(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?
Oh yes, but there was the QE2, and Canberra, and lots and lots of other ships as well of other types, salvage tugs, cargo ships, and so on. All pulled out of commercial trade without warning and often modified immediately in dockyards that don't exist in the same way any longer. Aboput as many MN ships as there were warships plus RFA.
Quite a lot of that was supplying Ascension Island too, of course.
@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.
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
I'm sure somebody more knowledgeable than me will correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the Rio de la Plata is deep enough to hide submarines. So if the destroyers were in port in Buenos Aires, they would be out of reach.
@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
You can't say that, because we don't know the stats for Spearfish.
And how do you fire the torpedoes? And you still don't understand the concept of a fleet in being.
They had to [edit] remove the last remains of the Mary Rose just so the new carriers could get into Portsmouth.
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?
@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, ...”
That’s a pretty fair description of the Home Rule story….
@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.
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
I'm sure somebody more knowledgeable than me will correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the Rio de la Plata is deep enough to hide submarines. So if the destroyers were in port in Buenos Aires, they would be out of reach.
Quite, especially if you are trying to get your submarines into port itself. They have a habit of sticking on the bars and the mudbanks.
@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?
Would we have the capability to defend the Falkland Islands now if Argentina invaded?
There's a 2,500m runway on the Falklands now so occupiers would find it a lot easier to reinforce and resupply than in 1982. It's a different geopolitical situation now; the Argentineans would be getting a lot of help from China and Russia (intelligence, etc.) so if the UK is careless enough to lose the F.I. they probably wouldn't be getting them 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
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.
@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?
Would we have the capability to defend the Falkland Islands now if Argentina invaded?
There's a 2,500m runway on the Falklands now so occupiers would find it a lot easier to reinforce and resupply than in 1983. It's a different geopolitical situation now; the Argentineans would be getting a lot of help from China and Russia (intelligence, etc.) so if the UK is careless enough to lose the F.I. they probably wouldn't be getting them back.
They would have to get to that first. We also have Cruise missiles which we didn't then to bomb Argentine airfields.
@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
I'm sure somebody more knowledgeable than me will correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the Rio de la Plata is deep enough to hide submarines. So if the destroyers were in port in Buenos Aires, they would be out of reach.
Quite, especially if you are trying to get your submarines into port itself. They have a habit of sticking on the bars and the mudbanks.
And those RN submarines could also sink any Argentine ships which left port
@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?
Would we have the capability to defend the Falkland Islands now if Argentina invaded?
There's a 2,500m runway on the Falklands now so occupiers would find it a lot easier to reinforce and resupply than in 1983. It's a different geopolitical situation now; the Argentineans would be getting a lot of help from China and Russia (intelligence, etc.) so if the UK is careless enough to lose the F.I. they probably wouldn't be getting them back.
They would have to get to that first. We also have Cruise missiles which we didn't then to bomb Argentine airfields.
How big is an airfield?
How manuy cruise missiles can the RN actually get to the south Atlantic?
@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?
Would we have the capability to defend the Falkland Islands now if Argentina invaded?
There's a 2,500m runway on the Falklands now so occupiers would find it a lot easier to reinforce and resupply than in 1983. It's a different geopolitical situation now; the Argentineans would be getting a lot of help from China and Russia (intelligence, etc.) so if the UK is careless enough to lose the F.I. they probably wouldn't be getting them back.
They would have to get to that first. We also have Cruise missiles which we didn't then to bomb Argentine airfields.
@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
I'm sure somebody more knowledgeable than me will correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the Rio de la Plata is deep enough to hide submarines. So if the destroyers were in port in Buenos Aires, they would be out of reach.
Quite, especially if you are trying to get your submarines into port itself. They have a habit of sticking on the bars and the mudbanks.
And those RN submarines could also sink any Argentine ships which left port
But on your scenario those RN submarines would have been stuck in the mud and killed already.
@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
I'm sure somebody more knowledgeable than me will correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the Rio de la Plata is deep enough to hide submarines. So if the destroyers were in port in Buenos Aires, they would be out of reach.
Quite, especially if you are trying to get your submarines into port itself. They have a habit of sticking on the bars and the mudbanks.
And those RN submarines could also sink any Argentine ships which left port
@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?
Would we have the capability to defend the Falkland Islands now if Argentina invaded?
There's a 2,500m runway on the Falklands now so occupiers would find it a lot easier to reinforce and resupply than in 1983. It's a different geopolitical situation now; the Argentineans would be getting a lot of help from China and Russia (intelligence, etc.) so if the UK is careless enough to lose the F.I. they probably wouldn't be getting them back.
They would have to get to that first. We also have Cruise missiles which we didn't then to bomb Argentine airfields.
Question for you
How far is the UK from the Falklands
How far is Argentina from the Falklands
Easily near enough for our submarines to destroy their airfields with our Cruise missiles
@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?
Would we have the capability to defend the Falkland Islands now if Argentina invaded?
There's a 2,500m runway on the Falklands now so occupiers would find it a lot easier to reinforce and resupply than in 1983. It's a different geopolitical situation now; the Argentineans would be getting a lot of help from China and Russia (intelligence, etc.) so if the UK is careless enough to lose the F.I. they probably wouldn't be getting them back.
They would have to get to that first. We also have Cruise missiles which we didn't then to bomb Argentine airfields.
Question for you
How far is the UK from the Falklands
How far is Argentina from the Falklands
Easily near enough for our submarines to destroy their airfields with our Cruise missiles
@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?
Would we have the capability to defend the Falkland Islands now if Argentina invaded?
There's a 2,500m runway on the Falklands now so occupiers would find it a lot easier to reinforce and resupply than in 1983. It's a different geopolitical situation now; the Argentineans would be getting a lot of help from China and Russia (intelligence, etc.) so if the UK is careless enough to lose the F.I. they probably wouldn't be getting them back.
They would have to get to that first. We also have Cruise missiles which we didn't then to bomb Argentine airfields.
Question for you
How far is the UK from the Falklands
How far is Argentina from the Falklands
Easily near enough for our submarines to destroy their airfields with our Cruise missiles
"Destroy".
How?
And when you have run out trying to drill holes in tarmac and grass, yo have to go all the way back up to the UK to get some more missiles.
If you are talking about hangars etc., then you need accurate and real time targeting information. Where's that coming from, if the Americans aren';t helping? Indeed, would the missiles even work in that case?
@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
If the islanders want to be Britishers they should move to Surrey.
Other colonialists returned to Blighty; isn't it their turn?
No, they have lived there their entire lives on the whole, they are entitled to remain there under the British Crown
Do you apply the same principle to the Chagos Islanders?
A decision of the Wilson government but the Chagos Islands remain British territory and when first moved to Mauritius in 1967 that was also still British overseas territory
@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?
Would we have the capability to defend the Falkland Islands now if Argentina invaded?
There's a 2,500m runway on the Falklands now so occupiers would find it a lot easier to reinforce and resupply than in 1983. It's a different geopolitical situation now; the Argentineans would be getting a lot of help from China and Russia (intelligence, etc.) so if the UK is careless enough to lose the F.I. they probably wouldn't be getting them back.
They would have to get to that first. We also have Cruise missiles which we didn't then to bomb Argentine airfields.
Question for you
How far is the UK from the Falklands
How far is Argentina from the Falklands
Easily near enough for our submarines to destroy their airfields with our Cruise missiles
@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?
Would we have the capability to defend the Falkland Islands now if Argentina invaded?
There's a 2,500m runway on the Falklands now so occupiers would find it a lot easier to reinforce and resupply than in 1983. It's a different geopolitical situation now; the Argentineans would be getting a lot of help from China and Russia (intelligence, etc.) so if the UK is careless enough to lose the F.I. they probably wouldn't be getting them back.
They would have to get to that first. We also have Cruise missiles which we didn't then to bomb Argentine airfields.
How big is an airfield?
How manuy cruise missiles can the RN actually get to the south Atlantic?
Do the ****ing arithmetic.
Quite enough to destroy most of them given how weak the Argentine airforce is.
However regardless of your ****ing Scottish Nationalist, British hating Argentina loving Falklands treachery, we will never, ever give in to the likes of you. Is that clear!!!
@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
If the islanders want to be Britishers they should move to Surrey.
Other colonialists returned to Blighty; isn't it their turn?
No, they have lived there their entire lives on the whole, they are entitled to remain there under the British Crown
Do you apply the same principle to the Chagos Islanders?
A decision of the Wilson government but the Chagos Islands remain British territory and when first moved to Mauritius in 1967 that was also still British overseas territory
That's very quick plate tectonics. Are you sure you know what you are talking about?
"the Chagos Islands remain British territory and when first moved to Mauritius in 1967"
@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
If the islanders want to be Britishers they should move to Surrey.
Other colonialists returned to Blighty; isn't it their turn?
No, they have lived there their entire lives on the whole, they are entitled to remain there under the British Crown
Do you apply the same principle to the Chagos Islanders?
A decision of the Wilson government but the Chagos Islands remain British territory and when first moved to Mauritius in 1967 that was also still British overseas territory
So on that basis, OK to move the Falklanders to Surrey. Glad we agree.
@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?
Would we have the capability to defend the Falkland Islands now if Argentina invaded?
There's a 2,500m runway on the Falklands now so occupiers would find it a lot easier to reinforce and resupply than in 1983. It's a different geopolitical situation now; the Argentineans would be getting a lot of help from China and Russia (intelligence, etc.) so if the UK is careless enough to lose the F.I. they probably wouldn't be getting them back.
They would have to get to that first. We also have Cruise missiles which we didn't then to bomb Argentine airfields.
How big is an airfield?
How manuy cruise missiles can the RN actually get to the south Atlantic?
Do the ****ing arithmetic.
Quite enough to destroy most of them given how weak the Argentine airforce is.
However regardless of your ****ing Scottish Nationalist, British hating Argentina loving Falklands treachery, we will never, ever give in to the likes of you. Is that clear!!!
It's treachery to stop you trying to kill off the UK armed forces?
@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?
Would we have the capability to defend the Falkland Islands now if Argentina invaded?
There's a 2,500m runway on the Falklands now so occupiers would find it a lot easier to reinforce and resupply than in 1983. It's a different geopolitical situation now; the Argentineans would be getting a lot of help from China and Russia (intelligence, etc.) so if the UK is careless enough to lose the F.I. they probably wouldn't be getting them back.
They would have to get to that first. We also have Cruise missiles which we didn't then to bomb Argentine airfields.
How big is an airfield?
How manuy cruise missiles can the RN actually get to the south Atlantic?
Do the ****ing arithmetic.
Quite enough to destroy most of them given how weak the Argentine airforce is.
However regardless of your ****ing Scottish Nationalist, British hating Argentina loving Falklands treachery, we will never, ever give in to the likes of you. Is that clear!!!
It's treachery to stop you trying to kill off the UK armed forces?
Its treachery for you to refuse to defend the Falklands but then we know full well you are a traitor to the United Kingdom and a traitor to the British state as shown via your ardent Scottish nationalism
@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?
Would we have the capability to defend the Falkland Islands now if Argentina invaded?
There's a 2,500m runway on the Falklands now so occupiers would find it a lot easier to reinforce and resupply than in 1983. It's a different geopolitical situation now; the Argentineans would be getting a lot of help from China and Russia (intelligence, etc.) so if the UK is careless enough to lose the F.I. they probably wouldn't be getting them back.
They would have to get to that first. We also have Cruise missiles which we didn't then to bomb Argentine airfields.
How big is an airfield?
How manuy cruise missiles can the RN actually get to the south Atlantic?
Do the ****ing arithmetic.
Quite enough to destroy most of them given how weak the Argentine airforce is.
However regardless of your ****ing Scottish Nationalist, British hating Argentina loving Falklands treachery, we will never, ever give in to the likes of you. Is that clear!!!
It's treachery to stop you trying to kill off the UK armed forces?
There are nights on here that leave you wondering if @HYUFD is just winding everyone up, as there cannot be anyone else who believes his nonsense and inability to accept he is wrong
@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
If the islanders want to be Britishers they should move to Surrey.
Other colonialists returned to Blighty; isn't it their turn?
No, they have lived there their entire lives on the whole, they are entitled to remain there under the British Crown
Do you apply the same principle to the Chagos Islanders?
A decision of the Wilson government but the Chagos Islands remain British territory and when first moved to Mauritius in 1967 that was also still British overseas territory
So on that basis, OK to move the Falklanders to Surrey. Glad we agree.
No and even the Chagos Islands remain British territory and in time the Chagos Islanders may return
@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?
Would we have the capability to defend the Falkland Islands now if Argentina invaded?
There's a 2,500m runway on the Falklands now so occupiers would find it a lot easier to reinforce and resupply than in 1983. It's a different geopolitical situation now; the Argentineans would be getting a lot of help from China and Russia (intelligence, etc.) so if the UK is careless enough to lose the F.I. they probably wouldn't be getting them back.
They would have to get to that first. We also have Cruise missiles which we didn't then to bomb Argentine airfields.
Question for you
How far is the UK from the Falklands
How far is Argentina from the Falklands
Easily near enough for our submarines to destroy their airfields with our Cruise missiles
"Destroy".
How?
And when you have run out trying to drill holes in tarmac and grass, yo have to go all the way back up to the UK to get some more missiles.
If you are talking about hangars etc., then you need accurate and real time targeting information. Where's that coming from, if the Americans aren';t helping? Indeed, would the missiles even work in that case?
No, each submarine has 38 missile tubes with each Cruise missile having 1000 ibs of high explosive, more than enough to destroy a runway with 1 missile alone or a hanger
@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?
Would we have the capability to defend the Falkland Islands now if Argentina invaded?
There's a 2,500m runway on the Falklands now so occupiers would find it a lot easier to reinforce and resupply than in 1983. It's a different geopolitical situation now; the Argentineans would be getting a lot of help from China and Russia (intelligence, etc.) so if the UK is careless enough to lose the F.I. they probably wouldn't be getting them back.
They would have to get to that first. We also have Cruise missiles which we didn't then to bomb Argentine airfields.
How big is an airfield?
How manuy cruise missiles can the RN actually get to the south Atlantic?
Do the ****ing arithmetic.
Quite enough to destroy most of them given how weak the Argentine airforce is.
However regardless of your ****ing Scottish Nationalist, British hating Argentina loving Falklands treachery, we will never, ever give in to the likes of you. Is that clear!!!
It's treachery to stop you trying to kill off the UK armed forces?
Its treachery for you to refuse the Falklands but then we know full well you are a traitor to the United Kingdom and a traitor to the British state as shown via your ardent Scottish nationalism
I haven't refused the Falklands in any way whatever. I have been concerned for their proper and efficient defence. And you come up with hysterical insults like that? Bloody funny way of encouraging people to be concerned for UK overseas territories, I must say.
@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?
Would we have the capability to defend the Falkland Islands now if Argentina invaded?
There's a 2,500m runway on the Falklands now so occupiers would find it a lot easier to reinforce and resupply than in 1983. It's a different geopolitical situation now; the Argentineans would be getting a lot of help from China and Russia (intelligence, etc.) so if the UK is careless enough to lose the F.I. they probably wouldn't be getting them back.
They would have to get to that first. We also have Cruise missiles which we didn't then to bomb Argentine airfields.
How big is an airfield?
How manuy cruise missiles can the RN actually get to the south Atlantic?
Do the ****ing arithmetic.
Quite enough to destroy most of them given how weak the Argentine airforce is.
However regardless of your ****ing Scottish Nationalist, British hating Argentina loving Falklands treachery, we will never, ever give in to the likes of you. Is that clear!!!
It's treachery to stop you trying to kill off the UK armed forces?
There are nights on here that leave you wondering if @HYUFD is just winding everyone up, as there cannot be anyone else who believes his nonsense and inability to accept he is wrong
@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?
Would we have the capability to defend the Falkland Islands now if Argentina invaded?
There's a 2,500m runway on the Falklands now so occupiers would find it a lot easier to reinforce and resupply than in 1983. It's a different geopolitical situation now; the Argentineans would be getting a lot of help from China and Russia (intelligence, etc.) so if the UK is careless enough to lose the F.I. they probably wouldn't be getting them back.
They would have to get to that first. We also have Cruise missiles which we didn't then to bomb Argentine airfields.
How big is an airfield?
How manuy cruise missiles can the RN actually get to the south Atlantic?
Do the ****ing arithmetic.
Quite enough to destroy most of them given how weak the Argentine airforce is.
However regardless of your ****ing Scottish Nationalist, British hating Argentina loving Falklands treachery, we will never, ever give in to the likes of you. Is that clear!!!
It's treachery to stop you trying to kill off the UK armed forces?
There are nights on here that leave you wondering if @HYUFD is just winding everyone up, as there cannot be anyone else who believes his nonsense and inability to accept he is wrong
I am not wrong, just not someone who is now clearly an appeaser and unwilling to defend British territory as you sadly seem unwilling to be BigG
@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?
Would we have the capability to defend the Falkland Islands now if Argentina invaded?
There's a 2,500m runway on the Falklands now so occupiers would find it a lot easier to reinforce and resupply than in 1983. It's a different geopolitical situation now; the Argentineans would be getting a lot of help from China and Russia (intelligence, etc.) so if the UK is careless enough to lose the F.I. they probably wouldn't be getting them back.
They would have to get to that first. We also have Cruise missiles which we didn't then to bomb Argentine airfields.
How big is an airfield?
How manuy cruise missiles can the RN actually get to the south Atlantic?
Do the ****ing arithmetic.
Quite enough to destroy most of them given how weak the Argentine airforce is.
However regardless of your ****ing Scottish Nationalist, British hating Argentina loving Falklands treachery, we will never, ever give in to the likes of you. Is that clear!!!
It's treachery to stop you trying to kill off the UK armed forces?
There are nights on here that leave you wondering if @HYUFD is just winding everyone up, as there cannot be anyone else who believes his nonsense and inability to accept he is wrong
You can't deny it hasn't been comedy gold tonight.
@TLDRNewsUK 🇦🇷 Argentina has told the UK that it wants to start new talks over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands and has pulled out of a 2016 cooperation pact.
Could a Sunak Falklands moment save his chances of reelection?
Would we have the capability to defend the Falkland Islands now if Argentina invaded?
There's a 2,500m runway on the Falklands now so occupiers would find it a lot easier to reinforce and resupply than in 1983. It's a different geopolitical situation now; the Argentineans would be getting a lot of help from China and Russia (intelligence, etc.) so if the UK is careless enough to lose the F.I. they probably wouldn't be getting them back.
They would have to get to that first. We also have Cruise missiles which we didn't then to bomb Argentine airfields.
How big is an airfield?
How manuy cruise missiles can the RN actually get to the south Atlantic?
Do the ****ing arithmetic.
Quite enough to destroy most of them given how weak the Argentine airforce is.
However regardless of your ****ing Scottish Nationalist, British hating Argentina loving Falklands treachery, we will never, ever give in to the likes of you. Is that clear!!!
It's treachery to stop you trying to kill off the UK armed forces?
There are nights on here that leave you wondering if @HYUFD is just winding everyone up, as there cannot be anyone else who believes his nonsense and inability to accept he is wrong
Talking of which,
Vegan coronation oil, whatever will they think of next.
@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?
Would we have the capability to defend the Falkland Islands now if Argentina invaded?
There's a 2,500m runway on the Falklands now so occupiers would find it a lot easier to reinforce and resupply than in 1983. It's a different geopolitical situation now; the Argentineans would be getting a lot of help from China and Russia (intelligence, etc.) so if the UK is careless enough to lose the F.I. they probably wouldn't be getting them back.
They would have to get to that first. We also have Cruise missiles which we didn't then to bomb Argentine airfields.
How big is an airfield?
How manuy cruise missiles can the RN actually get to the south Atlantic?
Do the ****ing arithmetic.
Quite enough to destroy most of them given how weak the Argentine airforce is.
However regardless of your ****ing Scottish Nationalist, British hating Argentina loving Falklands treachery, we will never, ever give in to the likes of you. Is that clear!!!
It's treachery to stop you trying to kill off the UK armed forces?
There are nights on here that leave you wondering if @HYUFD is just winding everyone up, as there cannot be anyone else who believes his nonsense and inability to accept he is wrong
Talking of which,
Classic Johnsonian technically truthful wording: the evidence is indeed presented on proper paper and not on shreds.
@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?
Would we have the capability to defend the Falkland Islands now if Argentina invaded?
There's a 2,500m runway on the Falklands now so occupiers would find it a lot easier to reinforce and resupply than in 1983. It's a different geopolitical situation now; the Argentineans would be getting a lot of help from China and Russia (intelligence, etc.) so if the UK is careless enough to lose the F.I. they probably wouldn't be getting them back.
They would have to get to that first. We also have Cruise missiles which we didn't then to bomb Argentine airfields.
How big is an airfield?
How manuy cruise missiles can the RN actually get to the south Atlantic?
Do the ****ing arithmetic.
Quite enough to destroy most of them given how weak the Argentine airforce is.
However regardless of your ****ing Scottish Nationalist, British hating Argentina loving Falklands treachery, we will never, ever give in to the likes of you. Is that clear!!!
It's treachery to stop you trying to kill off the UK armed forces?
There are nights on here that leave you wondering if @HYUFD is just winding everyone up, as there cannot be anyone else who believes his nonsense and inability to accept he is wrong
Talking of which,
And I bet he doesn't even realise the irony of that!
@TLDRNewsUK 🇦🇷 Argentina has told the UK that it wants to start new talks over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands and has pulled out of a 2016 cooperation pact.
Could a Sunak Falklands moment save his chances of reelection?
Would we have the capability to defend the Falkland Islands now if Argentina invaded?
There's a 2,500m runway on the Falklands now so occupiers would find it a lot easier to reinforce and resupply than in 1983. It's a different geopolitical situation now; the Argentineans would be getting a lot of help from China and Russia (intelligence, etc.) so if the UK is careless enough to lose the F.I. they probably wouldn't be getting them back.
They would have to get to that first. We also have Cruise missiles which we didn't then to bomb Argentine airfields.
How big is an airfield?
How manuy cruise missiles can the RN actually get to the south Atlantic?
Do the ****ing arithmetic.
Quite enough to destroy most of them given how weak the Argentine airforce is.
However regardless of your ****ing Scottish Nationalist, British hating Argentina loving Falklands treachery, we will never, ever give in to the likes of you. Is that clear!!!
It's treachery to stop you trying to kill off the UK armed forces?
There are nights on here that leave you wondering if @HYUFD is just winding everyone up, as there cannot be anyone else who believes his nonsense and inability to accept he is wrong
Talking of which,
Vegan coronation oil, whatever will they think of next.
Can't believe we're using foreign oil though. Wokeness gone mad...
@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?
Would we have the capability to defend the Falkland Islands now if Argentina invaded?
There's a 2,500m runway on the Falklands now so occupiers would find it a lot easier to reinforce and resupply than in 1983. It's a different geopolitical situation now; the Argentineans would be getting a lot of help from China and Russia (intelligence, etc.) so if the UK is careless enough to lose the F.I. they probably wouldn't be getting them back.
They would have to get to that first. We also have Cruise missiles which we didn't then to bomb Argentine airfields.
How big is an airfield?
How manuy cruise missiles can the RN actually get to the south Atlantic?
Do the ****ing arithmetic.
Quite enough to destroy most of them given how weak the Argentine airforce is.
However regardless of your ****ing Scottish Nationalist, British hating Argentina loving Falklands treachery, we will never, ever give in to the likes of you. Is that clear!!!
It's treachery to stop you trying to kill off the UK armed forces?
There are nights on here that leave you wondering if @HYUFD is just winding everyone up, as there cannot be anyone else who believes his nonsense and inability to accept he is wrong
I am not wrong, just not someone who is now clearly an appeaser and unwilling to defend British territory as you sadly seem unwilling to be BigG
@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
If the islanders want to be Britishers they should move to Surrey.
Other colonialists returned to Blighty; isn't it their turn?
No, they have lived there their entire lives on the whole, they are entitled to remain there under the British Crown
A serious point. Is it worth the lives of 2,3,4 or 5,000 British Servicemen to secure the residential future of 1000 or so Falkland Islanders? Give me a number.
@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
If the islanders want to be Britishers they should move to Surrey.
Other colonialists returned to Blighty; isn't it their turn?
No, they have lived there their entire lives on the whole, they are entitled to remain there under the British Crown
A serious point. Is it worth the lives of 2,3,4 or 5,000 British Servicemen to secure the residential future of 1000 or so Falkland Islanders? Give me a number.
For Thatcher, the figure was 1,000. If that helps.
@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?
Would we have the capability to defend the Falkland Islands now if Argentina invaded?
There's a 2,500m runway on the Falklands now so occupiers would find it a lot easier to reinforce and resupply than in 1983. It's a different geopolitical situation now; the Argentineans would be getting a lot of help from China and Russia (intelligence, etc.) so if the UK is careless enough to lose the F.I. they probably wouldn't be getting them back.
They would have to get to that first. We also have Cruise missiles which we didn't then to bomb Argentine airfields.
How big is an airfield?
How manuy cruise missiles can the RN actually get to the south Atlantic?
Do the ****ing arithmetic.
Quite enough to destroy most of them given how weak the Argentine airforce is.
However regardless of your ****ing Scottish Nationalist, British hating Argentina loving Falklands treachery, we will never, ever give in to the likes of you. Is that clear!!!
It's treachery to stop you trying to kill off the UK armed forces?
Its treachery for you to refuse to defend the Falklands but then we know full well you are a traitor to the United Kingdom and a traitor to the British state as shown via your ardent Scottish nationalism
@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?
Would we have the capability to defend the Falkland Islands now if Argentina invaded?
There's a 2,500m runway on the Falklands now so occupiers would find it a lot easier to reinforce and resupply than in 1983. It's a different geopolitical situation now; the Argentineans would be getting a lot of help from China and Russia (intelligence, etc.) so if the UK is careless enough to lose the F.I. they probably wouldn't be getting them back.
They would have to get to that first. We also have Cruise missiles which we didn't then to bomb Argentine airfields.
Question for you
How far is the UK from the Falklands
How far is Argentina from the Falklands
Easily near enough for our submarines to destroy their airfields with our Cruise missiles
"Destroy".
How?
And when you have run out trying to drill holes in tarmac and grass, yo have to go all the way back up to the UK to get some more missiles.
If you are talking about hangars etc., then you need accurate and real time targeting information. Where's that coming from, if the Americans aren';t helping? Indeed, would the missiles even work in that case?
No, each submarine has 38 missile tubes with each Cruise missile having 1000 ibs of high explosive, more than enough to destroy a runway with 1 missile alone or a hanger
IN which case
(a) they get the locals round with JCBs\ to repair the runways (b) you can't carry torpedoes as well. (c) they park the planes outside the hangars
And do your sums.
It is about 7K nm UK-Falklands, so at 30kn high speed, that is 20 days out and 20 days back - leaving 50 days on patrol with no reserve, make it 80 days. Allowing for replenishment, repairs, crew handovers and so on, you need three Astute minimum for complete coverage. And add another for more serious maintenance. And a spare for other work, like, you know, actually defending the UK.
That's the *entire* RN submarine force accounted for, apart from the nuclear deterrent boats. .
@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
If the islanders want to be Britishers they should move to Surrey.
Other colonialists returned to Blighty; isn't it their turn?
No, they have lived there their entire lives on the whole, they are entitled to remain there under the British Crown
A serious point. Is it worth the lives of 2,3,4 or 5,000 British Servicemen to secure the residential future of 1000 or so Falkland Islanders? Give me a number.
For Thatcher, the figure was 1,000. If that helps.
Not counting the Argentinians, presumably. Or the civilians on the ships?
(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.
Minor point of order. There were actually 16 frigates in the Falklands Island Task force not 14.
But the more important point is that our current deployable strengths are no where near what they are on paper.
Of the 12 frigates supposedly available, Somerset and Sutherland are both undergoing refits. Iron Duke is also undergoing a refit but has spent years laid up because of lack of crew for her. Montrose has just arrived back in the UK to be decommissioned and Richmond and Lancaster are both busy shadowing Russian vessels.
It is unlikely that more than 6 or the nominal 12 frigates would be available for any action in the South Atlantic.
@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?
Would we have the capability to defend the Falkland Islands now if Argentina invaded?
There's a 2,500m runway on the Falklands now so occupiers would find it a lot easier to reinforce and resupply than in 1983. It's a different geopolitical situation now; the Argentineans would be getting a lot of help from China and Russia (intelligence, etc.) so if the UK is careless enough to lose the F.I. they probably wouldn't be getting them back.
They would have to get to that first. We also have Cruise missiles which we didn't then to bomb Argentine airfields.
How big is an airfield?
How manuy cruise missiles can the RN actually get to the south Atlantic?
Do the ****ing arithmetic.
Quite enough to destroy most of them given how weak the Argentine airforce is.
However regardless of your ****ing Scottish Nationalist, British hating Argentina loving Falklands treachery, we will never, ever give in to the likes of you. Is that clear!!!
It's treachery to stop you trying to kill off the UK armed forces?
There are nights on here that leave you wondering if @HYUFD is just winding everyone up, as there cannot be anyone else who believes his nonsense and inability to accept he is wrong
I am not wrong, just not someone who is now clearly an appeaser and unwilling to defend British territory as you sadly seem unwilling to be BigG
I'm not sure you're correct about that.
He is out of control hurling insults and at least I actively defended Thatcher and the sinking of the Belgrano at a campaign meeting for the conservative party in Bangor with the late Wyn Roberts
I am not an appeaser nor am I a warmonger, which tonight has seen one poster very much in that mode, sadly
@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?
Would we have the capability to defend the Falkland Islands now if Argentina invaded?
There's a 2,500m runway on the Falklands now so occupiers would find it a lot easier to reinforce and resupply than in 1983. It's a different geopolitical situation now; the Argentineans would be getting a lot of help from China and Russia (intelligence, etc.) so if the UK is careless enough to lose the F.I. they probably wouldn't be getting them back.
They would have to get to that first. We also have Cruise missiles which we didn't then to bomb Argentine airfields.
How big is an airfield?
How manuy cruise missiles can the RN actually get to the south Atlantic?
Do the ****ing arithmetic.
Quite enough to destroy most of them given how weak the Argentine airforce is.
However regardless of your ****ing Scottish Nationalist, British hating Argentina loving Falklands treachery, we will never, ever give in to the likes of you. Is that clear!!!
It's treachery to stop you trying to kill off the UK armed forces?
There are nights on here that leave you wondering if @HYUFD is just winding everyone up, as there cannot be anyone else who believes his nonsense and inability to accept he is wrong
Talking of which,
Vegan coronation oil, whatever will they think of next.
@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?
Would we have the capability to defend the Falkland Islands now if Argentina invaded?
There's a 2,500m runway on the Falklands now so occupiers would find it a lot easier to reinforce and resupply than in 1983. It's a different geopolitical situation now; the Argentineans would be getting a lot of help from China and Russia (intelligence, etc.) so if the UK is careless enough to lose the F.I. they probably wouldn't be getting them back.
They would have to get to that first. We also have Cruise missiles which we didn't then to bomb Argentine airfields.
Question for you
How far is the UK from the Falklands
How far is Argentina from the Falklands
Easily near enough for our submarines to destroy their airfields with our Cruise missiles
"Destroy".
How?
And when you have run out trying to drill holes in tarmac and grass, yo have to go all the way back up to the UK to get some more missiles.
If you are talking about hangars etc., then you need accurate and real time targeting information. Where's that coming from, if the Americans aren';t helping? Indeed, would the missiles even work in that case?
No, each submarine has 38 missile tubes with each Cruise missile having 1000 ibs of high explosive, more than enough to destroy a runway with 1 missile alone or a hanger
IN which case
(a) they get the locals round with JCBs\ to repair the runways (b) you can't carry torpedoes as well. (c) they park the planes outside the hangars
And do your sums.
It is about 7K nm UK-Falklands, so at 30kn high speed, that is 20 days out and 20 days back - leaving 50 days on patrol with no reserve, make it 80 days. Allowing for replenishment, repairs, crew handovers and so on, you need three Astute minimum for complete coverage. And add another for more serious maintenance. And a spare for other work, like, you know, actually defending the UK.
That's the *entire* RN submarine force accounted for, apart from the nuclear deterrent boats. .
That is why I asked the question he failed to answer
@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?
Would we have the capability to defend the Falkland Islands now if Argentina invaded?
There's a 2,500m runway on the Falklands now so occupiers would find it a lot easier to reinforce and resupply than in 1983. It's a different geopolitical situation now; the Argentineans would be getting a lot of help from China and Russia (intelligence, etc.) so if the UK is careless enough to lose the F.I. they probably wouldn't be getting them back.
They would have to get to that first. We also have Cruise missiles which we didn't then to bomb Argentine airfields.
Question for you
How far is the UK from the Falklands
How far is Argentina from the Falklands
Easily near enough for our submarines to destroy their airfields with our Cruise missiles
"Destroy".
How?
And when you have run out trying to drill holes in tarmac and grass, yo have to go all the way back up to the UK to get some more missiles.
If you are talking about hangars etc., then you need accurate and real time targeting information. Where's that coming from, if the Americans aren';t helping? Indeed, would the missiles even work in that case?
No, each submarine has 38 missile tubes with each Cruise missile having 1000 ibs of high explosive, more than enough to destroy a runway with 1 missile alone or a hanger
IN which case
(a) they get the locals round with JCBs\ to repair the runways (b) you can't carry torpedoes as well. (c) they park the planes outside the hangars
And do your sums.
It is about 7K nm UK-Falklands, so at 30kn high speed, that is 20 days out and 20 days back - leaving 50 days on patrol with no reserve, make it 80 days. Allowing for replenishment, repairs, crew handovers and so on, you need three Astute minimum for complete coverage. And add another for more serious maintenance. And a spare for other work, like, you know, actually defending the UK.
That's the *entire* RN submarine force accounted for, apart from the nuclear deterrent boats. .
That is why I asked the question he failed to answer
UK to the Falklands 8,078 miles
Argentina to the Falklands 945 miles
What has that got to do with anything? Submarines with Cruise Missiles can stay underwater for 25 days, more than enough time to get to the area and launch enough Cruise Missiles to destroy most Argentine airfields.
@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?
Would we have the capability to defend the Falkland Islands now if Argentina invaded?
There's a 2,500m runway on the Falklands now so occupiers would find it a lot easier to reinforce and resupply than in 1983. It's a different geopolitical situation now; the Argentineans would be getting a lot of help from China and Russia (intelligence, etc.) so if the UK is careless enough to lose the F.I. they probably wouldn't be getting them back.
They would have to get to that first. We also have Cruise missiles which we didn't then to bomb Argentine airfields.
How big is an airfield?
How manuy cruise missiles can the RN actually get to the south Atlantic?
Do the ****ing arithmetic.
Quite enough to destroy most of them given how weak the Argentine airforce is.
However regardless of your ****ing Scottish Nationalist, British hating Argentina loving Falklands treachery, we will never, ever give in to the likes of you. Is that clear!!!
It's treachery to stop you trying to kill off the UK armed forces?
There are nights on here that leave you wondering if @HYUFD is just winding everyone up, as there cannot be anyone else who believes his nonsense and inability to accept he is wrong
I am not wrong, just not someone who is now clearly an appeaser and unwilling to defend British territory as you sadly seem unwilling to be BigG
I'm not sure you're correct about that.
He is out of control hurling insults and at least I actively defended Thatcher and the sinking of the Belgrano at a campaign meeting for the conservative party in Bangor with the late Wyn Roberts
I am not an appeaser nor am I a warmonger, which tonight has seen one poster very much in that mode, sadly
Yes you are, you effectively said we should give up the Falklands to Argentina as we could not defend them
(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.
Minor point of order. There were actually 16 frigates in the Falklands Island Task force not 14.
But the more important point is that our current deployable strengths are no where near what they are on paper.
Of the 12 frigates supposedly available, Somerset and Sutherland are both undergoing refits. Iron Duke is also undergoing a refit but has spent years laid up because of lack of crew for her. Montrose has just arrived back in the UK to be decommissioned and Richmond and Lancaster are both busy shadowing Russian vessels.
It is unlikely that more than 6 or the nominal 12 frigates would be available for any action in the South Atlantic.
Argentina has no frigates at all and just 4 destroyers
@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?
Would we have the capability to defend the Falkland Islands now if Argentina invaded?
There's a 2,500m runway on the Falklands now so occupiers would find it a lot easier to reinforce and resupply than in 1983. It's a different geopolitical situation now; the Argentineans would be getting a lot of help from China and Russia (intelligence, etc.) so if the UK is careless enough to lose the F.I. they probably wouldn't be getting them back.
They would have to get to that first. We also have Cruise missiles which we didn't then to bomb Argentine airfields.
Question for you
How far is the UK from the Falklands
How far is Argentina from the Falklands
Easily near enough for our submarines to destroy their airfields with our Cruise missiles
"Destroy".
How?
And when you have run out trying to drill holes in tarmac and grass, yo have to go all the way back up to the UK to get some more missiles.
If you are talking about hangars etc., then you need accurate and real time targeting information. Where's that coming from, if the Americans aren';t helping? Indeed, would the missiles even work in that case?
No, each submarine has 38 missile tubes with each Cruise missile having 1000 ibs of high explosive, more than enough to destroy a runway with 1 missile alone or a hanger
IN which case
(a) they get the locals round with JCBs\ to repair the runways (b) you can't carry torpedoes as well. (c) they park the planes outside the hangars
And do your sums.
It is about 7K nm UK-Falklands, so at 30kn high speed, that is 20 days out and 20 days back - leaving 50 days on patrol with no reserve, make it 80 days. Allowing for replenishment, repairs, crew handovers and so on, you need three Astute minimum for complete coverage. And add another for more serious maintenance. And a spare for other work, like, you know, actually defending the UK.
That's the *entire* RN submarine force accounted for, apart from the nuclear deterrent boats. .
That is why I asked the question he failed to answer
UK to the Falklands 8,078 miles
Argentina to the Falklands 945 miles
Mm. I was using nautical miles to fit in with the knots figure, but same really. Just spotted an errror in my arithmetic - but I also assumed high speed all the way, so a more realistic figure would be 15 days either way, plus 10 days margin, which doesn't make much difference to the conclusion.
@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?
Would we have the capability to defend the Falkland Islands now if Argentina invaded?
There's a 2,500m runway on the Falklands now so occupiers would find it a lot easier to reinforce and resupply than in 1983. It's a different geopolitical situation now; the Argentineans would be getting a lot of help from China and Russia (intelligence, etc.) so if the UK is careless enough to lose the F.I. they probably wouldn't be getting them back.
They would have to get to that first. We also have Cruise missiles which we didn't then to bomb Argentine airfields.
How big is an airfield?
How manuy cruise missiles can the RN actually get to the south Atlantic?
Do the ****ing arithmetic.
Quite enough to destroy most of them given how weak the Argentine airforce is.
However regardless of your ****ing Scottish Nationalist, British hating Argentina loving Falklands treachery, we will never, ever give in to the likes of you. Is that clear!!!
It's treachery to stop you trying to kill off the UK armed forces?
Its treachery for you to refuse to defend the Falklands but then we know full well you are a traitor to the United Kingdom and a traitor to the British state as shown via your ardent Scottish nationalism
Not often the fascist loses it. Terrific stuff.
And we can add you to the Traitor list too, we know full well you would have been cheering on Galtieri, a genuine Fascist against the Falklands and British forces in 1982!
(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.
Minor point of order. There were actually 16 frigates in the Falklands Island Task force not 14.
But the more important point is that our current deployable strengths are no where near what they are on paper.
Of the 12 frigates supposedly available, Somerset and Sutherland are both undergoing refits. Iron Duke is also undergoing a refit but has spent years laid up because of lack of crew for her. Montrose has just arrived back in the UK to be decommissioned and Richmond and Lancaster are both busy shadowing Russian vessels.
It is unlikely that more than 6 or the nominal 12 frigates would be available for any action in the South Atlantic.
Argentina has no frigates at all and just 4 destroyers
@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
If the islanders want to be Britishers they should move to Surrey.
Other colonialists returned to Blighty; isn't it their turn?
No, they have lived there their entire lives on the whole, they are entitled to remain there under the British Crown
A serious point. Is it worth the lives of 2,3,4 or 5,000 British Servicemen to secure the residential future of 1000 or so Falkland Islanders? Give me a number.
It is worth whatever it would take to recapture them
@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?
Would we have the capability to defend the Falkland Islands now if Argentina invaded?
There's a 2,500m runway on the Falklands now so occupiers would find it a lot easier to reinforce and resupply than in 1983. It's a different geopolitical situation now; the Argentineans would be getting a lot of help from China and Russia (intelligence, etc.) so if the UK is careless enough to lose the F.I. they probably wouldn't be getting them back.
They would have to get to that first. We also have Cruise missiles which we didn't then to bomb Argentine airfields.
Question for you
How far is the UK from the Falklands
How far is Argentina from the Falklands
Easily near enough for our submarines to destroy their airfields with our Cruise missiles
"Destroy".
How?
And when you have run out trying to drill holes in tarmac and grass, yo have to go all the way back up to the UK to get some more missiles.
If you are talking about hangars etc., then you need accurate and real time targeting information. Where's that coming from, if the Americans aren';t helping? Indeed, would the missiles even work in that case?
No, each submarine has 38 missile tubes with each Cruise missile having 1000 ibs of high explosive, more than enough to destroy a runway with 1 missile alone or a hanger
IN which case
(a) they get the locals round with JCBs\ to repair the runways (b) you can't carry torpedoes as well. (c) they park the planes outside the hangars
And do your sums.
It is about 7K nm UK-Falklands, so at 30kn high speed, that is 20 days out and 20 days back - leaving 50 days on patrol with no reserve, make it 80 days. Allowing for replenishment, repairs, crew handovers and so on, you need three Astute minimum for complete coverage. And add another for more serious maintenance. And a spare for other work, like, you know, actually defending the UK.
That's the *entire* RN submarine force accounted for, apart from the nuclear deterrent boats. .
That is why I asked the question he failed to answer
UK to the Falklands 8,078 miles
Argentina to the Falklands 945 miles
Argentina is much closer than that to the Falklands. The distance noted mostly on the web is centre to centre. The actual distance for military operational purposes is about 350 miles.
Is it possible, feasible, that Sturgeon resigning might actually boost the SNP vote? We all assumed she was holding it up, but what if she was actually suppressing it?
It is up to the people of Northern Ireland if they want to remain in the UK or not and the vast majority of British voters agree that, though more would prefer them to stay in the UK than a United Ireland
@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?
Would we have the capability to defend the Falkland Islands now if Argentina invaded?
There's a 2,500m runway on the Falklands now so occupiers would find it a lot easier to reinforce and resupply than in 1983. It's a different geopolitical situation now; the Argentineans would be getting a lot of help from China and Russia (intelligence, etc.) so if the UK is careless enough to lose the F.I. they probably wouldn't be getting them back.
They would have to get to that first. We also have Cruise missiles which we didn't then to bomb Argentine airfields.
Question for you
How far is the UK from the Falklands
How far is Argentina from the Falklands
Easily near enough for our submarines to destroy their airfields with our Cruise missiles
"Destroy".
How?
And when you have run out trying to drill holes in tarmac and grass, yo have to go all the way back up to the UK to get some more missiles.
If you are talking about hangars etc., then you need accurate and real time targeting information. Where's that coming from, if the Americans aren';t helping? Indeed, would the missiles even work in that case?
No, each submarine has 38 missile tubes with each Cruise missile having 1000 ibs of high explosive, more than enough to destroy a runway with 1 missile alone or a hanger
IN which case
(a) they get the locals round with JCBs\ to repair the runways (b) you can't carry torpedoes as well. (c) they park the planes outside the hangars
And do your sums.
It is about 7K nm UK-Falklands, so at 30kn high speed, that is 20 days out and 20 days back - leaving 50 days on patrol with no reserve, make it 80 days. Allowing for replenishment, repairs, crew handovers and so on, you need three Astute minimum for complete coverage. And add another for more serious maintenance. And a spare for other work, like, you know, actually defending the UK.
That's the *entire* RN submarine force accounted for, apart from the nuclear deterrent boats. .
That is why I asked the question he failed to answer
UK to the Falklands 8,078 miles
Argentina to the Falklands 945 miles
What has that got to do with anything? Submarines with Cruise Missiles can stay underwater for 25 days, more than enough time to get to the area and launch enough Cruise Missiles to destroy most Argentine airfields.
You are suggesting not only we defend the Falklands but actively attack Argentine airfields from a distance of 8,000 miles
Frankly your comments tonight are shameful and unacceptable
@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?
Would we have the capability to defend the Falkland Islands now if Argentina invaded?
There's a 2,500m runway on the Falklands now so occupiers would find it a lot easier to reinforce and resupply than in 1983. It's a different geopolitical situation now; the Argentineans would be getting a lot of help from China and Russia (intelligence, etc.) so if the UK is careless enough to lose the F.I. they probably wouldn't be getting them back.
They would have to get to that first. We also have Cruise missiles which we didn't then to bomb Argentine airfields.
How big is an airfield?
How manuy cruise missiles can the RN actually get to the south Atlantic?
Do the ****ing arithmetic.
Quite enough to destroy most of them given how weak the Argentine airforce is.
However regardless of your ****ing Scottish Nationalist, British hating Argentina loving Falklands treachery, we will never, ever give in to the likes of you. Is that clear!!!
It's treachery to stop you trying to kill off the UK armed forces?
Its treachery for you to refuse to defend the Falklands but then we know full well you are a traitor to the United Kingdom and a traitor to the British state as shown via your ardent Scottish nationalism
Not often the fascist loses it. Terrific stuff.
And we can add you to the Traitor list too, we know full well you would have been cheering on Galtieri, a genuine Fascist against the Falklands and British forces in 1982!
Could I please be added to the Traitor list too? Just for the giggles.
Is it possible, feasible, that Sturgeon resigning might actually boost the SNP vote? We all assumed she was holding it up, but what if she was actually suppressing it?
Exactly what I am wondering. But subsamples and early days, so ignore pro tem.
@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
If the islanders want to be Britishers they should move to Surrey.
Other colonialists returned to Blighty; isn't it their turn?
No, they have lived there their entire lives on the whole, they are entitled to remain there under the British Crown
A serious point. Is it worth the lives of 2,3,4 or 5,000 British Servicemen to secure the residential future of 1000 or so Falkland Islanders? Give me a number.
It is worth whatever it would take to recapture them
You disrespect and disregard for British soldiers is very disturbing and as I said earlier, insults the memories of the fallen Welsh Guards at Bluff Cove
Is it possible, feasible, that Sturgeon resigning might actually boost the SNP vote? We all assumed she was holding it up, but what if she was actually suppressing it?
Exactly what I am wondering. But subsamples and early days, so ignore pro tem.
In the absence of a broad range of full-sample Scottish pollsters, subsamples are all punters have to go on. Better than nothing.
Is it possible, feasible, that Sturgeon resigning might actually boost the SNP vote? We all assumed she was holding it up, but what if she was actually suppressing it?
It won't once the Gilead Forbes or the hapless Yousaf succeeds her
Is it possible, feasible, that Sturgeon resigning might actually boost the SNP vote? We all assumed she was holding it up, but what if she was actually suppressing 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?
Would we have the capability to defend the Falkland Islands now if Argentina invaded?
There's a 2,500m runway on the Falklands now so occupiers would find it a lot easier to reinforce and resupply than in 1983. It's a different geopolitical situation now; the Argentineans would be getting a lot of help from China and Russia (intelligence, etc.) so if the UK is careless enough to lose the F.I. they probably wouldn't be getting them back.
They would have to get to that first. We also have Cruise missiles which we didn't then to bomb Argentine airfields.
Question for you
How far is the UK from the Falklands
How far is Argentina from the Falklands
Easily near enough for our submarines to destroy their airfields with our Cruise missiles
"Destroy".
How?
And when you have run out trying to drill holes in tarmac and grass, yo have to go all the way back up to the UK to get some more missiles.
If you are talking about hangars etc., then you need accurate and real time targeting information. Where's that coming from, if the Americans aren';t helping? Indeed, would the missiles even work in that case?
No, each submarine has 38 missile tubes with each Cruise missile having 1000 ibs of high explosive, more than enough to destroy a runway with 1 missile alone or a hanger
IN which case
(a) they get the locals round with JCBs\ to repair the runways (b) you can't carry torpedoes as well. (c) they park the planes outside the hangars
And do your sums.
It is about 7K nm UK-Falklands, so at 30kn high speed, that is 20 days out and 20 days back - leaving 50 days on patrol with no reserve, make it 80 days. Allowing for replenishment, repairs, crew handovers and so on, you need three Astute minimum for complete coverage. And add another for more serious maintenance. And a spare for other work, like, you know, actually defending the UK.
That's the *entire* RN submarine force accounted for, apart from the nuclear deterrent boats. .
That is why I asked the question he failed to answer
UK to the Falklands 8,078 miles
Argentina to the Falklands 945 miles
Argentina is much closer than that to the Falklands. The distance noted mostly on the web is centre to centre. The actual distance for military operational purposes is about 350 miles.
Yes I agree but the 945 miles is from Buenos Aires
(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.
Minor point of order. There were actually 16 frigates in the Falklands Island Task force not 14.
But the more important point is that our current deployable strengths are no where near what they are on paper.
Of the 12 frigates supposedly available, Somerset and Sutherland are both undergoing refits. Iron Duke is also undergoing a refit but has spent years laid up because of lack of crew for her. Montrose has just arrived back in the UK to be decommissioned and Richmond and Lancaster are both busy shadowing Russian vessels.
It is unlikely that more than 6 or the nominal 12 frigates would be available for any action in the South Atlantic.
Argentina has no frigates at all and just 4 destroyers
Again completely immaterial. Argentina doesn't have to use its fleet to attack the islands. We DO have to use a fleet to get any relief force down there. And if you want to send aircraft carriers then you need frigates and destroyers to protect them. We didn't lose ships to Argentine surface vessels in 1982. We lost them because they were on anti aircraft picket duty to protect the fleet and the landings from ground based Argentine aircraft.
You are throwing up so many straw man arguments because to be honest you don't have the first idea what you are talking about.
@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?
Would we have the capability to defend the Falkland Islands now if Argentina invaded?
There's a 2,500m runway on the Falklands now so occupiers would find it a lot easier to reinforce and resupply than in 1983. It's a different geopolitical situation now; the Argentineans would be getting a lot of help from China and Russia (intelligence, etc.) so if the UK is careless enough to lose the F.I. they probably wouldn't be getting them back.
They would have to get to that first. We also have Cruise missiles which we didn't then to bomb Argentine airfields.
Question for you
How far is the UK from the Falklands
How far is Argentina from the Falklands
Easily near enough for our submarines to destroy their airfields with our Cruise missiles
"Destroy".
How?
And when you have run out trying to drill holes in tarmac and grass, yo have to go all the way back up to the UK to get some more missiles.
If you are talking about hangars etc., then you need accurate and real time targeting information. Where's that coming from, if the Americans aren';t helping? Indeed, would the missiles even work in that case?
No, each submarine has 38 missile tubes with each Cruise missile having 1000 ibs of high explosive, more than enough to destroy a runway with 1 missile alone or a hanger
IN which case
(a) they get the locals round with JCBs\ to repair the runways (b) you can't carry torpedoes as well. (c) they park the planes outside the hangars
And do your sums.
It is about 7K nm UK-Falklands, so at 30kn high speed, that is 20 days out and 20 days back - leaving 50 days on patrol with no reserve, make it 80 days. Allowing for replenishment, repairs, crew handovers and so on, you need three Astute minimum for complete coverage. And add another for more serious maintenance. And a spare for other work, like, you know, actually defending the UK.
That's the *entire* RN submarine force accounted for, apart from the nuclear deterrent boats. .
That is why I asked the question he failed to answer
UK to the Falklands 8,078 miles
Argentina to the Falklands 945 miles
What has that got to do with anything? Submarines with Cruise Missiles can stay underwater for 25 days, more than enough time to get to the area and launch enough Cruise Missiles to destroy most Argentine airfields.
You are suggesting not only we defend the Falklands but actively attack Argentine airfields from a distance of 8,000 miles
Frankly your comments tonight are shameful and unacceptable
If they are bombing the Falklands from those airfields of course we should send Cruise missiles to destroy those airfields.
Your wet lettuce approach is hardly going to win is 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?
Would we have the capability to defend the Falkland Islands now if Argentina invaded?
There's a 2,500m runway on the Falklands now so occupiers would find it a lot easier to reinforce and resupply than in 1983. It's a different geopolitical situation now; the Argentineans would be getting a lot of help from China and Russia (intelligence, etc.) so if the UK is careless enough to lose the F.I. they probably wouldn't be getting them back.
They would have to get to that first. We also have Cruise missiles which we didn't then to bomb Argentine airfields.
Question for you
How far is the UK from the Falklands
How far is Argentina from the Falklands
Easily near enough for our submarines to destroy their airfields with our Cruise missiles
@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?
Would we have the capability to defend the Falkland Islands now if Argentina invaded?
There's a 2,500m runway on the Falklands now so occupiers would find it a lot easier to reinforce and resupply than in 1983. It's a different geopolitical situation now; the Argentineans would be getting a lot of help from China and Russia (intelligence, etc.) so if the UK is careless enough to lose the F.I. they probably wouldn't be getting them back.
They would have to get to that first. We also have Cruise missiles which we didn't then to bomb Argentine airfields.
How big is an airfield?
How manuy cruise missiles can the RN actually get to the south Atlantic?
Do the ****ing arithmetic.
Quite enough to destroy most of them given how weak the Argentine airforce is.
However regardless of your ****ing Scottish Nationalist, British hating Argentina loving Falklands treachery, we will never, ever give in to the likes of you. Is that clear!!!
It's treachery to stop you trying to kill off the UK armed forces?
There are nights on here that leave you wondering if @HYUFD is just winding everyone up, as there cannot be anyone else who believes his nonsense and inability to accept he is wrong
Talking of which,
Vegan coronation oil, whatever will they think of next.
Is it possible, feasible, that Sturgeon resigning might actually boost the SNP vote? We all assumed she was holding it up, but what if she was actually suppressing it?
She seems to have been holding up the Tory vote.
Nah. Tories have been under that number in many pre-resignation subsamples.
If we wanted to fight the Argentinians for the Falklands we would have to pray for a Trump Government, which would allow us to do so - Biden hates Britain and would have a US 'peacekeeping force' there with oil drilling equipment before you could say 'finders keepers'.
Britain's armed forces have been badly run down - it's just a fact. A new Government will have to sort that. It all starts with a growing economy though.
@TLDRNewsUK 🇦🇷 Argentina has told the UK that it wants to start new talks over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands and has pulled out of a 2016 cooperation pact.
Could a Sunak Falklands moment save his chances of reelection?
Would we have the capability to defend the Falkland Islands now if Argentina invaded?
There's a 2,500m runway on the Falklands now so occupiers would find it a lot easier to reinforce and resupply than in 1983. It's a different geopolitical situation now; the Argentineans would be getting a lot of help from China and Russia (intelligence, etc.) so if the UK is careless enough to lose the F.I. they probably wouldn't be getting them back.
They would have to get to that first. We also have Cruise missiles which we didn't then to bomb Argentine airfields.
How big is an airfield?
How manuy cruise missiles can the RN actually get to the south Atlantic?
Do the ****ing arithmetic.
Quite enough to destroy most of them given how weak the Argentine airforce is.
However regardless of your ****ing Scottish Nationalist, British hating Argentina loving Falklands treachery, we will never, ever give in to the likes of you. Is that clear!!!
It's treachery to stop you trying to kill off the UK armed forces?
There are nights on here that leave you wondering if @HYUFD is just winding everyone up, as there cannot be anyone else who believes his nonsense and inability to accept he is wrong
Talking of which,
Classic Johnsonian technically truthful wording: the evidence is indeed presented on proper paper and not on shreds.
I will pay money for the whole thing to come down to the definition of what the word is… is.
@TLDRNewsUK 🇦🇷 Argentina has told the UK that it wants to start new talks over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands and has pulled out of a 2016 cooperation pact.
Could a Sunak Falklands moment save his chances of reelection?
Would we have the capability to defend the Falkland Islands now if Argentina invaded?
There's a 2,500m runway on the Falklands now so occupiers would find it a lot easier to reinforce and resupply than in 1983. It's a different geopolitical situation now; the Argentineans would be getting a lot of help from China and Russia (intelligence, etc.) so if the UK is careless enough to lose the F.I. they probably wouldn't be getting them back.
They would have to get to that first. We also have Cruise missiles which we didn't then to bomb Argentine airfields.
How big is an airfield?
How manuy cruise missiles can the RN actually get to the south Atlantic?
Do the ****ing arithmetic.
Quite enough to destroy most of them given how weak the Argentine airforce is.
However regardless of your ****ing Scottish Nationalist, British hating Argentina loving Falklands treachery, we will never, ever give in to the likes of you. Is that clear!!!
It's treachery to stop you trying to kill off the UK armed forces?
There are nights on here that leave you wondering if @HYUFD is just winding everyone up, as there cannot be anyone else who believes his nonsense and inability to accept he is wrong
You can't deny it hasn't been comedy gold tonight.
(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.
Minor point of order. There were actually 16 frigates in the Falklands Island Task force not 14.
But the more important point is that our current deployable strengths are no where near what they are on paper.
Of the 12 frigates supposedly available, Somerset and Sutherland are both undergoing refits. Iron Duke is also undergoing a refit but has spent years laid up because of lack of crew for her. Montrose has just arrived back in the UK to be decommissioned and Richmond and Lancaster are both busy shadowing Russian vessels.
It is unlikely that more than 6 or the nominal 12 frigates would be available for any action in the South Atlantic.
Argentina has no frigates at all and just 4 destroyers
Again completely immaterial. Argentina doesn't have to use its fleet to attack the islands. We DO have to use a fleet to get any relief force down there. And if you want to send aircraft carriers then you need frigates and destroyers to protect them. We didn't lose ships to Argentine surface vessels in 1982. We lost them because they were on anti aircraft picket duty to protect the fleet and the landings from ground based Argentine aircraft.
You are throwing up so many straw man arguments because to be honest you don't have the first idea what you are talking about.
We have plenty of frigates and destroyers to protect our aircraft carriers.
The Argentines have not a single submarine to attack our aircraft carriers now. We also have submarines with Cruise Missiles we didn't have in 1982 to destroy every aircraft and aircraft hanger in mainland Argentina
If we wanted to fight the Argentinians for the Falklands we would have to pray for a Trump Government, which would allow us to do so - Biden hates Britain and would have a US 'peacekeeping force' there with oil drilling equipment before you could say 'finders keepers'.
Britain's armed forces have been badly run down - it's just a fact. A new Government will have to sort that. It all starts with a growing economy though.
A peacekeeping force only works if Argentina withdraws first
(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.
Minor point of order. There were actually 16 frigates in the Falklands Island Task force not 14.
But the more important point is that our current deployable strengths are no where near what they are on paper.
Of the 12 frigates supposedly available, Somerset and Sutherland are both undergoing refits. Iron Duke is also undergoing a refit but has spent years laid up because of lack of crew for her. Montrose has just arrived back in the UK to be decommissioned and Richmond and Lancaster are both busy shadowing Russian vessels.
It is unlikely that more than 6 or the nominal 12 frigates would be available for any action in the South Atlantic.
Argentina has no frigates at all and just 4 destroyers
Again completely immaterial. Argentina doesn't have to use its fleet to attack the islands. We DO have to use a fleet to get any relief force down there. And if you want to send aircraft carriers then you need frigates and destroyers to protect them. We didn't lose ships to Argentine surface vessels in 1982. We lost them because they were on anti aircraft picket duty to protect the fleet and the landings from ground based Argentine aircraft.
You are throwing up so many straw man arguments because to be honest you don't have the first idea what you are talking about.
We have plenty of frigates and destroyers to protect our aircraft carriers.
The Argentines have not a single submarine to attack our aircraft carriers now. We also have submarines with Cruise Missiles we didn't have in 1982 to destroy every aircraft and aircraft hanger in mainland Argentina
I would just say I have rarely seen such ignorant nonsense even from you
Is it possible, feasible, that Sturgeon resigning might actually boost the SNP vote? We all assumed she was holding it up, but what if she was actually suppressing it?
Well many people have claimed she was not the titanically popular leader others thought she was, so on that basis an increase would be expected.
If we wanted to fight the Argentinians for the Falklands we would have to pray for a Trump Government, which would allow us to do so - Biden hates Britain and would have a US 'peacekeeping force' there with oil drilling equipment before you could say 'finders keepers'.
Britain's armed forces have been badly run down - it's just a fact. A new Government will have to sort that. It all starts with a growing economy though.
Point of order: all the Falklands oil is offshore.
@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
If the islanders want to be Britishers they should move to Surrey.
Other colonialists returned to Blighty; isn't it their turn?
No, they have lived there their entire lives on the whole, they are entitled to remain there under the British Crown
A serious point. Is it worth the lives of 2,3,4 or 5,000 British Servicemen to secure the residential future of 1000 or so Falkland Islanders? Give me a number.
It is worth whatever it would take to recapture them
You disrespect and disregard for British soldiers is very disturbing and as I said earlier, insults the memories of the fallen Welsh Guards at Bluff Cove
Rubbish. To win a war you have to be prepared to do whatever it takes, no matter what the cost. That or what Thatcher knew in 1982, what Churchill knew in 1940 and to be fair what Hitler knew when he overran Europe in 1939 and 1940 and Stalin knew when he pushed the Fuhrer back in 1941.
It is also what Zelensky and Putin know as they reach stalemate in Ukraine. Anything less than full commitment leads to weakness and ultimately defeat
If we wanted to fight the Argentinians for the Falklands we would have to pray for a Trump Government, which would allow us to do so - Biden hates Britain and would have a US 'peacekeeping force' there with oil drilling equipment before you could say 'finders keepers'.
Britain's armed forces have been badly run down - it's just a fact. A new Government will have to sort that. It all starts with a growing economy though.
Is it possible, feasible, that Sturgeon resigning might actually boost the SNP vote? We all assumed she was holding it up, but what if she was actually suppressing it?
The increase in SNP support allied to the reduction in SCon support suggests that Sturgeon’s resignation has encouraged right wing nationalists to move back to the SNP. It has only partially been counteracted by left wing nationalists moving from SNP to SLab. Good news if Kate Forbes wins.
If we wanted to fight the Argentinians for the Falklands we would have to pray for a Trump Government, which would allow us to do so - Biden hates Britain and would have a US 'peacekeeping force' there with oil drilling equipment before you could say 'finders keepers'.
Britain's armed forces have been badly run down - it's just a fact. A new Government will have to sort that. It all starts with a growing economy though.
A peacekeeping force only works if Argentina withdraws first
@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
If the islanders want to be Britishers they should move to Surrey.
Other colonialists returned to Blighty; isn't it their turn?
No, they have lived there their entire lives on the whole, they are entitled to remain there under the British Crown
A serious point. Is it worth the lives of 2,3,4 or 5,000 British Servicemen to secure the residential future of 1000 or so Falkland Islanders? Give me a number.
It is worth whatever it would take to recapture them
You disrespect and disregard for British soldiers is very disturbing and as I said earlier, insults the memories of the fallen Welsh Guards at Bluff Cove
Rubbish. To win a war you have to be prepared to do whatever it takes, no matter what the cost. That or what Thatcher knew in 1982, what Churchill knew in 1940 and to be fair what Hitler knew when he overran Europe in 1939 and 1940 and Stalin knew when he pushed the Fuhrer back in 1941.
It is also what Zelensky and Putin know as they reach stalemate in Ukraine. Anything less than full commitment leads to weakness and ultimately defeat
Is it possible, feasible, that Sturgeon resigning might actually boost the SNP vote? We all assumed she was holding it up, but what if she was actually suppressing it?
Well many people have claimed she was not the titanically popular leader others thought she was, so on that basis an increase would be expected.
Come off it. The universal assumption around here, and around everywhere else, was that the Sturgeon resignation was a strong negative for the SNP and for the independence movement. Turns out we might all have been wrong. That an element of doubt is creeping in is significant.
Is it possible, feasible, that Sturgeon resigning might actually boost the SNP vote? We all assumed she was holding it up, but what if she was actually suppressing it?
The increase in SNP support allied to the reduction in SCon support suggests that Sturgeon’s resignation has encouraged right wing nationalists to move back to the SNP. It has only partially been counteracted by left wing nationalists moving from SNP to SLab. Good news if Kate Forbes wins.
I'd like to see the stats for Holyrood (where the Green and Tory and SLD votes would be clearer).
@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?
Would we have the capability to defend the Falkland Islands now if Argentina invaded?
There's a 2,500m runway on the Falklands now so occupiers would find it a lot easier to reinforce and resupply than in 1983. It's a different geopolitical situation now; the Argentineans would be getting a lot of help from China and Russia (intelligence, etc.) so if the UK is careless enough to lose the F.I. they probably wouldn't be getting them back.
They would have to get to that first. We also have Cruise missiles which we didn't then to bomb Argentine airfields.
Question for you
How far is the UK from the Falklands
How far is Argentina from the Falklands
Easily near enough for our submarines to destroy their airfields with our Cruise missiles
"Destroy".
How?
And when you have run out trying to drill holes in tarmac and grass, yo have to go all the way back up to the UK to get some more missiles.
If you are talking about hangars etc., then you need accurate and real time targeting information. Where's that coming from, if the Americans aren';t helping? Indeed, would the missiles even work in that case?
No, each submarine has 38 missile tubes with each Cruise missile having 1000 ibs of high explosive, more than enough to destroy a runway with 1 missile alone or a hanger
IN which case
(a) they get the locals round with JCBs\ to repair the runways (b) you can't carry torpedoes as well. (c) they park the planes outside the hangars
And do your sums.
It is about 7K nm UK-Falklands, so at 30kn high speed, that is 20 days out and 20 days back - leaving 50 days on patrol with no reserve, make it 80 days. Allowing for replenishment, repairs, crew handovers and so on, you need three Astute minimum for complete coverage. And add another for more serious maintenance. And a spare for other work, like, you know, actually defending the UK.
That's the *entire* RN submarine force accounted for, apart from the nuclear deterrent boats. .
That is why I asked the question he failed to answer
UK to the Falklands 8,078 miles
Argentina to the Falklands 945 miles
What has that got to do with anything? Submarines with Cruise Missiles can stay underwater for 25 days, more than enough time to get to the area and launch enough Cruise Missiles to destroy most Argentine airfields.
You are suggesting not only we defend the Falklands but actively attack Argentine airfields from a distance of 8,000 miles
Frankly your comments tonight are shameful and unacceptable
Are you arguing that we shouldn't, or that we can't?
If a foreign power attacked a French overseas territory, the French would treat it as an attack on France and respond accordingly. I don't really understand why we'd be shoosy about doing the same. Britain's remaining overseas territories are British because the inhabitants want to be British. As long as that is the case, we have a duty to treat the as such. Whether, in practical terms, we can, is another question.
Comments
Quite a lot of that was supplying Ascension Island too, of course.
We could then roll out that model to other parts of the world.
And how do you fire the torpedoes? And you still don't understand the concept of a fleet in being.
They had to [edit] remove the last remains of the Mary Rose just so the new carriers could get into Portsmouth.
How manuy cruise missiles can the RN actually get to the south Atlantic?
Do the ****ing arithmetic.
How far is the UK from the Falklands
How far is Argentina from the Falklands
https://youtu.be/6Y35QbReGv8
The context, IIRC, was some particularly hyperbolic Great Game stuff about invading
India via Afghanistan…
How?
And when you have run out trying to drill holes in tarmac and grass, yo have to go all the way back up to the UK to get some more missiles.
If you are talking about hangars etc., then you need accurate and real time targeting information. Where's that coming from, if the Americans aren';t helping? Indeed, would the missiles even work in that case?
However regardless of your ****ing Scottish Nationalist, British hating Argentina loving Falklands treachery, we will never, ever give in to the likes of you. Is that clear!!!
"the Chagos Islands remain British territory and when first moved to Mauritius in 1967"
And there was the cricket this week.
If we do declare war, what happens to the Brilliant Trade Deal?
…
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/mar/03/king-charles-coronation-oil-is-consecrated-in-jerusalem
(a) they get the locals round with JCBs\ to repair the runways
(b) you can't carry torpedoes as well.
(c) they park the planes outside the hangars
And do your sums.
It is about 7K nm UK-Falklands, so at 30kn high speed, that is 20 days out and 20 days back - leaving 50 days on patrol with no reserve, make it 80 days. Allowing for replenishment, repairs, crew handovers and so on, you need three Astute minimum for complete coverage. And add another for more serious maintenance. And a spare for other work, like, you know, actually defending the UK.
That's the *entire* RN submarine force accounted for, apart from the nuclear deterrent boats. .
But the more important point is that our current deployable strengths are no where near what they are on paper.
Of the 12 frigates supposedly available, Somerset and Sutherland are both undergoing refits. Iron Duke is also undergoing a refit but has spent years laid up because of lack of crew for her. Montrose has just arrived back in the UK to be decommissioned and Richmond and Lancaster are both busy shadowing Russian vessels.
It is unlikely that more than 6 or the nominal 12 frigates would be available for any action in the South Atlantic.
I am not an appeaser nor am I a warmonger, which tonight has seen one poster very much in that mode, sadly
UK to the Falklands 8,078 miles
Argentina to the Falklands 945 miles
SNP 52%
SLab 30%
Ref 6%
SCon 6%
SLD 3%
Grn 2%
oth 1%
Is it possible, feasible, that Sturgeon resigning might actually boost the SNP vote? We all assumed she was holding it up, but what if she was actually suppressing it?
Frankly your comments tonight are shameful and unacceptable
Just for the giggles.
You are throwing up so many straw man arguments because to be honest you don't have the first idea what you are talking about.
Your wet lettuce approach is hardly going to win is it!
https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-11807359/amp/The-Mini-Germany-New-Countryman-SUV-breaks-cover.html
Britain's armed forces have been badly run down - it's just a fact. A new Government will have to sort that. It all starts with a growing economy though.
The Argentines have not a single submarine to attack our aircraft carriers now. We also have submarines with Cruise Missiles we didn't have in 1982 to destroy every aircraft and aircraft hanger in mainland Argentina
It is also what Zelensky and Putin know as they reach stalemate in Ukraine. Anything less than full commitment leads to weakness and ultimately defeat
But early days…
If a foreign power attacked a French overseas territory, the French would treat it as an attack on France and respond accordingly. I don't really understand why we'd be shoosy about doing the same.
Britain's remaining overseas territories are British because the inhabitants want to be British. As long as that is the case, we have a duty to treat the as such.
Whether, in practical terms, we can, is another question.