they do that? How do they do it in shallow water so shallow their periscopes woudl stick up and they'd ground? How do the torpedoes get through piers and quays and dock gates and gash barges?
No end of demented raving about other posters will change the facts, any more than it does Persian Gulf geography.
@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.
Defending British territory must be done no matter what the cost, the first role of any government is defence of the nation and its sovereign territory
That is tough talk from the safety of your Epping Forest dacha. I would be happy if you don't conscript my sons to fight your vanity defence of sheep, farmers and a few alleged child sex offenders.
What's kicked off this Falklands chat? Owt tangible?
The Argy President just canned the cooperation agreement.
Indeed, but why now I wonder?
I explained upthread. Basically, his economy's in the toilet, his electricity grid is collapsing, his Veep's on the brink of being sent to prison and he's due for re-election in nine months.
So - he rants about the Falklands.
Surpised it still works, even if the public are still very supportive of the aim.
Most countries voters enjoy a bit of sabre rattling and fun with flags, at least until the shooting starts.
Well sure, but we do eventually get bored of the same thing done over and over. Mix up your sabres.
@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.
Defending British territory must be done no matter what the cost, the first role of any government is defence of the nation and its sovereign territory
That is tough talk from the safety of your Epping Forest dacha. I would be happy if you don't conscript my sons to fight your vanity defence of sheep, farmers and a few alleged child sex offenders.
@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.
Defending British territory must be done no matter what the cost, the first role of any government is defence of the nation and its sovereign territory
That is tough talk from the safety of your Epping Forest dacha. I would be happy if you don't conscript my sons to fight your vanity defence of sheep, farmers and a few alleged child sex offenders.
@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.
Defending British territory must be done no matter what the cost, the first role of any government is defence of the nation and its sovereign territory
That is tough talk from the safety of your Epping Forest dacha. I would be happy if you don't conscript my sons to fight your vanity defence of sheep, farmers and a few alleged child sex offenders.
Meanwhile, in "covering all the angles" news, remember that the Star and Express are published by the same organisation. I think I know which front page is closer to the pulse of the public.
@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.
Defending British territory must be done no matter what the cost, the first role of any government is defence of the nation and its sovereign territory
That is tough talk from the safety of your Epping Forest dacha. I would be happy if you don't conscript my sons to fight your vanity defence of sheep, farmers and a few alleged child sex offenders.
You don't need conscription of your surrender monkey family, our armed forces are far bigger than Argentina's as it is
That is incredibly rude.
Wash your mouth out Lord Kitchener!
It is entirely uncalled for and he should apologise to you
No I am certainly not going to apologise to someone who would hand the Falkland Islanders over to Argentina
Surrender monkey family is simply disgraceful to a fellow poster as is refusing an apology
No it isn't, he would refuse to defend British sovereign territory from Argentine invasion and is a surrender monkey therefore, it was an entirely apt description
Why should I lay down my life for a bunch of redneck shepherds and a Conservative election victor? When the Cossacks land at Southerndown, I'll be there with my pitchfork to repel the invaders.
@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.
Spearfish are submarines? That's a hell of an upgrade for torpedoes.
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.
RN submarines can sink the Argentine fleet with Spearfish torpedoes in port too within a week if they try and invade the Falklands again
Now you really are talking bollocks.
No I'm not, a PM who is not a wet lettuce like you (and also not a Scottish nationalist like you who would be cheering Buenos Aires on anyway) would do exactly that if Argentina tried to invade again
I'm talking about "sink the Argentine fleet with Spearfish torpedoes in port", as you put it.
How do they do that? How do they do it in shallow water so shallow their periscopes woudl stick up and they'd ground? How do the torpedoes get through piers and quays and dock gates and gash barges?
No end of demented raving about other posters will change the facts, any more than it does Persian Gulf geography.
@HYUFD seems to be insulting a lot of posters tonight who have the temerity to challenge his codswallop
@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.
Defending British territory must be done no matter what the cost, the first role of any government is defence of the nation and its sovereign territory
That is tough talk from the safety of your Epping Forest dacha. I would be happy if you don't conscript my sons to fight your vanity defence of sheep, farmers and a few alleged child sex offenders.
(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,
Is (2) really true?
We have a couple of proper-sized carriers right now, even if one would need to be towed down to the South Atlantic, instead of the harrier carriers the Navy had in the early 80s. I think they haven't yet scrapped the amphibious landing ships. Isn't there a proper airport on Ascension Island now, which would make providing air support/supply much easier than it was in the 80s.
Yes, the overall size of the armed forces is a lot smaller than it was, but there are some key capabilities that are probably in much better shape now than then.
Yes Robert is right. It doesn't matter that you have the carriers unless you have all the other ships you need to go along with them to provide the anti-aircraft and anti-submarine screens. We have far fewer armed surface ships of that sort than we did in 1982. Whether consciously or not we have been moving more and more to the idea of our ships serving as part of a multi-national force, with the French and others. Fine for most situations but probably not going to be of any use in a Falklands type situation.
And Ascension is okay as a stop over point en route to the Falklands but it is still far to far away to be of use for providing air cover/support. Look at what they had to do just to get a couple of bombs dropped on Port Stanley airport in 1982.
The Typhoon has an operating range of around 850 miles (the F35 only 650 miles). The distance from Ascension to Falklands is just under 4000 miles.
Okay. Because I'm a numbers guy I decided to put some numbers to this argument.
In the Falklands taskforce there were: 2 aircraft carriers 2 landing platform docks 8 destroyers 14 frigates 6 submarines numerous minesweepers, patrol vessels, supply ships, etc.
In the Royal Navy today there are: 2 aircraft carriers 2 transport docks 6 destroyers 12 frigates 6 submarines (not including the nuclear deterrent ones) numerous minesweepers, patrol vessels, supply ships, etc.
So, if the entire Royal Navy was deployed, it would be down a couple of destroyers and a couple of frigates on the numerical strength of the taskforce during the Falklands War, but it's really not far off.
I don't think the situation is as bad as people make out.
Hmm. To refine your model -
1. The RN would not be doing anything else. At all. 2. You're not allowing for a significant proportion of ships being in dock for major refit or repair (the sort where they are waiting on major kit). 3. You'#re forgettimng the UK Merchant Navy ships which effectively provided a lot of the fleet train and the transports for the troops and kit. Look around you. What Merchant Navy?
What's kicked off this Falklands chat? Owt tangible?
The Argy President just canned the cooperation agreement.
Indeed, but why now I wonder?
I explained upthread. Basically, his economy's in the toilet, his electricity grid is collapsing, his Veep's on the brink of being sent to prison and he's due for re-election in nine months.
@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.
Defending British territory must be done no matter what the cost, the first role of any government is defence of the nation and its sovereign territory
That is tough talk from the safety of your Epping Forest dacha. I would be happy if you don't conscript my sons to fight your vanity defence of sheep, farmers and a few alleged child sex offenders.
@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?
"Tory seeking elected office" "any means necessary" *rants about nuking Argentina*
In other words, you don't give a shit how many people die, just so long as the Conservative Party remains in power, and you and your chums remain in power in the Conservative Party.
No I care about maintaining British sovereign territory, unlike you
@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.
Spearfish are submarines? That's a hell of an upgrade for torpedoes.
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.
RN submarines can sink the Argentine fleet with Spearfish torpedoes in port too within a week if they try and invade the Falklands again
Now you really are talking bollocks.
No I'm not, a PM who is not a wet lettuce like you (and also not a Scottish nationalist like you who would be cheering Buenos Aires on anyway) would do exactly that if Argentina tried to invade again
I'm talking about "sink the Argentine fleet with Spearfish torpedoes in port", as you put it.
How do they do that? How do they do it in shallow water so shallow their periscopes woudl stick up and they'd ground? How do the torpedoes get through piers and quays and dock gates and gash barges?
No end of demented raving about other posters will change the facts, any more than it does Persian Gulf geography.
@HYUFD seems to be insulting a lot of posters tonight who have the temerity to challenge his codswallop
I'm just wondering, when is he joining the Teritorial Army*?
*Or whatever it is called these days. And not the propaganda unit either.
(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,
Is (2) really true?
We have a couple of proper-sized carriers right now, even if one would need to be towed down to the South Atlantic, instead of the harrier carriers the Navy had in the early 80s. I think they haven't yet scrapped the amphibious landing ships. Isn't there a proper airport on Ascension Island now, which would make providing air support/supply much easier than it was in the 80s.
Yes, the overall size of the armed forces is a lot smaller than it was, but there are some key capabilities that are probably in much better shape now than then.
Yes Robert is right. It doesn't matter that you have the carriers unless you have all the other ships you need to go along with them to provide the anti-aircraft and anti-submarine screens. We have far fewer armed surface ships of that sort than we did in 1982. Whether consciously or not we have been moving more and more to the idea of our ships serving as part of a multi-national force, with the French and others. Fine for most situations but probably not going to be of any use in a Falklands type situation.
And Ascension is okay as a stop over point en route to the Falklands but it is still far to far away to be of use for providing air cover/support. Look at what they had to do just to get a couple of bombs dropped on Port Stanley airport in 1982.
The Typhoon has an operating range of around 850 miles (the F35 only 650 miles). The distance from Ascension to Falklands is just under 4000 miles.
Okay. Because I'm a numbers guy I decided to put some numbers to this argument.
In the Falklands taskforce there were: 2 aircraft carriers 2 landing platform docks 8 destroyers 14 frigates 6 submarines numerous minesweepers, patrol vessels, supply ships, etc.
In the Royal Navy today there are: 2 aircraft carriers 2 transport docks 6 destroyers 12 frigates 6 submarines (not including the nuclear deterrent ones) numerous minesweepers, patrol vessels, supply ships, etc.
So, if the entire Royal Navy was deployed, it would be down a couple of destroyers and a couple of frigates on the numerical strength of the taskforce during the Falklands War, but it's really not far off.
I don't think the situation is as bad as people make out.
Hmm. To refine your model -
1. The RN would not be doing anything else. At all. 2. You're not allowing for a significant proportion of ships being in dock for major refit or repair (the sort where they are waiting on major kit). 3. You'#re forgettimng the UK Merchant Navy ships which effectively provided a lot of the fleet train and the transports for the troops and kit. Look around you. What Merchant Navy?
@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.
Defending British territory must be done no matter what the cost, the first role of any government is defence of the nation and its sovereign territory
That is tough talk from the safety of your Epping Forest dacha. I would be happy if you don't conscript my sons to fight your vanity defence of sheep, farmers and a few alleged child sex offenders.
Three things, I think prove my creative take on the politics this week will prove not all that bad you know.
It’s not 100% sure Gray does end up in the job. What’s the point of a chief of staff so high profile mere mention of them or their existence galvanises your opponents so much, distracting from your actual message or actual misdemeanours of your opponents, when there are so many other people who can also be damn good in same role, without anyone even aware they are there?
Really the end of Johnson? He still has strong support from party members and the momentum like Conservative Democratic Organisation working for him, the Tory majority privileges star chamber has to deem it clear cut enough to agree a 10 day suspension to lead to recall - what’s to stop him not fighting for that seat instead popping up in a much more secure seat at the next election (his recall merely by passing chicken run) and returning to parliament in time for leadership election that goes to the members next year, coming back with the tag line “I’m Boris 2.0 - I made a mistake, and suitably punished for it, acknowledging it and sorry - just like Winston Churchill did actually - I’m back to put things right! (And fulfils my Churchillian destiny of the great comeback).”
And over the coming weeks, opposition to Rishi and EU’s cosy plan of having NI in both markets could build around some red lines, Rishi not having the bottle to just proceed, concedes into going back to EU to resolve the red lines, and on this it all goes quiet? I think it’s certain to happen tbh, as DUP ERG response to EU and Rishi will be a considered counter proposal, not two fingers: we see your proposal, if you give us 1, 2, 3 too, you have our support, and Stormont open too.
Sunak is not going to reopen the WF and will go ahead no matter if the DUP still boycott Stormont
Sunak travels to France next week to discuss close cooperation with Macron over the boats and security and trade
Then he travels to Germany followed by Charles state visits to France and Germany to reinforce the new friendlier relationship
You shouldn’t be so confident about WF coming into effect anytime soon, or ever, Big G.
Bear with me as I explain it, because this sounds a bit Yes Minister.
Having not solved, merely moved the Irish Sea border to an extra focus on increased market surveillance at North-South Ireland border instead - its now VITAL for UK and EU to smooth this border as much as possible, so it can no way resemble the actual hard border our friend HY wants England Scotland border to look like, once Scotland in EU and Euro.
The idea Stormont/DUP have a real Brake or Veto has fallen apart quite quickly this week, the reason for this is Rishi and EU can’t allow a real veto. This is where in your Jim Hacker voice you ask, why not? And Sir Humphrey roll his eyes and say, because if you give the DUP a real veto minister, they wouldn’t hesitate to use it. But we want them to use it, to block all those brand new EU laws, and rules and regulations being imposed on Northern Ireland. But we’ve built it into the agreement, if the EU don’t get their way, they can scrap the Green Lane without a shred of consultation, throw the border back into the Irish Sea, and we’ll all be back to square one. We’ve agreed that? Yes. In black and white, which you clearly haven’t read all over.
Sorry I respectively disagree and it will be in force by Easter
Both right. The analysis of Moon Rabbit is broadly correct but the conclusion wrong. Because he is correct it will come into effect. The open question is different: Will the DUP start being grown ups? Probably not.
Remember 1066 and All That:
“Gladstone .. spent his declining years trying to guess the answer to the Irish Question; unfortunately, whenever he was getting warm, the Irish secretly changed the Question, ...”
@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.
Defending British territory must be done no matter what the cost, the first role of any government is defence of the nation and its sovereign territory
That is tough talk from the safety of your Epping Forest dacha. I would be happy if you don't conscript my sons to fight your vanity defence of sheep, farmers and a few alleged child sex offenders.
What's kicked off this Falklands chat? Owt tangible?
The Argy President just canned the cooperation agreement.
Indeed, but why now I wonder?
I explained upthread. Basically, his economy's in the toilet, his electricity grid is collapsing, his Veep's on the brink of being sent to prison and he's due for re-election in nine months.
So - he rants about the Falklands.
Our governing party or theirs?
Really Foxy. A poster of your intelligence should know we don't have Veeps.
I can understand why the others are harder to distinguish...
@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.
Spearfish are submarines? That's a hell of an upgrade for torpedoes.
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.
RN submarines can sink the Argentine fleet with Spearfish torpedoes in port too within a week if they try and invade the Falklands again
Now you really are talking bollocks.
No I'm not, a PM who is not a wet lettuce like you (and also not a Scottish nationalist like you who would be cheering Buenos Aires on anyway) would do exactly that if Argentina tried to invade again
I'm talking about "sink the Argentine fleet with Spearfish torpedoes in port", as you put it.
How do they do that? How do they do it in shallow water so shallow their periscopes woudl stick up and they'd ground? How do the torpedoes get through piers and quays and dock gates and gash barges?
No end of demented raving about other posters will change the facts, any more than it does Persian Gulf geography.
If the water is deep enough for Argentine destroyers to float there, it is deep enough for a Spearfish torpedo to reach them. Though of course as long as the Argentine fleet doesn't leave port for the Falklands because of threat of being torpedoed they are less of a concern anyway
Comments
Do they love establishment liars?
After the inevitable attacks by the RW Press i think he will be a massive liability
We will see I could be wrong but i think result on par with 2017
We have a couple of proper-sized carriers right now, even if one would need to be towed down to the South Atlantic, instead of the harrier carriers the Navy had in the early 80s. I think they haven't yet scrapped the amphibious landing ships. Isn't there a proper airport on Ascension Island now, which would make providing air support/supply much easier than it was in the 80s.
Yes, the overall size of the armed forces is a lot smaller than it was, but there are some key capabilities that are probably in much better shape now than then.
It is the considered opinion by the Argentines in the family that Argentina is much, much worse off than Peru.
Not comparative stats, so much as being able to find work, afford to live. I think Peru is poorer, but there is more opportunity to get by there, at a reduced living standard. If that makes sense.
Defending British lives I can just about see. But territory no matter what the cost? Like the Isle of Eigg is invaded and we kill 300m people to get it back?
https://twitter.com/nayibbukele/status/1631452921014411266
Actually an even better idea.
They gift us their top 5 players every year.
We could win the world cup that way.
Isn’t it the claim that only the slave trade made European development possible?
And clearly he has done that.
And Ascension is okay as a stop over point en route to the Falklands but it is still far to far away to be of use for providing air cover/support. Look at what they had to do just to get a couple of bombs dropped on Port Stanley airport in 1982.
The Typhoon has an operating range of around 850 miles (the F35 only 650 miles). The distance from Ascension to Falklands is just under 4000 miles.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/742098/police-fly-falklands-help-with-historical-child-abuse-investigation
Argentina also has 0 aircraft carriers
Here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLQcdX9Ya1w
Somewhat poor quality recording, unfortunately.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11815889/Argentina-RIPS-Falklands-pact-UK-demands-renegotiations-islands-sovereignty.html
It certainly needs a speedy to camera piece from Sunak as quick response to this aggression, doesn’t it? As deterrent and statement of resolve?
After Argies sidle up to our team at the G20 and ripped up all our agreements with them in our faces, surely it now needs a very public reply from Sunak himself of our resolve. If it’s nothing but silence from Rishi now in response to the Argie actions against us today, merely a bit of mumbling from Cleverly on a Sunday politics show, surely that’s the green light to the Argies of a lack of resolve from a wet lettuce government, silence from Rishi will merely encourage them wouldn’t it?
Owt tangible?
It’s not 100% sure Gray does end up in the job. What’s the point of a chief of staff so high profile mere mention of them or their existence galvanises your opponents so much, distracting from your actual message or actual misdemeanours of your opponents, when there are so many other people who can also be damn good in same role, without anyone even aware they are there?
Really the end of Johnson? He still has strong support from party members and the momentum like Conservative Democratic Organisation working for him, the Tory majority privileges star chamber has to deem it clear cut enough to agree a 10 day suspension to lead to recall - what’s to stop him not fighting for that seat instead popping up in a much more secure seat at the next election (his recall merely by passing chicken run) and returning to parliament in time for leadership election that goes to the members next year, coming back with the tag line “I’m Boris 2.0 - I made a mistake, and suitably punished for it, acknowledging it and sorry - just like Winston Churchill did actually - I’m back to put things right! (And fulfils my Churchillian destiny of the great comeback).”
And over the coming weeks, opposition to Rishi and EU’s cosy plan of having NI in both markets could build around some red lines, Rishi not having the bottle to just proceed, concedes into going back to EU to resolve the red lines, and on this it all goes quiet? I think it’s certain to happen tbh, as DUP ERG response to EU and Rishi will be a considered counter proposal, not two fingers: we see your proposal, if you give us 1, 2, 3 too, you have our support, and Stormont open too.
Mind you, suggesting he went full HYUFD on it is a bit libellous. If said Captain wasn’t both dead and fictitious.
The Covenanter tank only has a weedy 2lbr firing solid shot. The ship in the film had far better armament.
Wash your mouth out Lord Kitchener!
He should just fix them with his steely eyes, look up at them and remind them that he is the quiet man not for turning.
Lots of my diabetic patients are on it for Type 2 diabetes, and most lose weight, typically a half a stone or more.
It doesn't mix well with alcohol and can lead to dangerously low blood sugars with serious drinking.
I would discuss it, and your other prescribed and self acquired medicines, with the prescribing doctor.
Effectively why, as much as Ukraine could and possibly should morally be free to lob everything into Russia it changes the diplomatic and public view less in your favour.
Sunak travels to France next week to discuss close cooperation with Macron over the boats and security and trade
Then he travels to Germany followed by Charles state visits to France and Germany to reinforce the new friendlier relationship
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/mar/03/king-charles-to-make-first-state-visits-to-france-and-germany?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
The Sarge from Airplane has many, many Russian relatives, though. Who all smoke Lucky Strike.
In the Falklands taskforce there were:
2 aircraft carriers
2 landing platform docks
8 destroyers
14 frigates
6 submarines
numerous minesweepers, patrol vessels, supply ships, etc.
In the Royal Navy today there are:
2 aircraft carriers
2 transport docks
6 destroyers
12 frigates
6 submarines (not including the nuclear deterrent ones)
numerous minesweepers, patrol vessels, supply ships, etc.
So, if the entire Royal Navy was deployed, it would be down a couple of destroyers and a couple of frigates on the numerical strength of the taskforce during the Falklands War, but it's really not far off.
I don't think the situation is as bad as people make out.
If Ukraine had the missile capability of course it would bomb Russian airfields where Russian bombers were flying from to bomb Ukraine
My repro Violet Club will be ready soon.
Unexpected expected development in Turkey; opposition's right wing constituent IYI Party declares break away from the opposition alliance, as a result of main opposition CHP's leader Kılıçdaroğlu being agreed by other parties as joint-candidate, proposing CHP mayors as candidate.
With this move, IYI Party effectively hands over an election victory to 20+ year governing Erdoğan. Unless the people make a conscious choice and rally behind one candidate, at the moment the next 74 days look grim
https://twitter.com/obefintlig/status/1631648243200434178
All to be sorted out by a jab of Ozempic no doubt.
I feel like a lot of the UK focused comments from them are because they don't want to constantly whip out the ridiculous accusations at the US right away.
Bear with me as I explain it, because this sounds a bit Yes Minister.
Having not solved, merely moved the Irish Sea border to an extra focus on increased market surveillance at North-South Ireland border instead - its now VITAL for UK and EU to smooth this border as much as possible, so it can no way resemble the actual hard border our friend HY wants England Scotland border to look like, once Scotland in EU and Euro.
The idea Stormont/DUP have a real Brake or Veto has fallen apart quite quickly this week, the reason for this is Rishi and EU can’t allow a real veto.
This is where in your Jim Hacker voice you ask, why not?
And Sir Humphrey roll his eyes and say, because if you give the DUP a real veto minister, they wouldn’t hesitate to use it.
But we want them to use it, to block all those brand new EU laws, and rules and regulations being imposed on Northern Ireland.
But we’ve built it into the agreement, if the EU don’t get their way, they can scrap the Green Lane without a shred of consultation, throw the border back into the Irish Sea, and we’ll all be back to square one.
We’ve agreed that?
Yes. In black and white, which you clearly haven’t read all over.
So - he rants about the Falklands.
You'll soon be about to get it in oral form, and those same gig workers can bring it at the same time as your curry and lager.
"any means necessary"
*rants about nuking Argentina*
In other words, you don't give a shit how many people die, just so long as the Conservative Party remains in power, and you and your chums remain in power in the Conservative Party.
Other colonialists returned to Blighty; isn't it their turn?
How do they do that? How do they do it in shallow water so shallow their periscopes woudl stick up and they'd ground? How do the torpedoes get through piers and quays and dock gates and gash barges?
No end of demented raving about other posters will change the facts, any more than it does Persian Gulf geography.
1. The RN would not be doing anything else. At all.
2. You're not allowing for a significant proportion of ships being in dock for major refit or repair (the sort where they are waiting on major kit).
3. You'#re forgettimng the UK Merchant Navy ships which effectively provided a lot of the fleet train and the transports for the troops and kit. Look around you. What Merchant Navy?
*Or whatever it is called these days. And not the propaganda unit either.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Atlantic_Conveyor
Remember 1066 and All That:
“Gladstone .. spent his declining years trying to guess the answer to the Irish Question; unfortunately, whenever he was getting warm, the Irish secretly changed the Question, ...”
I can understand why the others are harder to distinguish...