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.
But early days…
Until the SNP have a new leader all Scottish party polling is irrelevant, for now Sturgeon remains SNP leader and FM
@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
I propose that we send FUDHY to Bluff Cove. With a tank and a tinfoil hat. Surely one Englishman’s life is worth sacrificing to preserve the honour of the Yoonyun?
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
Even if either of those is the case, I doubt it would be if the £15 billion/year - about £8000/person - cost of our presence in that political and economic embarrasment were more widely publicised.
@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
Dear me
To win a war BigG you normally have to be a near psychopathic bastard as commander in chief while that war lasts until victory is achieved, there is no time for weakness in a c in c
@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.
Yes.
It is tragic if it comes to that and every life lost would be a tragedy, but people volunteer to join the armed forces to protect their fellow countrymen and women and that is the right thing to do. Protecting your country is about far more than the future of people involved.
The idea that its "not worth" fighting to protect your territory or more importantly your people is the kind of nonsense that means that people like Putin think they can salami slice other nations repeatedly getting more as nobody will find it worth standing up to him.
Fighting for security is worthwhile, even if the cost is tragic. And by being prepared to do so, then you're less likely to be attacked, so less likely to have to fight, less likely to have people die.
So yes. As tragic as it may be, it is completely the right thing to do.
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).
I suspect that the Greens and the SNP will do well. The Conservatives will do badly. Labour and the Lib Dems will not show much change. However, a Scottish poll would be appreciated.
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.
But early days…
Until the SNP have a new leader all Scottish party polling is irrelevant, for now Sturgeon remains SNP leader and FM
Nonsense. She is going, and if that change in figures is correct then it is a response to that.
Unless you think it is a response to Boris Johnson's glorious solution to NI being shredded by the same party which hailed it as a triumph, then hailed the new solution as a triumph and then told the Scots they couldn't have some of it as well?
But early days. And if it is real then whyt not both factors?
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.
But early days…
Until the SNP have a new leader all Scottish party polling is irrelevant, for now Sturgeon remains SNP leader and FM
Bollocks.
You just adore cherry-picking polls (eg Deltapoll being cited to death recently).
You ignore all polls you don’t like the findings of. Doesn’t leave much for you Tory toe-rags to clutch on to.
@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
Dear me
To win a war BigG you normally have to be a near psychopathic bastard as commander in chief while that war lasts until victory is achieved, there is no time for weakness in a c in c
The Spirit of Francisco Solano Lopez and I claim my £5
@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.
Yes.
It is tragic if it comes to that and every life lost would be a tragedy, but people volunteer to join the armed forces to protect their fellow countrymen and women and that is the right thing to do. Protecting your country is about far more than the future of people involved.
The idea that its "not worth" fighting to protect your territory or more importantly your people is the kind of nonsense that means that people like Putin think they can salami slice other nations repeatedly getting more as nobody will find it worth standing up to him.
Fighting for security is worthwhile, even if the cost is tragic. And by being prepared to do so, then you're less likely to be attacked, so less likely to have to fight, less likely to have people die.
So yes. As tragic as it may be, it is completely the right thing to do.
Bloody hell, the size of HYUFD's volunteer fighting force to protect the Falklands and bash the Argies has just doubled.
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.
But early days…
Until the SNP have a new leader all Scottish party polling is irrelevant, for now Sturgeon remains SNP leader and FM
Bollocks.
You just adore cherry-picking polls (eg Deltapoll being cited to death recently).
You ignore all polls you don’t like the findings of. Doesn’t leave much for you Tory toe-rags to clutch on to.
No. If Forbes becomes leader of the SNP it will leak heavily to SLab and the Greens. If Yousaf it will shore up the SCons and to a lesser extent SLab too.
At the moment Scottish polls tell us little as Sturgeon remains SNP leader
@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
I propose that we send FUDHY to Bluff Cove. With a tank and a tinfoil hat. Surely one Englishman’s life is worth sacrificing to preserve the honour of the Yoonyun?
I would miss HYUFD. Could we please send Leon or Nigel Foremain instead?
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
Even if either of those is the case, I doubt it would be if the £15 billion/year - about £8000/person - cost of our presence in that political and economic embarrasment were more widely publicised.
Better Off Out.
Absolutely not, if the people of Northern Ireland wish to stay in the UK then can do so and if it cost that much to support them voters in the Republic would reject Irish unity anyway
@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.
No I am not but equally I am saying it is very different from 1982
I have been to the Falklands and Buenos Aires and the Falklands is inhospitable most of the time and it's proximity to Argentina and huge distance from the UK makes it an unappetising prospect to fight a war
Furthermore the kind of force suggested by @HYUFD is impractical and also would find widespread international condemnation
I defended Thatcher policy publicly in the following GE including the sinking of the Belgrano, but we must realise we nearly lost, and the death of the Welsh Guards at Bluff Cove is to this day very real and upsetting
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.
But early days…
Until the SNP have a new leader all Scottish party polling is irrelevant, for now Sturgeon remains SNP leader and FM
Bollocks.
You just adore cherry-picking polls (eg Deltapoll being cited to death recently).
You ignore all polls you don’t like the findings of. Doesn’t leave much for you Tory toe-rags to clutch on to.
No. If Forbes becomes leader of the SNP it will leak heavily to SLab and the Greens. If Yousaf it will shore up the SCons and to a lesser extent SLab too.
At the moment Scottish polls tell us little as Sturgeon remains SNP leader
I think SNP will get a new leader bounce, and some jetisoning of Sturgeons less popular policies.
@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
Dear me
To win a war BigG you normally have to be a near psychopathic bastard as commander in chief while that war lasts until victory is achieved, there is no time for weakness in a c in c
Completely preposterous and a total rewriting for history. Being a psychopathic bastard tends to set the world against you and leads to your defeat actually, time and again.
You've always idolised the psychopathic bastards and had a bit of a soft spot for the likes of Putin, even if not as overt as some others here, but his bastardry is seeing his invasion fail against what is supposed to be theoretically a much weaker opponent. While the far more humane defenders are able to rally support to repel the orcs invading 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?
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
I propose that we send FUDHY to Bluff Cove. With a tank and a tinfoil hat. Surely one Englishman’s life is worth sacrificing to preserve the honour of the Yoonyun?
I would miss HYUFD. Could we please send Leon or Nigel Foremain instead?
Send all three. Three less fascists for us civilised folk to deal with.
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.
But early days…
Until the SNP have a new leader all Scottish party polling is irrelevant, for now Sturgeon remains SNP leader and FM
Bollocks.
You just adore cherry-picking polls (eg Deltapoll being cited to death recently).
You ignore all polls you don’t like the findings of. Doesn’t leave much for you Tory toe-rags to clutch on to.
No. If Forbes becomes leader of the SNP it will leak heavily to SLab and the Greens. If Yousaf it will shore up the SCons and to a lesser extent SLab too.
At the moment Scottish polls tell us little as Sturgeon remains SNP leader
I think SNP will get a new leader bounce, and some jetisoning of Sturgeons less popular policies.
Ms Sturgeon's, and/or the SG's, less p. p. I would say. The bottle return scheme hasn't been well sorted out - though something similar will be needed for the UK as a whole. It just doesn't make sense for Scotland to pioneer on that, unlike, say, smoking in pubs.
@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.
Yes.
It is tragic if it comes to that and every life lost would be a tragedy, but people volunteer to join the armed forces to protect their fellow countrymen and women and that is the right thing to do. Protecting your country is about far more than the future of people involved.
The idea that its "not worth" fighting to protect your territory or more importantly your people is the kind of nonsense that means that people like Putin think they can salami slice other nations repeatedly getting more as nobody will find it worth standing up to him.
Fighting for security is worthwhile, even if the cost is tragic. And by being prepared to do so, then you're less likely to be attacked, so less likely to have to fight, less likely to have people die.
So yes. As tragic as it may be, it is completely the right thing to do.
Bloody hell, the size of HYUFD's volunteer fighting force to protect the Falklands and bash the Argies has just doubled.
Please don't lump me with HYUFD.
Please read what I actually said and if there's anything there you disagree with, I'd be curious to know what and why. Mine is a rather different answer to his, and for different reasons.
@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
I propose that we send FUDHY to Bluff Cove. With a tank and a tinfoil hat. Surely one Englishman’s life is worth sacrificing to preserve the honour of the Yoonyun?
William Wallace wasn't exactly a shrinking violet when it came to war, nor was Edward I or Robert Bruce. However Edward II was weaker and was defeated accordingly
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.
Also, what is this nonsense about Trump being friendlier to us? Only one president in recent history has slapped new tariffs on UK exports to the US, and that is Trump. Trump also takes the side of Russia, a country that has assassinated UK citizens in recent years.
@TLDRNewsUK 🇦🇷 Argentina has told the UK that it wants to start new talks over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands and has pulled out of a 2016 cooperation pact.
Could a Sunak Falklands moment save his chances of reelection?
Bloody hell not again. The Argentinians need to give this a rest.
Of course national fervour doesn't make sense, we have our own examples of that, but the Argentinian passion on this issue really doesn't seem to make sense to me when it's noted their claim to the islands is a rather technical one based on inheriting rights from former Spanish sovereignty, and talk about natives who don't exist. Yes there are other complexities, but the point being it's actually a rather arcane legal dispute, yet it's talked about in terms of colonialism as if someone seized Buenos Aires 2 years ago.
There is nothing Argentina can do about it anyway. The UK has a veto on any UN decision as a permanent member of the UN Security Council unlike them.
The UK also has a bigger navy and army and airforce than Argentina now
Have a look at an atlas. It's not the Persian Gulf.
Since the Falklands War there is also a bigger permanent British garrison on the islands, a Royal Navy ship on patrol there at all times and a Royal Navy nuclear submarine patrols regularly nearby (though the exact times and location of the latter are obviously classified)
"ship" is a posh way to describe a patrol boat. And the forces, at the far end of a long supply line, are very small.
I remember 1981 - you obviously don't.
Yes, Argentina has cut its armed forces back to far fewer than they were in Galtieri's day.
The UK does not have an army of 153,000. That is the total size of our armed forces - Army, Navy and Airforce - including reservists. Our regular army is just over 80,000 and there are another 30,000 reservists. And gven our other commitments, not least on the Eastern flank of NATO, how many of those do you seriously think we could deploy?
We are much stronger on the ground in the Falklands than we were in 1982 but at the same time much weaker overall. So I could see our forces putting up a reasonable defence but I am certainly not confident they could hold. And if they did fall then we have no chance at all of reclaiming the islands as we did in 1982.
Our commitments on the Eastern flank of NATO would obviously be temporarily abandoned given British sovereign territory had been invaded.
We have a bigger armed forces than Argentina's which are also far weaker than they were in 1982
I am sorry but you really are deluded. What we did in 1982 was extraordinary but we could do it now. We simply don't have the ships.
As an example in 1982 we sent 8 destroyers and 16 frigates as part of the task force (and that was not our entire contingent of those vessel types in the navy). The entire Royal Navy only has 6 destroyers and 12 frigates. And we don't have the crews even for all of those.
Yes we do. we have 10 times the submarines Argentina do, enough to sink most of the Argentine navy alone for starters.
We also have more surface ships too, Argentina now literally has just 1 destroyer and not a single frigate!
You do realise that the size of their navy is pretty much immaterial given they wouldn't be the ones trying to mount a recapture 8000 miles away? What mattered in 1982 was our ability to get men to the South Atlantic and retake the islands. We no longer have the capability to do that. As I said you are deluded. I will add remarkably ignorant as well.
Yes it is, we could sink their entire fleet whether in port in Buenos Aires or Falklands waters within a week.
Once that is done we then send the aircraft carriers to quickly recapture the Islands, using submarines to send missiles on any Argentine troops still on the islands in the meantime
Fucking hell.
Any missile strike on the Falklands is likely to wipe out the Islanders as well.
Not if well targeted, a Tomahawk missile or 2 would do the trick
On this one, I don't think the Argentine Air Force currently has a single war plane that can fly to the Falklands. A couple of transports, but that's about it, afaics.
I'd say the greatest threat to the Falklands for the next 15-20 years is Treasury salami-slicing, or if China buys Argentina.
@TLDRNewsUK 🇦🇷 Argentina has told the UK that it wants to start new talks over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands and has pulled out of a 2016 cooperation pact.
Could a Sunak Falklands moment save his chances of reelection?
Bloody hell not again. The Argentinians need to give this a rest.
Of course national fervour doesn't make sense, we have our own examples of that, but the Argentinian passion on this issue really doesn't seem to make sense to me when it's noted their claim to the islands is a rather technical one based on inheriting rights from former Spanish sovereignty, and talk about natives who don't exist. Yes there are other complexities, but the point being it's actually a rather arcane legal dispute, yet it's talked about in terms of colonialism as if someone seized Buenos Aires 2 years ago.
There is nothing Argentina can do about it anyway. The UK has a veto on any UN decision as a permanent member of the UN Security Council unlike them.
The UK also has a bigger navy and army and airforce than Argentina now
The Argies forces must be minuscule!
Google tells me Arg: 70,600 (2022) vs UK 78,000 (2020). Not sure if this is chalk and apples eg whole of HMF vs army...but it's a close run thing.
We absolutely couldn't mount another Falklands tomorrow morning that's for sure.
From what I’ve seen of the Argentine navy in Ushuaia they could barely crew one ship
However all this is replying to the mood music of Britain in retreat. Giving up the Elgin marbles. Handing back Diego Garcia. London shrinking as a world city
I can see why the argies might think now is a time to strike - psychologically - as the Uk seems in perpetual decline and in a funk of self doubt
They can think what they want, the UK on its own could still beat most nations in a war apart from the US and China, France and India would probably be a stalemate, Russia can't even beat Ukraine.
Argentina also has declined well past its peak when it was one of the wealthiest nations in the world, even in the Falklands war it had far bigger armed forces than now
Have a look at the RN and RAF in 1981 vs today - abvoe all the long range stuff.
And the Merchant Navy, when it comes to the critical STUFT ships of 1981
The Army is about as useful as a fart in a hurricane without those two when it comes to the Flaklands.
Yes we have enough submarines to sink most of the Argentine navy within a day or 2.
Plus enough aircraft carriers and submarines with Cruise Missiles to bomb the Argentine army into submission too if they ever tried invading the Falklands again even without setting any troops on land beyond the garrison already there
What a pathetic post and as so often you just talk codswallop
Indeed having been to the remote Falkland Islands with its rugged terrain and cliff lined coasts with hundreds of Islands and inlets makes it a very difficult place to wage warfare and anyway the whole idea is ridiculous
Weak, wet, pathetic, useless. If Thatcher had had your defeatist attitude in 1982 we would never have recaptured the Falklands then
Sadly you are being utterly ridiculous
You have no knowledge of the territory, our present capabilities, and the fact is we nearly didn't capture them in 1982
Indeed the loss of the Welsh guards at Bluff Cove was shocking as was the sinking of the Sheffield
1982 was very different to today
No, you are being a pathetic, defeatist wet lettuce.
The Argentine forces have also been so cut back since 1982 they are far weaker than they were then. Our submarines could sink the entire Argentine navy within a week
You have no idea just how controversial the sinking of the Belgrano was have you
I was the late Wyn Roberts driver at the following GE and we had to field many questions about that event as it was highly controversial
I do not know how old you are but to blithely talk of sinking the Argentine fleet in a week when I had to explain the sinking of one vessel shows how utterly out of touch you are
And his talk of torpedoing ships in harbour. What does he think the Navy have, Fairey ****ing Swordfish??
Spearfish torpedoes carried by our Astute class submarines are able to provide anti surface warfare capability as well as anti submarine warfare capability
Are you trolling us, or are you genuinely making what you consider to be a valid proposal? Stuff like this post could come back to haunt you when your political ambitions for high office are about to be realised.
No it wouldn't, any Tory seeking elected office, especially nationally not prepared to use all means necessary to defend the Falklands hasn't got a hope of being selected by the party, or indeed winning the country.
Are you really so deluded as to think the average member of the UK population, let alone the average Conservative member and the tabloids would not want as hard a response as possible to any Argentine threat to the Falklands?
Are you General Galtieri?
Galtieri never contemplated invading Scotland to be fair.
Scotland is part of the UK, there is no reason to invade part of the same sovereign country as England
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
Dear me
To win a war BigG you normally have to be a near psychopathic bastard as commander in chief while that war lasts until victory is achieved, there is no time for weakness in a c in c
Completely preposterous and a total rewriting for history. Being a psychopathic bastard tends to set the world against you and leads to your defeat actually, time and again.
You've always idolised the psychopathic bastards and had a bit of a soft spot for the likes of Putin, even if not as overt as some others here, but his bastardry is seeing his invasion fail against what is supposed to be theoretically a much weaker opponent. While the far more humane defenders are able to rally support to repel the orcs invading them.
Zelensky isn't exactly shrinking either in terms of doing what it takes to kill Russians and destroy Russian tanks, planes, equipment and infrastructure
(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
Again showing your ignorance. No we don't have sufficient frigates and destroyers to protect our carriers. Everyone recognises that which is why the plan is to (eventually) double the number of frigates but also to operate alongside our NATO allies as combined fleets. Because on our own we do not have enough ships to do it effectively.
Your whole premise is based on a deep and profound rejection of reality.
@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.
Yes.
It is tragic if it comes to that and every life lost would be a tragedy, but people volunteer to join the armed forces to protect their fellow countrymen and women and that is the right thing to do. Protecting your country is about far more than the future of people involved.
The idea that its "not worth" fighting to protect your territory or more importantly your people is the kind of nonsense that means that people like Putin think they can salami slice other nations repeatedly getting more as nobody will find it worth standing up to him.
Fighting for security is worthwhile, even if the cost is tragic. And by being prepared to do so, then you're less likely to be attacked, so less likely to have to fight, less likely to have people die.
So yes. As tragic as it may be, it is completely the right thing to do.
Bloody hell, the size of HYUFD's volunteer fighting force to protect the Falklands and bash the Argies has just doubled.
Please don't lump me with HYUFD.
Please read what I actually said and if there's anything there you disagree with, I'd be curious to know what and why. Mine is a rather different answer to his, and for different reasons.
Sorry, but you are taking my whimsical comment a little too seriously, I fear.
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.
But early days…
Until the SNP have a new leader all Scottish party polling is irrelevant, for now Sturgeon remains SNP leader and FM
Bollocks.
You just adore cherry-picking polls (eg Deltapoll being cited to death recently).
You ignore all polls you don’t like the findings of. Doesn’t leave much for you Tory toe-rags to clutch on to.
No. If Forbes becomes leader of the SNP it will leak heavily to SLab and the Greens. If Yousaf it will shore up the SCons and to a lesser extent SLab too.
At the moment Scottish polls tell us little as Sturgeon remains SNP leader
I suspect that, as an SNP member for 48 years, I have a better inkling of how SNP voters will switch, than you do. I also suspect that I have a better inkling than the SNP hierarchy do, or at least how they did until they opened the can of worms that the SNP membership comprises. Edit. Which is why Murrell is fighting a rearguard action worthy of Putin
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.
Also, what is this nonsense about Trump being friendlier to us? Only one president in recent history has slapped new tariffs on UK exports to the US, and that is Trump. Trump also takes the side of Russia, a country that has assassinated UK citizens in recent years.
You've answered your own question, for the person who said it "us" is Russia half the time, so Trump takes "our" side for them.
For the rest of us, Trump is no friend of the UK, or British interests.
@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
Dear me
To win a war BigG you normally have to be a near psychopathic bastard as commander in chief while that war lasts until victory is achieved, there is no time for weakness in a c in c
Completely preposterous and a total rewriting for history. Being a psychopathic bastard tends to set the world against you and leads to your defeat actually, time and again.
You've always idolised the psychopathic bastards and had a bit of a soft spot for the likes of Putin, even if not as overt as some others here, but his bastardry is seeing his invasion fail against what is supposed to be theoretically a much weaker opponent. While the far more humane defenders are able to rally support to repel the orcs invading them.
Zelensky isn't exactly shrinking either in terms of doing what it takes to kill Russians and destroy Russian tanks, planes, equipment and infrastructure
He and his people are willing to fight, yes.
They're not psychopathic bastards though.
That you can't comprehend the difference is chilling and disturbing.
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.
But early days…
Until the SNP have a new leader all Scottish party polling is irrelevant, for now Sturgeon remains SNP leader and FM
Bollocks.
You just adore cherry-picking polls (eg Deltapoll being cited to death recently).
You ignore all polls you don’t like the findings of. Doesn’t leave much for you Tory toe-rags to clutch on to.
No. If Forbes becomes leader of the SNP it will leak heavily to SLab and the Greens. If Yousaf it will shore up the SCons and to a lesser extent SLab too.
At the moment Scottish polls tell us little as Sturgeon remains SNP leader
I think SNP will get a new leader bounce, and some jetisoning of Sturgeons less popular policies.
Ms Sturgeon's, and/or the SG's, less p. p. I would say. The bottle return scheme hasn't been well sorted out - though something similar will be needed for the UK as a whole. It just doesn't make sense for Scotland to pioneer on that, unlike, say, smoking in pubs.
Hardly “pioneering”. Tons of countries have bottle return schemes. Very old hat.
@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.
Yes.
It is tragic if it comes to that and every life lost would be a tragedy, but people volunteer to join the armed forces to protect their fellow countrymen and women and that is the right thing to do. Protecting your country is about far more than the future of people involved.
The idea that its "not worth" fighting to protect your territory or more importantly your people is the kind of nonsense that means that people like Putin think they can salami slice other nations repeatedly getting more as nobody will find it worth standing up to him.
Fighting for security is worthwhile, even if the cost is tragic. And by being prepared to do so, then you're less likely to be attacked, so less likely to have to fight, less likely to have people die.
So yes. As tragic as it may be, it is completely the right thing to do.
Bloody hell, the size of HYUFD's volunteer fighting force to protect the Falklands and bash the Argies has just doubled.
Please don't lump me with HYUFD.
Please read what I actually said and if there's anything there you disagree with, I'd be curious to know what and why. Mine is a rather different answer to his, and for different reasons.
You said the Falklands would have to be freed no matter what the casualty rate or cost, little different to what I said
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.
But early days…
Until the SNP have a new leader all Scottish party polling is irrelevant, for now Sturgeon remains SNP leader and FM
Bollocks.
You just adore cherry-picking polls (eg Deltapoll being cited to death recently).
You ignore all polls you don’t like the findings of. Doesn’t leave much for you Tory toe-rags to clutch on to.
No. If Forbes becomes leader of the SNP it will leak heavily to SLab and the Greens. If Yousaf it will shore up the SCons and to a lesser extent SLab too.
At the moment Scottish polls tell us little as Sturgeon remains SNP leader
I think SNP will get a new leader bounce, and some jetisoning of Sturgeons less popular policies.
Ms Sturgeon's, and/or the SG's, less p. p. I would say. The bottle return scheme hasn't been well sorted out - though something similar will be needed for the UK as a whole. It just doesn't make sense for Scotland to pioneer on that, unlike, say, smoking in pubs.
Hardly “pioneering”. Tons of countries have bottle return schemes. Very old hat.
It seems really a bit strange that we don't. We used to.
@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.
No I am not but equally I am saying it is very different from 1982
I have been to the Falklands and Buenos Aires and the Falklands is inhospitable most of the time and it's proximity to Argentina and huge distance from the UK makes it an unappetising prospect to fight a war
Furthermore the kind of force suggested by @HYUFD is impractical and also would find widespread international condemnation
I defended Thatcher policy publicly in the following GE including the sinking of the Belgrano, but we must realise we nearly lost, and the death of the Welsh Guards at Bluff Cove is to this day very real and upsetting
It was the ships that I remember - but of course Bluff Cove was an example.
I actually thought at the time she was unfair to the Navy by restricting their operations (hence the Belgrano taking advantage of the restrictions). Still do to some extent. The diplomatic fallout would have been worse but the game was already a bogey by then, ands the Argentinians might just have been more sensible and stayed in port (and kept the fleet in being till the RN started wearing out and suffering attrition).
@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
I propose that we send FUDHY to Bluff Cove. With a tank and a tinfoil hat. Surely one Englishman’s life is worth sacrificing to preserve the honour of the Yoonyun?
William Wallace wasn't exactly a shrinking violet when it came to war, nor was Edward I or Robert Bruce. However Edward II was weaker and was defeated accordingly
@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.
Yes.
It is tragic if it comes to that and every life lost would be a tragedy, but people volunteer to join the armed forces to protect their fellow countrymen and women and that is the right thing to do. Protecting your country is about far more than the future of people involved.
The idea that its "not worth" fighting to protect your territory or more importantly your people is the kind of nonsense that means that people like Putin think they can salami slice other nations repeatedly getting more as nobody will find it worth standing up to him.
Fighting for security is worthwhile, even if the cost is tragic. And by being prepared to do so, then you're less likely to be attacked, so less likely to have to fight, less likely to have people die.
So yes. As tragic as it may be, it is completely the right thing to do.
Bloody hell, the size of HYUFD's volunteer fighting force to protect the Falklands and bash the Argies has just doubled.
Please don't lump me with HYUFD.
Please read what I actually said and if there's anything there you disagree with, I'd be curious to know what and why. Mine is a rather different answer to his, and for different reasons.
You said the Falklands would have to be freed no matter what the casualty rate or cost, little different to what I said
No, I said it was worthwhile to fight to defend your nation.
I never said "no matter what the casualty rate or cost" and I also said it was a tragedy, something you never said.
@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
I propose that we send FUDHY to Bluff Cove. With a tank and a tinfoil hat. Surely one Englishman’s life is worth sacrificing to preserve the honour of the Yoonyun?
William Wallace wasn't exactly a shrinking violet when it came to war, nor was Edward I or Robert Bruce. However Edward II was weaker and was defeated accordingly
I suspect that warfare and diplomacy have both changed slightly over the past 700 years.
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.
(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
Again showing your ignorance. No we don't have sufficient frigates and destroyers to protect our carriers. Everyone recognises that which is why the plan is to (eventually) double the number of frigates but also to operate alongside our NATO allies as combined fleets. Because on our own we do not have enough ships to do it effectively.
Your whole premise is based on a deep and profound rejection of reality.
The Argentines don't have any frigates at all and only 2 destroyers. They also don't have a single operational submarine
@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
I propose that we send FUDHY to Bluff Cove. With a tank and a tinfoil hat. Surely one Englishman’s life is worth sacrificing to preserve the honour of the Yoonyun?
William Wallace wasn't exactly a shrinking violet when it came to war, nor was Edward I or Robert Bruce. However Edward II was weaker and was defeated accordingly
I suspect that warfare and diplomacy have both changed slightly over the past 700 years.
Warfare hasn't, only the side with the will to win wins. See also Vietnam and Afghanistan when the Vietkong and Taliban beat the Americans and Russians in the end despite inferior modern equipment as they had greater will to win
@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.
Yes.
It is tragic if it comes to that and every life lost would be a tragedy, but people volunteer to join the armed forces to protect their fellow countrymen and women and that is the right thing to do. Protecting your country is about far more than the future of people involved.
The idea that its "not worth" fighting to protect your territory or more importantly your people is the kind of nonsense that means that people like Putin think they can salami slice other nations repeatedly getting more as nobody will find it worth standing up to him.
Fighting for security is worthwhile, even if the cost is tragic. And by being prepared to do so, then you're less likely to be attacked, so less likely to have to fight, less likely to have people die.
So yes. As tragic as it may be, it is completely the right thing to do.
Bloody hell, the size of HYUFD's volunteer fighting force to protect the Falklands and bash the Argies has just doubled.
Please don't lump me with HYUFD.
Please read what I actually said and if there's anything there you disagree with, I'd be curious to know what and why. Mine is a rather different answer to his, and for different reasons.
You said the Falklands would have to be freed no matter what the casualty rate or cost, little different to what I said
No, I said it was worthwhile to fight to defend your nation.
I never said "no matter what the casualty rate or cost" and I also said it was a tragedy, something you never said.
The attitude is completely different.
If you are not willing to fight to win whatever the casualty rate or cost you are unlikely to win full stop
(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
Again showing your ignorance. No we don't have sufficient frigates and destroyers to protect our carriers. Everyone recognises that which is why the plan is to (eventually) double the number of frigates but also to operate alongside our NATO allies as combined fleets. Because on our own we do not have enough ships to do it effectively.
Your whole premise is based on a deep and profound rejection of reality.
The Argentines don't have any frigates at all and only 2 destroyers. They also don't have a single operational submarine
Wouldn’t the world be a better place if we could agree a solution for the Falklands whereby we both supported them, rather than competitive willy waving?
(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
Again showing your ignorance. No we don't have sufficient frigates and destroyers to protect our carriers. Everyone recognises that which is why the plan is to (eventually) double the number of frigates but also to operate alongside our NATO allies as combined fleets. Because on our own we do not have enough ships to do it effectively.
Your whole premise is based on a deep and profound rejection of reality.
The Argentines don't have any frigates at all and only 2 destroyers. They also don't have a single operational submarine
Wouldn’t the world be a better place if we could agree a solution for the Falklands whereby we both supported them, rather than competitive willy waving?
It would, and it would also be a better place if Russia would support Kyiv rather than what you call "competitive willy waving".
We're not in that world though, which is why we need to invest in our Defence and be prepared to use our armed forces as a last resort.
(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
Again showing your ignorance. No we don't have sufficient frigates and destroyers to protect our carriers. Everyone recognises that which is why the plan is to (eventually) double the number of frigates but also to operate alongside our NATO allies as combined fleets. Because on our own we do not have enough ships to do it effectively.
Your whole premise is based on a deep and profound rejection of reality.
The Argentines don't have any frigates at all and only 2 destroyers. They also don't have a single operational submarine
@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.
Yes.
It is tragic if it comes to that and every life lost would be a tragedy, but people volunteer to join the armed forces to protect their fellow countrymen and women and that is the right thing to do. Protecting your country is about far more than the future of people involved.
The idea that its "not worth" fighting to protect your territory or more importantly your people is the kind of nonsense that means that people like Putin think they can salami slice other nations repeatedly getting more as nobody will find it worth standing up to him.
Fighting for security is worthwhile, even if the cost is tragic. And by being prepared to do so, then you're less likely to be attacked, so less likely to have to fight, less likely to have people die.
So yes. As tragic as it may be, it is completely the right thing to do.
Bloody hell, the size of HYUFD's volunteer fighting force to protect the Falklands and bash the Argies has just doubled.
Please don't lump me with HYUFD.
Please read what I actually said and if there's anything there you disagree with, I'd be curious to know what and why. Mine is a rather different answer to his, and for different reasons.
You said the Falklands would have to be freed no matter what the casualty rate or cost, little different to what I said
No, I said it was worthwhile to fight to defend your nation.
I never said "no matter what the casualty rate or cost" and I also said it was a tragedy, something you never said.
The attitude is completely different.
If you are not willing to fight to win whatever the casualty rate or cost you are unlikely to win full stop
Wait:
So if Argentina invaded the Falkland islands, and it would take the death of 60m Brits to win them back, then it would be worth it?
(1) It is far from clear that the Argentinians have the ability to successfully invade the islands, given they are rather better defended, and the fact that the Argentine military is a shadow of its former self.
(2) In the event that they did successfully invade, the UK would be in a worse position to get them back, given the cuts to our armed services,
Is (2) really true?
We have a couple of proper-sized carriers right now, even if one would need to be towed down to the South Atlantic, instead of the harrier carriers the Navy had in the early 80s. I think they haven't yet scrapped the amphibious landing ships. Isn't there a proper airport on Ascension Island now, which would make providing air support/supply much easier than it was in the 80s.
Yes, the overall size of the armed forces is a lot smaller than it was, but there are some key capabilities that are probably in much better shape now than then.
Yes Robert is right. It doesn't matter that you have the carriers unless you have all the other ships you need to go along with them to provide the anti-aircraft and anti-submarine screens. We have far fewer armed surface ships of that sort than we did in 1982. Whether consciously or not we have been moving more and more to the idea of our ships serving as part of a multi-national force, with the French and others. Fine for most situations but probably not going to be of any use in a Falklands type situation.
And Ascension is okay as a stop over point en route to the Falklands but it is still far to far away to be of use for providing air cover/support. Look at what they had to do just to get a couple of bombs dropped on Port Stanley airport in 1982.
The Typhoon has an operating range of around 850 miles (the F35 only 650 miles). The distance from Ascension to Falklands is just under 4000 miles.
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
Again showing your ignorance. No we don't have sufficient frigates and destroyers to protect our carriers. Everyone recognises that which is why the plan is to (eventually) double the number of frigates but also to operate alongside our NATO allies as combined fleets. Because on our own we do not have enough ships to do it effectively.
Your whole premise is based on a deep and profound rejection of reality.
@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
I propose that we send FUDHY to Bluff Cove. With a tank and a tinfoil hat. Surely one Englishman’s life is worth sacrificing to preserve the honour of the Yoonyun?
William Wallace wasn't exactly a shrinking violet when it came to war, nor was Edward I or Robert Bruce. However Edward II was weaker and was defeated accordingly
I suspect that warfare and diplomacy have both changed slightly over the past 700 years.
Warfare hasn't, only the side with the will to win wins. See also Vietnam and Afghanistan when the Vietkong and Taliban beat the Americans and Russians in the end despite inferior modern equipment as they had greater will to win
You have once again drawn the wrong lessons from history.
America in Vietnam had conscription, sent millions of people, suffered tens of thousands of fatalities, a third of a million casualties and were willing to use napalm and Agent Orange in the war. A shortage of "willpower" is not what America had, nor a shortage of being a psychotic bastard, yet they still lost the war.
Same the Soviets in Afghanistan, they were atrocious, ruthless, psychotic bastards that levelled entire towns trying and failing to win the war.
Simply being more ruthless doesn't make you win wars, especially when your opponents are fighting for their own homeland.
(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
Again showing your ignorance. No we don't have sufficient frigates and destroyers to protect our carriers. Everyone recognises that which is why the plan is to (eventually) double the number of frigates but also to operate alongside our NATO allies as combined fleets. Because on our own we do not have enough ships to do it effectively.
Your whole premise is based on a deep and profound rejection of reality.
The Argentines don't have any frigates at all and only 2 destroyers. They also don't have a single operational submarine
Wouldn’t the world be a better place if we could agree a solution for the Falklands whereby we both supported them, rather than competitive willy waving?
The Argentines have no interest in supporting them, they have an interest in making it Argentine not British territory and evicting the Falkland Islanders
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.
Biden was also a contemporary supporter of the British during the Crimean War (1853-6), the War of the Spanish Succession (1701-15) and Henry V at the Battle of Agincourt (1415), but since these were before the invention of video recording I can't link to YouTube to prove it.
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.
Thanks for highlighting that - it's a good interview and he is impressive (though distractingly nervous looking). Sadly we now live in a very different world, where the gulf in power between the US and UK has been allowed to balloon, and we are treated now as very much a US province, to a degree I find unique amongst its allies.
@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.
Yes.
It is tragic if it comes to that and every life lost would be a tragedy, but people volunteer to join the armed forces to protect their fellow countrymen and women and that is the right thing to do. Protecting your country is about far more than the future of people involved.
The idea that its "not worth" fighting to protect your territory or more importantly your people is the kind of nonsense that means that people like Putin think they can salami slice other nations repeatedly getting more as nobody will find it worth standing up to him.
Fighting for security is worthwhile, even if the cost is tragic. And by being prepared to do so, then you're less likely to be attacked, so less likely to have to fight, less likely to have people die.
So yes. As tragic as it may be, it is completely the right thing to do.
Bloody hell, the size of HYUFD's volunteer fighting force to protect the Falklands and bash the Argies has just doubled.
Please don't lump me with HYUFD.
Please read what I actually said and if there's anything there you disagree with, I'd be curious to know what and why. Mine is a rather different answer to his, and for different reasons.
You said the Falklands would have to be freed no matter what the casualty rate or cost, little different to what I said
No, I said it was worthwhile to fight to defend your nation.
I never said "no matter what the casualty rate or cost" and I also said it was a tragedy, something you never said.
The attitude is completely different.
If you are not willing to fight to win whatever the casualty rate or cost you are unlikely to win full stop
Wait:
So if Argentina invaded the Falkland islands, and it would take the death of 60m Brits to win them back, then it would be worth it?
If it kept British sovereign territory free of foreign invaders yes, we would still have 7 million, though that is highly unlikely given the entire Argentine population is only 45 million
(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
Again showing your ignorance. No we don't have sufficient frigates and destroyers to protect our carriers. Everyone recognises that which is why the plan is to (eventually) double the number of frigates but also to operate alongside our NATO allies as combined fleets. Because on our own we do not have enough ships to do it effectively.
Your whole premise is based on a deep and profound rejection of reality.
The Argentines don't have any frigates at all and only 2 destroyers. They also don't have a single operational submarine
Wouldn’t the world be a better place if we could agree a solution for the Falklands whereby we both supported them, rather than competitive willy waving?
The Argentines have no interest in supporting them, they have an interest in making it Argentine not British territory and evicting the Falkland Islanders
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 feel like this is accurate. Kate Forbes would be the wise choice. Hunza Yousaf has all the negatives of Sturgeon and also lacks the eloquence and political nouse.
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?
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
Dear me
To win a war BigG you normally have to be a near psychopathic bastard as commander in chief while that war lasts until victory is achieved, there is no time for weakness in a c in c
(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
Again showing your ignorance. No we don't have sufficient frigates and destroyers to protect our carriers. Everyone recognises that which is why the plan is to (eventually) double the number of frigates but also to operate alongside our NATO allies as combined fleets. Because on our own we do not have enough ships to do it effectively.
Your whole premise is based on a deep and profound rejection of reality.
That should be the site's motto.
That's just reminded me of when our name got changed. I forget what it was changed to - can anyone remember?
@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.
Yes.
It is tragic if it comes to that and every life lost would be a tragedy, but people volunteer to join the armed forces to protect their fellow countrymen and women and that is the right thing to do. Protecting your country is about far more than the future of people involved.
The idea that its "not worth" fighting to protect your territory or more importantly your people is the kind of nonsense that means that people like Putin think they can salami slice other nations repeatedly getting more as nobody will find it worth standing up to him.
Fighting for security is worthwhile, even if the cost is tragic. And by being prepared to do so, then you're less likely to be attacked, so less likely to have to fight, less likely to have people die.
So yes. As tragic as it may be, it is completely the right thing to do.
Bloody hell, the size of HYUFD's volunteer fighting force to protect the Falklands and bash the Argies has just doubled.
Please don't lump me with HYUFD.
Please read what I actually said and if there's anything there you disagree with, I'd be curious to know what and why. Mine is a rather different answer to his, and for different reasons.
You said the Falklands would have to be freed no matter what the casualty rate or cost, little different to what I said
No, I said it was worthwhile to fight to defend your nation.
I never said "no matter what the casualty rate or cost" and I also said it was a tragedy, something you never said.
The attitude is completely different.
If you are not willing to fight to win whatever the casualty rate or cost you are unlikely to win full stop
Wait:
So if Argentina invaded the Falkland islands, and it would take the death of 60m Brits to win them back, then it would be worth it?
If it kept British sovereign territory free of foreign invaders yes, we would still have 7 million, though that is highly unlikely given the entire Argentine population is only 45 million
In this scenario, though, with Britain left with just 7 million inhabitants, wouldn't there be the risk that the mainland would be undefended and could be successfully invaded by France?
@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.
Yes.
It is tragic if it comes to that and every life lost would be a tragedy, but people volunteer to join the armed forces to protect their fellow countrymen and women and that is the right thing to do. Protecting your country is about far more than the future of people involved.
The idea that its "not worth" fighting to protect your territory or more importantly your people is the kind of nonsense that means that people like Putin think they can salami slice other nations repeatedly getting more as nobody will find it worth standing up to him.
Fighting for security is worthwhile, even if the cost is tragic. And by being prepared to do so, then you're less likely to be attacked, so less likely to have to fight, less likely to have people die.
So yes. As tragic as it may be, it is completely the right thing to do.
Bloody hell, the size of HYUFD's volunteer fighting force to protect the Falklands and bash the Argies has just doubled.
Please don't lump me with HYUFD.
Please read what I actually said and if there's anything there you disagree with, I'd be curious to know what and why. Mine is a rather different answer to his, and for different reasons.
You said the Falklands would have to be freed no matter what the casualty rate or cost, little different to what I said
No, I said it was worthwhile to fight to defend your nation.
I never said "no matter what the casualty rate or cost" and I also said it was a tragedy, something you never said.
The attitude is completely different.
If you are not willing to fight to win whatever the casualty rate or cost you are unlikely to win full stop
Wait:
So if Argentina invaded the Falkland islands, and it would take the death of 60m Brits to win them back, then it would be worth it?
All he's saying is that Pyrrhus of Epirus was a pussy.
And that that desert over there? Extremely peaceful.
(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
Again showing your ignorance. No we don't have sufficient frigates and destroyers to protect our carriers. Everyone recognises that which is why the plan is to (eventually) double the number of frigates but also to operate alongside our NATO allies as combined fleets. Because on our own we do not have enough ships to do it effectively.
Your whole premise is based on a deep and profound rejection of reality.
That should be the site's motto.
That's just reminded me of when our name got changed. I forget what it was changed to - can anyone remember?
I think for some reason it was something like 'palatialbetting' - I have no recollection of why.
@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.
Yes.
It is tragic if it comes to that and every life lost would be a tragedy, but people volunteer to join the armed forces to protect their fellow countrymen and women and that is the right thing to do. Protecting your country is about far more than the future of people involved.
The idea that its "not worth" fighting to protect your territory or more importantly your people is the kind of nonsense that means that people like Putin think they can salami slice other nations repeatedly getting more as nobody will find it worth standing up to him.
Fighting for security is worthwhile, even if the cost is tragic. And by being prepared to do so, then you're less likely to be attacked, so less likely to have to fight, less likely to have people die.
So yes. As tragic as it may be, it is completely the right thing to do.
Bloody hell, the size of HYUFD's volunteer fighting force to protect the Falklands and bash the Argies has just doubled.
Please don't lump me with HYUFD.
Please read what I actually said and if there's anything there you disagree with, I'd be curious to know what and why. Mine is a rather different answer to his, and for different reasons.
You said the Falklands would have to be freed no matter what the casualty rate or cost, little different to what I said
No, I said it was worthwhile to fight to defend your nation.
I never said "no matter what the casualty rate or cost" and I also said it was a tragedy, something you never said.
The attitude is completely different.
If you are not willing to fight to win whatever the casualty rate or cost you are unlikely to win full stop
Wait:
So if Argentina invaded the Falkland islands, and it would take the death of 60m Brits to win them back, then it would be worth it?
If it kept British sovereign territory free of foreign invaders yes, we would still have 7 million, though that is highly unlikely given the entire Argentine population is only 45 million
In this scenario, though, with Britain left with just 7 million inhabitants, wouldn't there be the risk that the mainland would be undefended and could be successfully invaded by France?
No, we would still have nuclear weapons as a weapon of last resort and France would not invade a fellow NATO nation anyway
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?
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.
Yes.
It is tragic if it comes to that and every life lost would be a tragedy, but people volunteer to join the armed forces to protect their fellow countrymen and women and that is the right thing to do. Protecting your country is about far more than the future of people involved.
The idea that its "not worth" fighting to protect your territory or more importantly your people is the kind of nonsense that means that people like Putin think they can salami slice other nations repeatedly getting more as nobody will find it worth standing up to him.
Fighting for security is worthwhile, even if the cost is tragic. And by being prepared to do so, then you're less likely to be attacked, so less likely to have to fight, less likely to have people die.
So yes. As tragic as it may be, it is completely the right thing to do.
Bloody hell, the size of HYUFD's volunteer fighting force to protect the Falklands and bash the Argies has just doubled.
Please don't lump me with HYUFD.
Please read what I actually said and if there's anything there you disagree with, I'd be curious to know what and why. Mine is a rather different answer to his, and for different reasons.
You said the Falklands would have to be freed no matter what the casualty rate or cost, little different to what I said
No, I said it was worthwhile to fight to defend your nation.
I never said "no matter what the casualty rate or cost" and I also said it was a tragedy, something you never said.
The attitude is completely different.
If you are not willing to fight to win whatever the casualty rate or cost you are unlikely to win full stop
Wait:
So if Argentina invaded the Falkland islands, and it would take the death of 60m Brits to win them back, then it would be worth it?
If it kept British sovereign territory free of foreign invaders yes, we would still have 7 million, though that is highly unlikely given the entire Argentine population is only 45 million
Good plan, we only had 7 million back in the high middle ages and we had a lot more territory back then.
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.
Thanks for highlighting that - it's a good interview and he is impressive (though distractingly nervous looking). Sadly we now live in a very different world, where the gulf in power between the US and UK has been allowed to balloon, and we are treated now as very much a US province, to a degree I find unique amongst its allies.
The power differential between the UK and the US is extremely similar between now and the 1980s.
As for the UK being treated like a US province, this is a laughable manifestation of the chip on your shoulder. A vote in UK parliament prevented the US going into Syria. UK pressure forced them to go into Libya.
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.
His voice has changed a lot, perhaps not surprisingly.
Interesting how unequivocal he is and to hear him refer to Britain as America's "oldest and closest ally".
Doesn't exactly match the spin of him being a Brit hater that some people have created as a figment of their imagination.
It's the impression I get from his current words and actions. My opinions are under constant revision, though I must admit this one won't be wholly reversed by a Canadian TV interview from 40 years ago - call me old fashioned.
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.
His voice has changed a lot, perhaps not surprisingly.
Interesting how unequivocal he is and to hear him refer to Britain as America's "oldest and closest ally".
Doesn't exactly match the spin of him being a Brit hater that some people have created as a figment of their imagination.
It's the impression I get from his current words and actions. My opinions are under constant revision, though I must admit this one won't be wholly reversed by a Canadian TV interview from 40 years ago - call me old fashioned.
What particular actions would you point to for the contrary, out of interest? He plays up his Irish roots, but I'm not really aware of anything specific.
We have a lot of cultural cringe toward the USA, and we're very conscious of them being more powerful than us by a long long way, but people still overdo the lapdog angle.
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.
His voice has changed a lot, perhaps not surprisingly.
Interesting how unequivocal he is and to hear him refer to Britain as America's "oldest and closest ally".
Doesn't exactly match the spin of him being a Brit hater that some people have created as a figment of their imagination.
It's the impression I get from his current words and actions. My opinions are under constant revision, though I must admit this one won't be wholly reversed by a Canadian TV interview from 40 years ago - call me old fashioned.
What particular actions would you point to for the contrary, out of interest? He plays up his Irish roots, but I'm not really aware of anything specific.
Actions to the contrary of Luckyguy1983's interests:
Biden supplied arms to Ukraine, allowing them to stand up against the Russians.
Biden has worked to strengthen and expand NATO, encouraging more allies for Britain to work with.
Biden took on and defeated Donald Trump, who was willing to mess around with Ukraine's defences.
@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.
Yes.
It is tragic if it comes to that and every life lost would be a tragedy, but people volunteer to join the armed forces to protect their fellow countrymen and women and that is the right thing to do. Protecting your country is about far more than the future of people involved.
The idea that its "not worth" fighting to protect your territory or more importantly your people is the kind of nonsense that means that people like Putin think they can salami slice other nations repeatedly getting more as nobody will find it worth standing up to him.
Fighting for security is worthwhile, even if the cost is tragic. And by being prepared to do so, then you're less likely to be attacked, so less likely to have to fight, less likely to have people die.
So yes. As tragic as it may be, it is completely the right thing to do.
Bloody hell, the size of HYUFD's volunteer fighting force to protect the Falklands and bash the Argies has just doubled.
Please don't lump me with HYUFD.
Please read what I actually said and if there's anything there you disagree with, I'd be curious to know what and why. Mine is a rather different answer to his, and for different reasons.
You said the Falklands would have to be freed no matter what the casualty rate or cost, little different to what I said
No, I said it was worthwhile to fight to defend your nation.
I never said "no matter what the casualty rate or cost" and I also said it was a tragedy, something you never said.
The attitude is completely different.
If you are not willing to fight to win whatever the casualty rate or cost you are unlikely to win full stop
Wait:
So if Argentina invaded the Falkland islands, and it would take the death of 60m Brits to win them back, then it would be worth it?
If it kept British sovereign territory free of foreign invaders yes, we would still have 7 million, though that is highly unlikely given the entire Argentine population is only 45 million
Good plan, we only had 7 million back in the high middle ages and we had a lot more territory back then.
Actually apart from Normandy we didn't, in the high middle ages we didn't even have Scotland let alone the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar
@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.
Yes.
It is tragic if it comes to that and every life lost would be a tragedy, but people volunteer to join the armed forces to protect their fellow countrymen and women and that is the right thing to do. Protecting your country is about far more than the future of people involved.
The idea that its "not worth" fighting to protect your territory or more importantly your people is the kind of nonsense that means that people like Putin think they can salami slice other nations repeatedly getting more as nobody will find it worth standing up to him.
Fighting for security is worthwhile, even if the cost is tragic. And by being prepared to do so, then you're less likely to be attacked, so less likely to have to fight, less likely to have people die.
So yes. As tragic as it may be, it is completely the right thing to do.
Bloody hell, the size of HYUFD's volunteer fighting force to protect the Falklands and bash the Argies has just doubled.
Please don't lump me with HYUFD.
Please read what I actually said and if there's anything there you disagree with, I'd be curious to know what and why. Mine is a rather different answer to his, and for different reasons.
You said the Falklands would have to be freed no matter what the casualty rate or cost, little different to what I said
No, I said it was worthwhile to fight to defend your nation.
I never said "no matter what the casualty rate or cost" and I also said it was a tragedy, something you never said.
The attitude is completely different.
If you are not willing to fight to win whatever the casualty rate or cost you are unlikely to win full stop
Wait:
So if Argentina invaded the Falkland islands, and it would take the death of 60m Brits to win them back, then it would be worth it?
If it kept British sovereign territory free of foreign invaders yes, we would still have 7 million, though that is highly unlikely given the entire Argentine population is only 45 million
What is your view of how we removed the residents of Malden Island and Kiritimati (Christmas Island) in the Gilbert and Ellice Island in the 1950s for atomic testing purposes?
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.
Biden was also a contemporary supporter of the British during the Crimean War (1853-6), the War of the Spanish Succession (1701-15) and Henry V at the Battle of Agincourt (1415), but since these were before the invention of video recording I can't link to YouTube to prove it.
@TLDRNewsUK 🇦🇷 Argentina has told the UK that it wants to start new talks over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands and has pulled out of a 2016 cooperation pact.
Could a Sunak Falklands moment save his chances of reelection?
Bloody hell not again. The Argentinians need to give this a rest.
Of course national fervour doesn't make sense, we have our own examples of that, but the Argentinian passion on this issue really doesn't seem to make sense to me when it's noted their claim to the islands is a rather technical one based on inheriting rights from former Spanish sovereignty, and talk about natives who don't exist. Yes there are other complexities, but the point being it's actually a rather arcane legal dispute, yet it's talked about in terms of colonialism as if someone seized Buenos Aires 2 years ago.
There is nothing Argentina can do about it anyway. The UK has a veto on any UN decision as a permanent member of the UN Security Council unlike them.
The UK also has a bigger navy and army and airforce than Argentina now
Have a look at an atlas. It's not the Persian Gulf.
Since the Falklands War there is also a bigger permanent British garrison on the islands, a Royal Navy ship on patrol there at all times and a Royal Navy nuclear submarine patrols regularly nearby (though the exact times and location of the latter are obviously classified)
"ship" is a posh way to describe a patrol boat. And the forces, at the far end of a long supply line, are very small.
I remember 1981 - you obviously don't.
Yes, Argentina has cut its armed forces back to far fewer than they were in Galtieri's day.
The UK does not have an army of 153,000. That is the total size of our armed forces - Army, Navy and Airforce - including reservists. Our regular army is just over 80,000 and there are another 30,000 reservists. And gven our other commitments, not least on the Eastern flank of NATO, how many of those do you seriously think we could deploy?
We are much stronger on the ground in the Falklands than we were in 1982 but at the same time much weaker overall. So I could see our forces putting up a reasonable defence but I am certainly not confident they could hold. And if they did fall then we have no chance at all of reclaiming the islands as we did in 1982.
Our commitments on the Eastern flank of NATO would obviously be temporarily abandoned given British sovereign territory had been invaded.
We have a bigger armed forces than Argentina's which are also far weaker than they were in 1982
I am sorry but you really are deluded. What we did in 1982 was extraordinary but we could do it now. We simply don't have the ships.
As an example in 1982 we sent 8 destroyers and 16 frigates as part of the task force (and that was not our entire contingent of those vessel types in the navy). The entire Royal Navy only has 6 destroyers and 12 frigates. And we don't have the crews even for all of those.
Yes we do. we have 10 times the submarines Argentina do, enough to sink most of the Argentine navy alone for starters.
We also have more surface ships too, Argentina now literally has just 1 destroyer and not a single frigate!
You do realise that the size of their navy is pretty much immaterial given they wouldn't be the ones trying to mount a recapture 8000 miles away? What mattered in 1982 was our ability to get men to the South Atlantic and retake the islands. We no longer have the capability to do that. As I said you are deluded. I will add remarkably ignorant as well.
Yes it is, we could sink their entire fleet whether in port in Buenos Aires or Falklands waters within a week.
Once that is done we then send the aircraft carriers to quickly recapture the Islands, using submarines to send missiles on any Argentine troops still on the islands in the meantime
Fucking hell.
Any missile strike on the Falklands is likely to wipe out the Islanders as well.
Not if well targeted, a Tomahawk missile or 2 would do the trick
On this one, I don't think the Argentine Air Force currently has a single war plane that can fly to the Falklands. A couple of transports, but that's about it, afaics.
I'd say the greatest threat to the Falklands for the next 15-20 years is Treasury salami-slicing, or if China buys Argentina.
@TLDRNewsUK 🇦🇷 Argentina has told the UK that it wants to start new talks over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands and has pulled out of a 2016 cooperation pact.
Could a Sunak Falklands moment save his chances of reelection?
Bloody hell not again. The Argentinians need to give this a rest.
Of course national fervour doesn't make sense, we have our own examples of that, but the Argentinian passion on this issue really doesn't seem to make sense to me when it's noted their claim to the islands is a rather technical one based on inheriting rights from former Spanish sovereignty, and talk about natives who don't exist. Yes there are other complexities, but the point being it's actually a rather arcane legal dispute, yet it's talked about in terms of colonialism as if someone seized Buenos Aires 2 years ago.
There is nothing Argentina can do about it anyway. The UK has a veto on any UN decision as a permanent member of the UN Security Council unlike them.
The UK also has a bigger navy and army and airforce than Argentina now
The Argies forces must be minuscule!
Google tells me Arg: 70,600 (2022) vs UK 78,000 (2020). Not sure if this is chalk and apples eg whole of HMF vs army...but it's a close run thing.
We absolutely couldn't mount another Falklands tomorrow morning that's for sure.
From what I’ve seen of the Argentine navy in Ushuaia they could barely crew one ship
However all this is replying to the mood music of Britain in retreat. Giving up the Elgin marbles. Handing back Diego Garcia. London shrinking as a world city
I can see why the argies might think now is a time to strike - psychologically - as the Uk seems in perpetual decline and in a funk of self doubt
They can think what they want, the UK on its own could still beat most nations in a war apart from the US and China, France and India would probably be a stalemate, Russia can't even beat Ukraine.
Argentina also has declined well past its peak when it was one of the wealthiest nations in the world, even in the Falklands war it had far bigger armed forces than now
Have a look at the RN and RAF in 1981 vs today - abvoe all the long range stuff.
And the Merchant Navy, when it comes to the critical STUFT ships of 1981
The Army is about as useful as a fart in a hurricane without those two when it comes to the Flaklands.
Yes we have enough submarines to sink most of the Argentine navy within a day or 2.
Plus enough aircraft carriers and submarines with Cruise Missiles to bomb the Argentine army into submission too if they ever tried invading the Falklands again even without setting any troops on land beyond the garrison already there
What a pathetic post and as so often you just talk codswallop
Indeed having been to the remote Falkland Islands with its rugged terrain and cliff lined coasts with hundreds of Islands and inlets makes it a very difficult place to wage warfare and anyway the whole idea is ridiculous
Weak, wet, pathetic, useless. If Thatcher had had your defeatist attitude in 1982 we would never have recaptured the Falklands then
Sadly you are being utterly ridiculous
You have no knowledge of the territory, our present capabilities, and the fact is we nearly didn't capture them in 1982
Indeed the loss of the Welsh guards at Bluff Cove was shocking as was the sinking of the Sheffield
1982 was very different to today
No, you are being a pathetic, defeatist wet lettuce.
The Argentine forces have also been so cut back since 1982 they are far weaker than they were then. Our submarines could sink the entire Argentine navy within a week
You have no idea just how controversial the sinking of the Belgrano was have you
I was the late Wyn Roberts driver at the following GE and we had to field many questions about that event as it was highly controversial
I do not know how old you are but to blithely talk of sinking the Argentine fleet in a week when I had to explain the sinking of one vessel shows how utterly out of touch you are
And his talk of torpedoing ships in harbour. What does he think the Navy have, Fairey ****ing Swordfish??
Spearfish torpedoes carried by our Astute class submarines are able to provide anti surface warfare capability as well as anti submarine warfare capability
Are you trolling us, or are you genuinely making what you consider to be a valid proposal? Stuff like this post could come back to haunt you when your political ambitions for high office are about to be realised.
No it wouldn't, any Tory seeking elected office, especially nationally not prepared to use all means necessary to defend the Falklands hasn't got a hope of being selected by the party, or indeed winning the country.
Are you really so deluded as to think the average member of the UK population, let alone the average Conservative member and the tabloids would not want as hard a response as possible to any Argentine threat to the Falklands?
Are you General Galtieri?
Galtieri never contemplated invading Scotland to be fair.
Scotland is part of the UK, there is no reason to invade part of the same sovereign country as England
Your brand of comedy is quite remarkable, an acquired taste but remarkable nonetheless, and you are on fire tonight.
The left thinking defending UK territory is 'comedy' is partly why you have lost 4 general elections in a row! At least Sir Keir is somewhat more of a patriot at least
I haven't lost four general elections in a row.
Sometimes your political analysis, particularly in relation to.polling is very good. However your political reality is troubling. Sending 10000 troops to a backwater to save the livelihoods of 1000 shepherds at maybe the expense of the lives of 1001 serviceman should not be a decision you take lightly. As a Christian do you not consider the moral questions associated with sending some people to their deaths for what you are suggesting is a political expediency.
Defending British territory must be done no matter what the cost, the first role of any government is defence of the nation and its sovereign territory
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.
Yes.
It is tragic if it comes to that and every life lost would be a tragedy, but people volunteer to join the armed forces to protect their fellow countrymen and women and that is the right thing to do. Protecting your country is about far more than the future of people involved.
The idea that its "not worth" fighting to protect your territory or more importantly your people is the kind of nonsense that means that people like Putin think they can salami slice other nations repeatedly getting more as nobody will find it worth standing up to him.
Fighting for security is worthwhile, even if the cost is tragic. And by being prepared to do so, then you're less likely to be attacked, so less likely to have to fight, less likely to have people die.
So yes. As tragic as it may be, it is completely the right thing to do.
Bloody hell, the size of HYUFD's volunteer fighting force to protect the Falklands and bash the Argies has just doubled.
Please don't lump me with HYUFD.
Please read what I actually said and if there's anything there you disagree with, I'd be curious to know what and why. Mine is a rather different answer to his, and for different reasons.
You said the Falklands would have to be freed no matter what the casualty rate or cost, little different to what I said
No, I said it was worthwhile to fight to defend your nation.
I never said "no matter what the casualty rate or cost" and I also said it was a tragedy, something you never said.
The attitude is completely different.
If you are not willing to fight to win whatever the casualty rate or cost you are unlikely to win full stop
Wait:
So if Argentina invaded the Falkland islands, and it would take the death of 60m Brits to win them back, then it would be worth it?
If it kept British sovereign territory free of foreign invaders yes, we would still have 7 million, though that is highly unlikely given the entire Argentine population is only 45 million
Good plan, we only had 7 million back in the high middle ages and we had a lot more territory back then.
Actually apart from Normandy we didn't, in the high middle ages we didn't even have Scotland let alone the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar
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.
His voice has changed a lot, perhaps not surprisingly.
Interesting how unequivocal he is and to hear him refer to Britain as America's "oldest and closest ally".
Doesn't exactly match the spin of him being a Brit hater that some people have created as a figment of their imagination.
It's the impression I get from his current words and actions. My opinions are under constant revision, though I must admit this one won't be wholly reversed by a Canadian TV interview from 40 years ago - call me old fashioned.
Biden is a political animal above all - his public thoughts are conditioned by American domestic politics, and particularly the politics of the right wing of the Democratic party. Looking for consistency or principle in him is certainly a waste of time. He opposed the first Gulf War before supporting it after it was won, but supported the second Gulf War, and why he opposed keeping on in Afghanistan, but has been OK if not brilliant about helping Ukraine. It's also why he simultaneously supported and opposed busing to end school segregation in the 70s. And why he said it would be a cold day in hell before another special counsel was appointed after the Lewinsky scandal, before supporting the special counsels who investigated Trump. Etc, etc, etc.
He has spent the last 50 years in Washington, and Washington is in a constant state of election fever, so it is very difficult to be a successful politician there without some opportunism. But he takes it to extremes, even for that particular swamp.
@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.
Yes.
It is tragic if it comes to that and every life lost would be a tragedy, but people volunteer to join the armed forces to protect their fellow countrymen and women and that is the right thing to do. Protecting your country is about far more than the future of people involved.
The idea that its "not worth" fighting to protect your territory or more importantly your people is the kind of nonsense that means that people like Putin think they can salami slice other nations repeatedly getting more as nobody will find it worth standing up to him.
Fighting for security is worthwhile, even if the cost is tragic. And by being prepared to do so, then you're less likely to be attacked, so less likely to have to fight, less likely to have people die.
So yes. As tragic as it may be, it is completely the right thing to do.
Hmmm. To a degree, but when it's small numbers and the casualties are likely to be significantly higher than the number it benefits I suspect a cost benefit analysis is needed.
@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.
Yes.
It is tragic if it comes to that and every life lost would be a tragedy, but people volunteer to join the armed forces to protect their fellow countrymen and women and that is the right thing to do. Protecting your country is about far more than the future of people involved.
The idea that its "not worth" fighting to protect your territory or more importantly your people is the kind of nonsense that means that people like Putin think they can salami slice other nations repeatedly getting more as nobody will find it worth standing up to him.
Fighting for security is worthwhile, even if the cost is tragic. And by being prepared to do so, then you're less likely to be attacked, so less likely to have to fight, less likely to have people die.
So yes. As tragic as it may be, it is completely the right thing to do.
Bloody hell, the size of HYUFD's volunteer fighting force to protect the Falklands and bash the Argies has just doubled.
Please don't lump me with HYUFD.
Please read what I actually said and if there's anything there you disagree with, I'd be curious to know what and why. Mine is a rather different answer to his, and for different reasons.
You said the Falklands would have to be freed no matter what the casualty rate or cost, little different to what I said
No, I said it was worthwhile to fight to defend your nation.
I never said "no matter what the casualty rate or cost" and I also said it was a tragedy, something you never said.
The attitude is completely different.
If you are not willing to fight to win whatever the casualty rate or cost you are unlikely to win full stop
Wait:
So if Argentina invaded the Falkland islands, and it would take the death of 60m Brits to win them back, then it would be worth it?
If it kept British sovereign territory free of foreign invaders yes, we would still have 7 million, though that is highly unlikely given the entire Argentine population is only 45 million
What is your view of how we removed the residents of Malden Island and Kiritimati (Christmas Island) in the Gilbert and Ellice Island in the 1950s for atomic testing purposes?
They remained British territory, they were not invaded and ultimately transferred peacefully to Australia
Question: did anyone moaning about US power over the UK vote for Brexit? Fool if so. I thought people were going in eyes wide open. Divergence from the EU is pointless if you don't converge to the USA.
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.
Biden was also a contemporary supporter of the British during the Crimean War (1853-6), the War of the Spanish Succession (1701-15) and Henry V at the Battle of Agincourt (1415), but since these were before the invention of video recording I can't link to YouTube to prove it.
Question: did anyone moaning about US power over the UK vote for Brexit? Fool if so. I thought people were going in eyes wide open. Divergence from the EU is pointless if you don't converge to the USA.
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.
His voice has changed a lot, perhaps not surprisingly.
Interesting how unequivocal he is and to hear him refer to Britain as America's "oldest and closest ally".
Doesn't exactly match the spin of him being a Brit hater that some people have created as a figment of their imagination.
It's the impression I get from his current words and actions. My opinions are under constant revision, though I must admit this one won't be wholly reversed by a Canadian TV interview from 40 years ago - call me old fashioned.
And yet you apparently don't judge Trump for intentionally harming our economic trade even under protest, telling us who we can keep as ambassadors and providing succour to our enemies.
Conservatives currently casting Sue Gray as the present-day British Sergio Moro are as daft as their opponents who cast Partygate as a latter-day Profumo Affair.
Partygate also wasn't the reason Johnson was ousted; his awareness of Chris Pincher's appointment was.
The attack line on Starmer could be that he lied to his leader and, more importantly, the electorate for 4.5 years, for what he considers 'the greater good', and that his definition of 'the greater good' is for himself to become Prime Minister (a somewhat Boris-like assumption).
The house is empty, son at uni, missus visiting her parents with stepdaughter, so I'm drunkenly watching YouTube videos in the middle of the night (cos PB has some bizarrely idiotic discussion about the Falklands). But I have discovered a new favourite song: Precious, by Depeche Mode! I don't know how I missed it before. While it's apparently inspired by Martin Gore's divorce, for me it sums up the responsibility for everyone's well-being that middle age brings. How delicate the things we love are and how we try to care for what is precious in our lives. And I love where the guitar comes in at 2:26.
The house is empty, son at uni, missus visiting her parents with stepdaughter, so I'm drunkenly watching YouTube videos in the middle of the night (cos PB has some bizarrely idiotic discussion about the Falklands). But I have discovered a new favourite song: Precious, by Depeche Mode! I don't know how I missed it before. While it's apparently inspired by Martin Gore's divorce, for me it sums up the responsibility for everyone's well-being that middle age brings. How delicate the things we love are and how we try to care for what is precious in our lives. And I love where the guitar comes in at 2:26.
The house is empty, son at uni, missus visiting her parents with stepdaughter, so I'm drunkenly watching YouTube videos in the middle of the night (cos PB has some bizarrely idiotic discussion about the Falklands). But I have discovered a new favourite song: Precious, by Depeche Mode! I don't know how I missed it before. While it's apparently inspired by Martin Gore's divorce, for me it sums up the responsibility for everyone's well-being that middle age brings. How delicate the things we love are and how we try to care for what is precious in our lives. And I love where the guitar comes in at 2:26.
Important to remember what Boris Johnson said about Sue Gray's report at the time. How "profoundly grateful" he was, how "humbled", how fully he "accepted responsibility", "looked in the mirror" and "learned lessons".
@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.
Yes.
It is tragic if it comes to that and every life lost would be a tragedy, but people volunteer to join the armed forces to protect their fellow countrymen and women and that is the right thing to do. Protecting your country is about far more than the future of people involved.
The idea that its "not worth" fighting to protect your territory or more importantly your people is the kind of nonsense that means that people like Putin think they can salami slice other nations repeatedly getting more as nobody will find it worth standing up to him.
Fighting for security is worthwhile, even if the cost is tragic. And by being prepared to do so, then you're less likely to be attacked, so less likely to have to fight, less likely to have people die.
So yes. As tragic as it may be, it is completely the right thing to do.
Bloody hell, the size of HYUFD's volunteer fighting force to protect the Falklands and bash the Argies has just doubled.
Please don't lump me with HYUFD.
Please read what I actually said and if there's anything there you disagree with, I'd be curious to know what and why. Mine is a rather different answer to his, and for different reasons.
You said the Falklands would have to be freed no matter what the casualty rate or cost, little different to what I said
No, I said it was worthwhile to fight to defend your nation.
I never said "no matter what the casualty rate or cost" and I also said it was a tragedy, something you never said.
The attitude is completely different.
If you are not willing to fight to win whatever the casualty rate or cost you are unlikely to win full stop
Wait:
So if Argentina invaded the Falkland islands, and it would take the death of 60m Brits to win them back, then it would be worth it?
If it kept British sovereign territory free of foreign invaders yes, we would still have 7 million, though that is highly unlikely given the entire Argentine population is only 45 million
Good plan, we only had 7 million back in the high middle ages and we had a lot more territory back then.
Actually apart from Normandy we didn't, in the high middle ages we didn't even have Scotland let alone the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar
Actually we held Gascony for far longer than we did Normandy.
F1: very nicely setup ahead of third practice and first qualifying of the year (starts at 3pm).
One downside is that, from what I've heard (didn't watch practice live) Stroll really shouldn't be in the car and his wrist pain is causing him problems.
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).
I suspect that the Greens and the SNP will do well. The Conservatives will do badly. Labour and the Lib Dems will not show much change. However, a Scottish poll would be appreciated.
Surely there cannot be many people stupid enough to vote for the weirdo greens.
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).
I suspect that the Greens and the SNP will do well. The Conservatives will do badly. Labour and the Lib Dems will not show much change. However, a Scottish poll would be appreciated.
Surely there cannot be many people stupid enough to vote for the weirdo greens.
That's me! I'm the weirdo!
Though if the election is cast as a de facto referendum I will have to think again.
Prince Andrew demands mansion 'fit for a king' and disgraced royal wants 'top role'
Duke of York is refusing to leave the palatial 30-bedroom Windsor home after King Charles informed him of planned budget cuts to the royal finances….
… Andrew, 63, has even offered to run some of the most prestigious estates in the Royal Family’s portfolio, including the late Queen’s beloved Balmoral Castle in Aberdeenshire.
Sources have revealed how the Duke pleaded with the King for a “top role”, believing the responsibility and prestige with running the properties would offer him a way back into the fold.
Comments
Surely one Englishman’s life is worth sacrificing to preserve the honour of the Yoonyun?
Better Off Out.
It is tragic if it comes to that and every life lost would be a tragedy, but people volunteer to join the armed forces to protect their fellow countrymen and women and that is the right thing to do. Protecting your country is about far more than the future of people involved.
The idea that its "not worth" fighting to protect your territory or more importantly your people is the kind of nonsense that means that people like Putin think they can salami slice other nations repeatedly getting more as nobody will find it worth standing up to him.
Fighting for security is worthwhile, even if the cost is tragic. And by being prepared to do so, then you're less likely to be attacked, so less likely to have to fight, less likely to have people die.
So yes. As tragic as it may be, it is completely the right thing to do.
Unless you think it is a response to Boris Johnson's glorious solution to NI being shredded by the same party which hailed it as a triumph, then hailed the new solution as a triumph and then told the Scots they couldn't have some of it as well?
But early days. And if it is real then whyt not both factors?
You just adore cherry-picking polls (eg Deltapoll being cited to death recently).
You ignore all polls you don’t like the findings of. Doesn’t leave much for you Tory toe-rags to clutch on to.
At the moment Scottish polls tell us little as Sturgeon remains SNP leader
I have been to the Falklands and Buenos Aires and the Falklands is inhospitable most of the time and it's proximity to Argentina and huge distance from the UK makes it an unappetising prospect to fight a war
Furthermore the kind of force suggested by @HYUFD is impractical and also would find widespread international condemnation
I defended Thatcher policy publicly in the following GE including the sinking of the Belgrano, but we must realise we nearly lost, and the death of the Welsh Guards at Bluff Cove is to this day very real and upsetting
You've always idolised the psychopathic bastards and had a bit of a soft spot for the likes of Putin, even if not as overt as some others here, but his bastardry is seeing his invasion fail against what is supposed to be theoretically a much weaker opponent. While the far more humane defenders are able to rally support to repel the orcs invading them.
Three less fascists for us civilised folk to deal with.
Please read what I actually said and if there's anything there you disagree with, I'd be curious to know what and why. Mine is a rather different answer to his, and for different reasons.
Your whole premise is based on a deep and profound rejection of reality.
Edit. Which is why Murrell is fighting a rearguard action worthy of Putin
For the rest of us, Trump is no friend of the UK, or British interests.
They're not psychopathic bastards though.
That you can't comprehend the difference is chilling and disturbing.
I actually thought at the time she was unfair to the Navy by restricting their operations (hence the Belgrano taking advantage of the restrictions). Still do to some extent. The diplomatic fallout would have been worse but the game was already a bogey by then, ands the Argentinians might just have been more sensible and stayed in port (and kept the fleet in being till the RN started wearing out and suffering attrition).
I never said "no matter what the casualty rate or cost" and I also said it was a tragedy, something you never said.
The attitude is completely different.
We're not in that world though, which is why we need to invest in our Defence and be prepared to use our armed forces as a last resort.
So if Argentina invaded the Falkland islands, and it would take the death of 60m Brits to win them back, then it would be worth it?
America in Vietnam had conscription, sent millions of people, suffered tens of thousands of fatalities, a third of a million casualties and were willing to use napalm and Agent Orange in the war. A shortage of "willpower" is not what America had, nor a shortage of being a psychotic bastard, yet they still lost the war.
Same the Soviets in Afghanistan, they were atrocious, ruthless, psychotic bastards that levelled entire towns trying and failing to win the war.
Simply being more ruthless doesn't make you win wars, especially when your opponents are fighting for their own homeland.
And that that desert over there? Extremely peaceful.
Doesn't exactly match the spin of him being a Brit hater that some people have created as a figment of their imagination.
As for the UK being treated like a US province, this is a laughable manifestation of the chip on your shoulder. A vote in UK parliament prevented the US going into Syria. UK pressure forced them to go into Libya.
Biden supplied arms to Ukraine, allowing them to stand up against the Russians.
Biden has worked to strengthen and expand NATO, encouraging more allies for Britain to work with.
Biden took on and defeated Donald Trump, who was willing to mess around with Ukraine's defences.
https://openart.ai/discovery/sd-1008357650813169765
He has spent the last 50 years in Washington, and Washington is in a constant state of election fever, so it is very difficult to be a successful politician there without some opportunism. But he takes it to extremes, even for that particular swamp.
His Irish roots are from Mayo, though, so likely that he opposed the King of Leinster asking the Anglo-Normans help him out in the 12th century.
"Sean Thomas
How to see Bangkok without the crowds
There's never been a better time to visit the Thai capital"
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/how-to-see-bangkok-without-the-crowds/
Partygate also wasn't the reason Johnson was ousted; his awareness of Chris Pincher's appointment was.
The attack line on Starmer could be that he lied to his leader and, more importantly, the electorate for 4.5 years, for what he considers 'the greater good', and that his definition of 'the greater good' is for himself to become Prime Minister (a somewhat Boris-like assumption).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yn3ViE6mhY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIyrLRixMs8
New album out in three weeks!
How he used that report to stay in power.
https://mobile.twitter.com/sturdyAlex/status/1631640387688312837
F1: very nicely setup ahead of third practice and first qualifying of the year (starts at 3pm).
One downside is that, from what I've heard (didn't watch practice live) Stroll really shouldn't be in the car and his wrist pain is causing him problems.
NEW THREAD
Though if the election is cast as a de facto referendum I will have to think again.
Prince Andrew demands mansion 'fit for a king' and disgraced royal wants 'top role'
Duke of York is refusing to leave the palatial 30-bedroom Windsor home after King Charles informed him of planned budget cuts to the royal finances….
… Andrew, 63, has even offered to run some of the most prestigious estates in the Royal Family’s portfolio, including the late Queen’s beloved Balmoral Castle in Aberdeenshire.
Sources have revealed how the Duke pleaded with the King for a “top role”, believing the responsibility and prestige with running the properties would offer him a way back into the fold.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/royals/prince-andrew-demands-mansion-fit-29369297.amp