She was quite prepared to go to war with Argentina over the Falklands as we could easily beat them.
There was nothing easy about it and we very nearly didn't.
Not much more would have had to go wrong for the operation to fail.
Rubbish.
We very easily beat them once we committed to the task force.
The Argentines were poorly trained and full of conscrips even more than the Russians and Thatcher of course sunk the Belgrano without much difficulty
If you speak to anyone who was there then you would know that is rubbish.
We had a more effective army than Argentina and a bigger navy and better trained pilots.
It was not that difficult. Plus of course we had submarines with nuclear missiles and Argentina did not have nuclear weapons.
Russia however does have nuclear weapons
You really do talk nonsense . We lost the Atlantic Conveyor to exocets which was a huge blow. If we had lost an aircraft carrier in the same way there would have been no way of getting troops to the Falklands as we would not have had air cover. That would have been a fatal blow.
It makes not a joy of difference that we had better soldiers, navy and air force if you can't get any of them there.
So what, we still sunk more Argentine ships than they sunk of ours which is the main aim in war.
Thatcher was also not a wet lettuce like you and had the Argentines sunk our aircraft carrier she might even have nuked Buenos Aires who knows. She was not going to lose that war.
However that would have been an absolute last resort to defend the Falklands if we had lost a our aircraft carriers. As we had 4 aircraft carriers at the time even had we lost 1 we would still have had 3 to replace it and could still have continued with the Task Force with them
A) The object of war was not to sink Argentina ships, in fact we made a point of avoiding doing so and could have done so at will, hence the fuss over the Belgrano.The objective was to reclaim the Falklands which we could not have done without the aircraft carriers which were at risk from exocets.
B ) I have never said we should not of reclaimed the Falklands. I just said it wasn't easy like you claim. It was a really big task and not a foregone conclusion or easy like you said.
C) W were never going to launch a nuke on Argentina. You are being ridiculous.
D) And we only had 2 aircraft carriers, Hermes and Invincible not 4.
E) Your comments disrespect the brave men who fought that war and the politicians who made the decisions. It was not easy. It was hard. Many died and it was not a foregone conclusion.
We had 4 aircraft carriers, Hermes, Invincible, Ark Royal and Illustrious
What?
We had scrapped Ark Royal (R09) and its replacement (R07) would not be commissioned until 1985. HMS Hermes was being sold to India. We had to hurriedly undo the sale. HMS Illustrious wasn't ready - it was rushed through commissioning in order to get it to the Falklands. And still didn't get there in time.
At the time war broke out, we technically had one serviceable aircraft carrier (technically, through-deck cruiser), HMS Invincible. We undid the sale of HMS Hermes, and rushed HMS Illustrious through commissioning well ahead of schedule; fortunately, it went well.
So we got from 1-maybe-2 up to trying-to-get-3-in-time but not managing it. We never had four. We were never anywhere near four. Why do you think we had four?
P.S. There is no way the Falklands was easy, straightforward, or a done deal. You don't know what you're talking about.
(Disclosure: I, with many others, covered Op CORPORATE in depth in my Intermediate Command and Staff Course at the Defence Academy, spent a few months in the Falklands in the Nineties on detachment there so I could see the terrain, and went on Invincible a couple of times)
The original point (which you have obviously arrived late at) was that Thatcher was prepared to go to war with Argentina to defend the Falklands but not China over Hong Kong, hence she agreed to the handover of the latter but not the former. We could defend overseas territories where they wanted to stay British and the only other nations that wanted them were weaker than us but not against nations stronger than us. Hence Thatcher would also not have gone to war with Russia over Ukraine despite Heathener's remarks to the contrary.
In 1982 we had a better trained army, pilots and a bigger navy than Argentina and we also had submarines with nuclear weapons which Argentina did not have. So in the end we would win it regardless. Now of course the Argentine military is even weaker then then.
We also won it with 2 aircraft carriers like now but had the war continued for several years then Ark Royal and Illustrious would have been included in the Task Force too
“So I’m the end we would win it regardless”.
Never spoken to anyone who was there or read up on it then?
War isn’t Top Trumps.
We beat Argentina then and we would beat Argentina now.
Ultimately we would win no matter what the cost and we won it by conventional forces and our armed forces were stronger than Argentina's then and are stronger than Argentina's now.
As I also stated as a last resort had we not won it with conventional forces we had nuclear weapons which Argentina did not have to use as a last resort to defend the British territory of the Falklands and hit Argentine military bases in Argentina
1) Now, with the garrison and the current state of Argentina, is indeed very different. Then, they were a very serious threat, especially at that distance. Read up on it or speak to people.
2) We would NEVER have used nuclear weapons in a first strike against a non-nuclear armed country. That’s disgusting. Have a word with yourself.
2) We may well have done. Any UK PM who rules out the use of our nuclear weapons as a last resort to defend the UK or British territory if invaded and defence by conventional forces fails is not tough enough for the job.
Thatcher certainly would not have done. Indeed we would be more likely to use them against a non-nuclear armed invading country as they could not respond with a nuclear weapon against us themselves. Pure realpolitik
These are strategic nuclear weapons - I don't know what the payload is, but we are talking world changing destruction. Nobody would do that to defend or attack in a conventional war. If you want the British PM to be armed with a range of nuclear options, that's fine, but that means you need to argue for a range of tactical nuclear warheads and delivery options, either in addition to, or instead of Trident. Both of which have arguments for and against. But don't pretend Trident is it.
Angela Rayner demonstrating in PMQs why LAB are not necessarily nailed on to win the next GE 👍
Well, "not necessarily nailed on" is a vast improvement from the "Labour has no chance of winning the GE" that I was reading from most Tories just six months ago.
Yes, particular from, AveIt/LondonPubman – one of the most partisan and biased Tories on PB.
The speaker's not got that wrong: Salisbury was not 12 years ago, and is relevant.
For those not watching, context?
I'd have to re-watch it to accurately get the context. With that caveat: the DPM was answering a question from Rayner, and he mentioned Labour's reaction to the Salisbury attack (*). The speaker then said that events 12 years before were irrelevant. Hope that was right...
(*) As we saw on ehre the other day, some Labourites are in denial over Corbyn's actions.
From this Labourite:
1) Corbyn's response to the Salisbury attack was dreadful, we all know that. 2) Bringing up Corbyn in response to today's issues about Ukraine, Iran and so forth is a complete red herring, and smacks of desperation. Starmer is leader now, and he's clearly very different.
Labour are (rightly) going on about the PMs and the Conservative Party's links to Russia. Why is it wrong to point out that the Labour Party's previous leader was (ahem) rather friendly towards Russia, and in denial over their culpability for a hideous attack on our own soil?
The speaker's not got that wrong: Salisbury was not 12 years ago, and is relevant.
For those not watching, context?
I'd have to re-watch it to accurately get the context. With that caveat: the DPM was answering a question from Rayner, and he mentioned Labour's reaction to the Salisbury attack (*). The speaker then said that events 12 years before were irrelevant. Hope that was right...
(*) As we saw on ehre the other day, some Labourites are in denial over Corbyn's actions.
From this Labourite:
1) Corbyn's response to the Salisbury attack was dreadful, we all know that. 2) Bringing up Corbyn in response to today's issues about Ukraine, Iran and so forth is a complete red herring, and smacks of desperation. Starmer is leader now, and he's clearly very different.
Starmer was in Corbyn's shadow cabinet at the time of Salisbury. wasn't he?
She was quite prepared to go to war with Argentina over the Falklands as we could easily beat them.
There was nothing easy about it and we very nearly didn't.
Not much more would have had to go wrong for the operation to fail.
Rubbish.
We very easily beat them once we committed to the task force.
The Argentines were poorly trained and full of conscrips even more than the Russians and Thatcher of course sunk the Belgrano without much difficulty
If you speak to anyone who was there then you would know that is rubbish.
We had a more effective army than Argentina and a bigger navy and better trained pilots.
It was not that difficult. Plus of course we had submarines with nuclear missiles and Argentina did not have nuclear weapons.
Russia however does have nuclear weapons
You really do talk nonsense . We lost the Atlantic Conveyor to exocets which was a huge blow. If we had lost an aircraft carrier in the same way there would have been no way of getting troops to the Falklands as we would not have had air cover. That would have been a fatal blow.
It makes not a joy of difference that we had better soldiers, navy and air force if you can't get any of them there.
So what, we still sunk more Argentine ships than they sunk of ours which is the main aim in war.
Thatcher was also not a wet lettuce like you and had the Argentines sunk our aircraft carrier she might even have nuked Buenos Aires who knows. She was not going to lose that war.
However that would have been an absolute last resort to defend the Falklands if we had lost a our aircraft carriers. As we had 4 aircraft carriers at the time even had we lost 1 we would still have had 3 to replace it and could still have continued with the Task Force with them
A) The object of war was not to sink Argentina ships, in fact we made a point of avoiding doing so and could have done so at will, hence the fuss over the Belgrano.The objective was to reclaim the Falklands which we could not have done without the aircraft carriers which were at risk from exocets.
B ) I have never said we should not of reclaimed the Falklands. I just said it wasn't easy like you claim. It was a really big task and not a foregone conclusion or easy like you said.
C) W were never going to launch a nuke on Argentina. You are being ridiculous.
D) And we only had 2 aircraft carriers, Hermes and Invincible not 4.
E) Your comments disrespect the brave men who fought that war and the politicians who made the decisions. It was not easy. It was hard. Many died and it was not a foregone conclusion.
We had 4 aircraft carriers, Hermes, Invincible, Ark Royal and Illustrious
What?
We had scrapped Ark Royal (R09) and its replacement (R07) would not be commissioned until 1985. HMS Hermes was being sold to India. We had to hurriedly undo the sale. HMS Illustrious wasn't ready - it was rushed through commissioning in order to get it to the Falklands. And still didn't get there in time.
At the time war broke out, we technically had one serviceable aircraft carrier (technically, through-deck cruiser), HMS Invincible. We undid the sale of HMS Hermes, and rushed HMS Illustrious through commissioning well ahead of schedule; fortunately, it went well.
So we got from 1-maybe-2 up to trying-to-get-3-in-time but not managing it. We never had four. We were never anywhere near four. Why do you think we had four?
P.S. There is no way the Falklands was easy, straightforward, or a done deal. You don't know what you're talking about.
(Disclosure: I, with many others, covered Op CORPORATE in depth in my Intermediate Command and Staff Course at the Defence Academy, spent a few months in the Falklands in the Nineties on detachment there so I could see the terrain, and went on Invincible a couple of times)
The original point (which you have obviously arrived late at) was that Thatcher was prepared to go to war with Argentina to defend the Falklands but not China over Hong Kong, hence she agreed to the handover of the latter but not the former. We could defend overseas territories where they wanted to stay British and the only other nations that wanted them were weaker than us but not against nations stronger than us. Hence Thatcher would also not have gone to war with Russia over Ukraine despite Heathener's remarks to the contrary.
In 1982 we had a better trained army, pilots and a bigger navy than Argentina and we also had submarines with nuclear weapons which Argentina did not have. So in the end we would win it regardless. Now of course the Argentine military is even weaker then then.
We also won it with 2 aircraft carriers like now but had the war continued for several years then Ark Royal and Illustrious would have been included in the Task Force too
“So I’m the end we would win it regardless”.
Never spoken to anyone who was there or read up on it then?
War isn’t Top Trumps.
We beat Argentina then and we would beat Argentina now.
Ultimately we would win no matter what the cost and we won it by conventional forces and our armed forces were stronger than Argentina's then and are stronger than Argentina's now.
As I also stated as a last resort had we not won it with conventional forces we had nuclear weapons which Argentina did not have to use as a last resort to defend the British territory of the Falklands and hit Argentine military bases in Argentina
You're insane.
We never had nuclear weapons to attack Argentina with.
We were not using them to attack Argentina with.
It was Argentina's decision to invade the Falklands knowing full well we were a nuclear power with nuclear weapons.
Had we not won with conventional forces then by their invasion Argentina risked a nuclear missile attack launched by a British submarine on Argentina. That was the risk they took by the invasion, nuclear weapons being our weapon of last resort to defend British territory (which includes the Falklands)
You do realise that everyone can read this thread and see your original posts where you comment on it being easy don't you? Trying to twist and turn by changing the subject is obvious to everyone.
We were never going to use nukes. We didn't even attack Argentina other than sabotage attempts on planes. We also restricted attacks on shipping to the exclusion zone, hence the issues that arise over the Belgrano.
We had one objective to win back the Falklands, nothing else and your comments saying it was easy and not difficult (see above) is ignorant and insulting to the service men involved. The fact you can not bring yourself to apologize for this is appalling. I would like to see you say that to their face.
She was quite prepared to go to war with Argentina over the Falklands as we could easily beat them.
There was nothing easy about it and we very nearly didn't.
Not much more would have had to go wrong for the operation to fail.
Rubbish.
We very easily beat them once we committed to the task force.
The Argentines were poorly trained and full of conscrips even more than the Russians and Thatcher of course sunk the Belgrano without much difficulty
If you speak to anyone who was there then you would know that is rubbish.
We had a more effective army than Argentina and a bigger navy and better trained pilots.
It was not that difficult. Plus of course we had submarines with nuclear missiles and Argentina did not have nuclear weapons.
Russia however does have nuclear weapons
You really do talk nonsense . We lost the Atlantic Conveyor to exocets which was a huge blow. If we had lost an aircraft carrier in the same way there would have been no way of getting troops to the Falklands as we would not have had air cover. That would have been a fatal blow.
It makes not a joy of difference that we had better soldiers, navy and air force if you can't get any of them there.
So what, we still sunk more Argentine ships than they sunk of ours which is the main aim in war.
Thatcher was also not a wet lettuce like you and had the Argentines sunk our aircraft carrier she might even have nuked Buenos Aires who knows. She was not going to lose that war.
However that would have been an absolute last resort to defend the Falklands if we had lost a our aircraft carriers. As we had 4 aircraft carriers at the time even had we lost 1 we would still have had 3 to replace it and could still have continued with the Task Force with them
A) The object of war was not to sink Argentina ships, in fact we made a point of avoiding doing so and could have done so at will, hence the fuss over the Belgrano.The objective was to reclaim the Falklands which we could not have done without the aircraft carriers which were at risk from exocets.
B ) I have never said we should not of reclaimed the Falklands. I just said it wasn't easy like you claim. It was a really big task and not a foregone conclusion or easy like you said.
C) W were never going to launch a nuke on Argentina. You are being ridiculous.
D) And we only had 2 aircraft carriers, Hermes and Invincible not 4.
E) Your comments disrespect the brave men who fought that war and the politicians who made the decisions. It was not easy. It was hard. Many died and it was not a foregone conclusion.
We had 4 aircraft carriers, Hermes, Invincible, Ark Royal and Illustrious
What?
We had scrapped Ark Royal (R09) and its replacement (R07) would not be commissioned until 1985. HMS Hermes was being sold to India. We had to hurriedly undo the sale. HMS Illustrious wasn't ready - it was rushed through commissioning in order to get it to the Falklands. And still didn't get there in time.
At the time war broke out, we technically had one serviceable aircraft carrier (technically, through-deck cruiser), HMS Invincible. We undid the sale of HMS Hermes, and rushed HMS Illustrious through commissioning well ahead of schedule; fortunately, it went well.
So we got from 1-maybe-2 up to trying-to-get-3-in-time but not managing it. We never had four. We were never anywhere near four. Why do you think we had four?
P.S. There is no way the Falklands was easy, straightforward, or a done deal. You don't know what you're talking about.
(Disclosure: I, with many others, covered Op CORPORATE in depth in my Intermediate Command and Staff Course at the Defence Academy, spent a few months in the Falklands in the Nineties on detachment there so I could see the terrain, and went on Invincible a couple of times)
Thankfully we still had a runway at Ascension, and seventeen barely-serviceable V-bombers, for one of the most complex and daring Air Force missions of all time.
The shortage of carriers is why I believe we need several small helicopter/vertical take-off aircraft carriers - like 9 or 10 of them. There is no point in a great lumbering hulk that we don't have adequate escort ships for anyway.
No way we could afford that. Not least because the escort demand would be even greater!
Also the reason for large deck carriers is sortie rates. The invincible class was never really designed for carrier Ops - we bastardised them towards it in the end but then we’re anti submarine platforms with a bit of local air defence for themselves. That remains true for all smaller classes.
I am very much a layman, and I think you might have missed a word after 'we're', so I don't really understand your point.
Sorry, ducking autocorrect! I never know why it prefers “we’re” to “were”.
Should read “they were”. Basically we forced them to act as carriers by the 90s because we didn’t need so much anti sun activity in the North Atlantic, but the size of deck is what limits sortie rates, and it frustrated us, which is why we went bigger on the replacements. And there’s the old maxim that fresh air is free and steel is cheap, so going a bit bigger doesn’t cost as much as you might think.
"All in all, no other economy in the world has experienced anything like this – extreme de-globalization in a matter of days."
"...the elimination of at least half of the middle class."
Interesting that he makes the same guesstimate as the IMF. A 30% fall in Russia’s GDP. More than the entire Great Depression in the USA (-28%) slightly less than the negative impact of the First World War in Belgium (-32%)
Putin has inflicted all of that, in one year, on his own country
It is the most stupefyingly colossal blunder. Hard to think of anything similar
Do I take it from the lack of commentry that people have reassessed their optimism about Ukraine?
Obviously I hate to be pessimistic but it looks to me like the Russians are slowly (and clumsily) pounding the country to obliteration whilst arranging for a 'peace' deal that humiliates Ukraine. No NATO. 'Neutralisation'. Loss of parts of the country that have already been invaded by Russia. It is 'finlandisation', but by force and not by consent and mutual respect.
I can't see such an arrangement working out well - not least because many people in Ukraine won't be happy about it. There is the small matter of the 2000 or so Azov fascists, who we have inadvertantly armed, who are likely to turn against the Ukranian government. So the destablisation of Ukraine will continue apace.
Zelensky and co effectively have no choice other than to agree to whatever they are being presented with. Putin can just move his troops up to the border with, Georgia, Finland or whoever is next on his list. The west can go back to its comfortable decadence and denial.
Am I wrong?
I hope so. But in darker moments it is hard to see a way out of this which doesn't give in to lots of Russian demands, and 'neutrality' (a major misnomer here) would be a massive one, essentially giving up foreign policy independence.
It is bemusing how many people here simultaneously seem to think that it is reasonable for the Iranians to hold hostages until an entirely unrelated debt gets settled, and that somehow what a British Minister said in response to their hostage taking is the reason the hostages were being held.
The only people responsible for the Iranians taking hostages are the Iranians.
Paragraph one is your false narrative. Paragraph 2 is correct. These are the facts:
We owed the Iranian's a debt from the days of the Shah.
The Iranians unacceptably used dual nationality hostages to recover the debt.
A previous FS did not read his brief and suggested a hostage was working for Reuters. The Iranians cynically used this foolishness to bolster their position.
We need Iranian oil so we repaid the debt.
The hostages were released.
HMG have done the right thing, we have not paid a ransom, we have repaid a debt, A former FS nonetheless dropped a massive ******* back in 2017.
She was quite prepared to go to war with Argentina over the Falklands as we could easily beat them.
There was nothing easy about it and we very nearly didn't.
Not much more would have had to go wrong for the operation to fail.
Rubbish.
We very easily beat them once we committed to the task force.
The Argentines were poorly trained and full of conscrips even more than the Russians and Thatcher of course sunk the Belgrano without much difficulty
If you speak to anyone who was there then you would know that is rubbish.
We had a more effective army than Argentina and a bigger navy and better trained pilots.
It was not that difficult. Plus of course we had submarines with nuclear missiles and Argentina did not have nuclear weapons.
Russia however does have nuclear weapons
You really do talk nonsense . We lost the Atlantic Conveyor to exocets which was a huge blow. If we had lost an aircraft carrier in the same way there would have been no way of getting troops to the Falklands as we would not have had air cover. That would have been a fatal blow.
It makes not a joy of difference that we had better soldiers, navy and air force if you can't get any of them there.
So what, we still sunk more Argentine ships than they sunk of ours which is the main aim in war.
Thatcher was also not a wet lettuce like you and had the Argentines sunk our aircraft carrier she might even have nuked Buenos Aires who knows. She was not going to lose that war.
However that would have been an absolute last resort to defend the Falklands if we had lost a our aircraft carriers. As we had 4 aircraft carriers at the time even had we lost 1 we would still have had 3 to replace it and could still have continued with the Task Force with them
A) The object of war was not to sink Argentina ships, in fact we made a point of avoiding doing so and could have done so at will, hence the fuss over the Belgrano.The objective was to reclaim the Falklands which we could not have done without the aircraft carriers which were at risk from exocets.
B ) I have never said we should not of reclaimed the Falklands. I just said it wasn't easy like you claim. It was a really big task and not a foregone conclusion or easy like you said.
C) W were never going to launch a nuke on Argentina. You are being ridiculous.
D) And we only had 2 aircraft carriers, Hermes and Invincible not 4.
E) Your comments disrespect the brave men who fought that war and the politicians who made the decisions. It was not easy. It was hard. Many died and it was not a foregone conclusion.
We had 4 aircraft carriers, Hermes, Invincible, Ark Royal and Illustrious
What?
We had scrapped Ark Royal (R09) and its replacement (R07) would not be commissioned until 1985. HMS Hermes was being sold to India. We had to hurriedly undo the sale. HMS Illustrious wasn't ready - it was rushed through commissioning in order to get it to the Falklands. And still didn't get there in time.
At the time war broke out, we technically had one serviceable aircraft carrier (technically, through-deck cruiser), HMS Invincible. We undid the sale of HMS Hermes, and rushed HMS Illustrious through commissioning well ahead of schedule; fortunately, it went well.
So we got from 1-maybe-2 up to trying-to-get-3-in-time but not managing it. We never had four. We were never anywhere near four. Why do you think we had four?
P.S. There is no way the Falklands was easy, straightforward, or a done deal. You don't know what you're talking about.
(Disclosure: I, with many others, covered Op CORPORATE in depth in my Intermediate Command and Staff Course at the Defence Academy, spent a few months in the Falklands in the Nineties on detachment there so I could see the terrain, and went on Invincible a couple of times)
The original point (which you have obviously arrived late at) was that Thatcher was prepared to go to war with Argentina to defend the Falklands but not China over Hong Kong, hence she agreed to the handover of the latter but not the former. We could defend overseas territories where they wanted to stay British and the only other nations that wanted them were weaker than us but not against nations stronger than us. Hence Thatcher would also not have gone to war with Russia over Ukraine despite Heathener's remarks to the contrary.
In 1982 we had a better trained army, pilots and a bigger navy than Argentina and we also had submarines with nuclear weapons which Argentina did not have. So in the end we would win it regardless. Now of course the Argentine military is even weaker then then.
We also won it with 2 aircraft carriers like now but had the war continued for several years then Ark Royal and Illustrious would have been included in the Task Force too
“So I’m the end we would win it regardless”.
Never spoken to anyone who was there or read up on it then?
War isn’t Top Trumps.
We beat Argentina then and we would beat Argentina now.
Ultimately we would win no matter what the cost and we won it by conventional forces and our armed forces were stronger than Argentina's then and are stronger than Argentina's now.
As I also stated as a last resort had we not won it with conventional forces we had nuclear weapons which Argentina did not have to use as a last resort to defend the British territory of the Falklands and hit Argentine military bases in Argentina
1) Now, with the garrison and the current state of Argentina, is indeed very different. Then, they were a very serious threat, especially at that distance. Read up on it or speak to people.
2) We would NEVER have used nuclear weapons in a first strike against a non-nuclear armed country. That’s disgusting. Have a word with yourself.
2) We may well have done. Any UK PM who rules out the use of our nuclear weapons as a last resort to defend the UK or British territory if invaded and defence by conventional forces fails is not tough enough for the job.
Thatcher certainly would not have done. Indeed we would be more likely to use them against a non-nuclear armed invading country as they could not respond with a nuclear weapon against us themselves. Pure realpolitik
Oh god, you really mean it.
Thankfully, actual British policy on the use of the deterrent is very different.
Zelensky can get away with no NATO membership but on joining the EU that would be very difficult to rule out as there’s a huge majority of Ukrainians in favour of that.
Neither would be happening any time soon. For EU membership, you already hear the comments from some governments in western Europe that it's going to take time.
Ukraine is vast and poor and will need much rebuilding (IF there is peace now, a big IF). EU membership is 10-20 years away; or more
Russia should do it. You break it, you pay for it.
Those frozen foreign currency reserves could certainly come in handy.
She was quite prepared to go to war with Argentina over the Falklands as we could easily beat them.
There was nothing easy about it and we very nearly didn't.
Not much more would have had to go wrong for the operation to fail.
Rubbish.
We very easily beat them once we committed to the task force.
The Argentines were poorly trained and full of conscrips even more than the Russians and Thatcher of course sunk the Belgrano without much difficulty
If you speak to anyone who was there then you would know that is rubbish.
We had a more effective army than Argentina and a bigger navy and better trained pilots.
It was not that difficult. Plus of course we had submarines with nuclear missiles and Argentina did not have nuclear weapons.
Russia however does have nuclear weapons
You really do talk nonsense . We lost the Atlantic Conveyor to exocets which was a huge blow. If we had lost an aircraft carrier in the same way there would have been no way of getting troops to the Falklands as we would not have had air cover. That would have been a fatal blow.
It makes not a joy of difference that we had better soldiers, navy and air force if you can't get any of them there.
So what, we still sunk more Argentine ships than they sunk of ours which is the main aim in war.
Thatcher was also not a wet lettuce like you and had the Argentines sunk our aircraft carrier she might even have nuked Buenos Aires who knows. She was not going to lose that war.
However that would have been an absolute last resort to defend the Falklands if we had lost a our aircraft carriers. As we had 4 aircraft carriers at the time even had we lost 1 we would still have had 3 to replace it and could still have continued with the Task Force with them
A) The object of war was not to sink Argentina ships, in fact we made a point of avoiding doing so and could have done so at will, hence the fuss over the Belgrano.The objective was to reclaim the Falklands which we could not have done without the aircraft carriers which were at risk from exocets.
B ) I have never said we should not of reclaimed the Falklands. I just said it wasn't easy like you claim. It was a really big task and not a foregone conclusion or easy like you said.
C) W were never going to launch a nuke on Argentina. You are being ridiculous.
D) And we only had 2 aircraft carriers, Hermes and Invincible not 4.
E) Your comments disrespect the brave men who fought that war and the politicians who made the decisions. It was not easy. It was hard. Many died and it was not a foregone conclusion.
We had 4 aircraft carriers, Hermes, Invincible, Ark Royal and Illustrious
What?
We had scrapped Ark Royal (R09) and its replacement (R07) would not be commissioned until 1985. HMS Hermes was being sold to India. We had to hurriedly undo the sale. HMS Illustrious wasn't ready - it was rushed through commissioning in order to get it to the Falklands. And still didn't get there in time.
At the time war broke out, we technically had one serviceable aircraft carrier (technically, through-deck cruiser), HMS Invincible. We undid the sale of HMS Hermes, and rushed HMS Illustrious through commissioning well ahead of schedule; fortunately, it went well.
So we got from 1-maybe-2 up to trying-to-get-3-in-time but not managing it. We never had four. We were never anywhere near four. Why do you think we had four?
P.S. There is no way the Falklands was easy, straightforward, or a done deal. You don't know what you're talking about.
(Disclosure: I, with many others, covered Op CORPORATE in depth in my Intermediate Command and Staff Course at the Defence Academy, spent a few months in the Falklands in the Nineties on detachment there so I could see the terrain, and went on Invincible a couple of times)
Thankfully we still had a runway at Ascension, and seventeen barely-serviceable V-bombers, for one of the most complex and daring Air Force missions of all time.
The shortage of carriers is why I believe we need several small helicopter/vertical take-off aircraft carriers - like 9 or 10 of them. There is no point in a great lumbering hulk that we don't have adequate escort ships for anyway.
No way we could afford that. Not least because the escort demand would be even greater!
Also the reason for large deck carriers is sortie rates. The invincible class was never really designed for carrier Ops - we bastardised them towards it in the end but then we’re anti submarine platforms with a bit of local air defence for themselves. That remains true for all smaller classes.
I am very much a layman, and I think you might have missed a word after 'we're', so I don't really understand your point.
Sorry, ducking autocorrect! I never know why it prefers “we’re” to “were”.
Should read “they were”. Basically we forced them to act as carriers by the 90s because we didn’t need so much anti sun activity in the North Atlantic, but the size of deck is what limits sortie rates, and it frustrated us, which is why we went bigger on the replacements. And there’s the old maxim that fresh air is free and steel is cheap, so going a bit bigger doesn’t cost as much as you might think.
I also hope we've not paid blackmail to let her go free.
You are brighter than this Barty. Remember that bit in Three Kings they explained what it’s all about by pouring oil down his throat?
Message intercepted to Moscow from Iranian Committee for Building Relationships with Infidels and Heretics. ++Thank you for the £400M of British tax payer money. ++We have new markets for our oil despite being gulfs bad guys for goodness knows how long ++hard cheese as our new best buddies say ++Enjoy hell with the Great Satan
Slight correction, the £400 million was for tanks that we never delivered, due to the Iranian revolution. It is, legally, Iranian money. So we are giving them their own money back.
Oh Malmesbury! If that much is true, why didn’t we bung them the lolly years ago?
Barty is right in that it’s kidnapping and blackmailnand we have paid the ransom. I’m right in so much as why we have now paid ransom, if Putin didn’t turn like a snake in the grass, we were still on course to suckle from his energy nipples and no need to wheen off him, at what point do you think we would have paid this honest invoice we have sat on for 43 years?
The fact that it’s ludicrous to defend has to be give away we are doing something wrong.
It’s easy to defend. It’s realpolitik
Sadly, before Ukraine, the British hostages suffered because we had a grievance with Iran which was deemed more important than 2 people. Now the grievance seems way more trivial, as the world needs Iranian oil
The west gets non-Russian oil. Iran gets its £400m. Russia loses leverage. Two hostages are released. Pressure in the MENA eases, at least slightly
Win win win win win. So it happened
If you describe it as realpolitik and so easy to defend like that yes, Leon, that is a true description of what is happening, the point is Malmesbury wasn’t, he was saying, like Jeremy Hunt has been saying, it’s just an honest late paid bill no strings attached, certainly not a ransom.
So you and I agree, it can’t be described as Malmesbury did because it sounds laughable in the face of the realpolitik? Agreed?
Now to take your ludicrous realpolitik win win win win nonsense apart. The strongest maxim to follow for a truly ethical foreign policy is, if you are friend of the bastard doing bad things, then you are the bastard doing bad things too.
So what to do when you need the oil, yet oil supplies are in the hands of the bastards? As the Iranians said in their communique to Putin, we have new friends, and our new friends say hard cheese to you.
It's sort of a ransom - but its their money. The hold up in paying was because we don't like their government and they don't like us.
There's tons of stuff like this in international relations - sums frozen between enemies. I'm pretty sure there is some US/Cuban stuff, for example.
One chap made a mint at the end of the Cold War. He collected the certificates for Imperial Russian Government bonds. After the revolution, the Bolsheviks defaulted on them. People bought them because the looked pretty.
As part of Russia rejoining the international community, they honoured the bonds. Inflation had meant that millions which were awesome in 1910 were trivial in 199X. But for the chap actually owning them....
She was quite prepared to go to war with Argentina over the Falklands as we could easily beat them.
There was nothing easy about it and we very nearly didn't.
Not much more would have had to go wrong for the operation to fail.
Rubbish.
We very easily beat them once we committed to the task force.
The Argentines were poorly trained and full of conscrips even more than the Russians and Thatcher of course sunk the Belgrano without much difficulty
If you speak to anyone who was there then you would know that is rubbish.
We had a more effective army than Argentina and a bigger navy and better trained pilots.
It was not that difficult. Plus of course we had submarines with nuclear missiles and Argentina did not have nuclear weapons.
Russia however does have nuclear weapons
You really do talk nonsense . We lost the Atlantic Conveyor to exocets which was a huge blow. If we had lost an aircraft carrier in the same way there would have been no way of getting troops to the Falklands as we would not have had air cover. That would have been a fatal blow.
It makes not a joy of difference that we had better soldiers, navy and air force if you can't get any of them there.
So what, we still sunk more Argentine ships than they sunk of ours which is the main aim in war.
Thatcher was also not a wet lettuce like you and had the Argentines sunk our aircraft carrier she might even have nuked Buenos Aires who knows. She was not going to lose that war.
However that would have been an absolute last resort to defend the Falklands if we had lost a our aircraft carriers. As we had 4 aircraft carriers at the time even had we lost 1 we would still have had 3 to replace it and could still have continued with the Task Force with them
A) The object of war was not to sink Argentina ships, in fact we made a point of avoiding doing so and could have done so at will, hence the fuss over the Belgrano.The objective was to reclaim the Falklands which we could not have done without the aircraft carriers which were at risk from exocets.
B ) I have never said we should not of reclaimed the Falklands. I just said it wasn't easy like you claim. It was a really big task and not a foregone conclusion or easy like you said.
C) W were never going to launch a nuke on Argentina. You are being ridiculous.
D) And we only had 2 aircraft carriers, Hermes and Invincible not 4.
E) Your comments disrespect the brave men who fought that war and the politicians who made the decisions. It was not easy. It was hard. Many died and it was not a foregone conclusion.
We had 4 aircraft carriers, Hermes, Invincible, Ark Royal and Illustrious
What?
We had scrapped Ark Royal (R09) and its replacement (R07) would not be commissioned until 1985. HMS Hermes was being sold to India. We had to hurriedly undo the sale. HMS Illustrious wasn't ready - it was rushed through commissioning in order to get it to the Falklands. And still didn't get there in time.
At the time war broke out, we technically had one serviceable aircraft carrier (technically, through-deck cruiser), HMS Invincible. We undid the sale of HMS Hermes, and rushed HMS Illustrious through commissioning well ahead of schedule; fortunately, it went well.
So we got from 1-maybe-2 up to trying-to-get-3-in-time but not managing it. We never had four. We were never anywhere near four. Why do you think we had four?
P.S. There is no way the Falklands was easy, straightforward, or a done deal. You don't know what you're talking about.
(Disclosure: I, with many others, covered Op CORPORATE in depth in my Intermediate Command and Staff Course at the Defence Academy, spent a few months in the Falklands in the Nineties on detachment there so I could see the terrain, and went on Invincible a couple of times)
The original point (which you have obviously arrived late at) was that Thatcher was prepared to go to war with Argentina to defend the Falklands but not China over Hong Kong, hence she agreed to the handover of the latter but not the former. We could defend overseas territories where they wanted to stay British and the only other nations that wanted them were weaker than us but not against nations stronger than us. Hence Thatcher would also not have gone to war with Russia over Ukraine despite Heathener's remarks to the contrary.
In 1982 we had a better trained army, pilots and a bigger navy than Argentina and we also had submarines with nuclear weapons which Argentina did not have. So in the end we would win it regardless. Now of course the Argentine military is even weaker then then.
We also won it with 2 aircraft carriers like now but had the war continued for several years then Ark Royal and Illustrious would have been included in the Task Force too
“So I’m the end we would win it regardless”.
Never spoken to anyone who was there or read up on it then?
War isn’t Top Trumps.
We beat Argentina then and we would beat Argentina now.
Ultimately we would win no matter what the cost and we won it by conventional forces and our armed forces were stronger than Argentina's then and are stronger than Argentina's now.
As I also stated as a last resort had we not won it with conventional forces we had nuclear weapons which Argentina did not have to use as a last resort to defend the British territory of the Falklands and hit Argentine military bases in Argentina
You're insane.
We never had nuclear weapons to attack Argentina with.
We were not using them to attack Argentina with.
It was Argentina's decision to invade the Falklands knowing full well we were a nuclear power with nuclear weapons.
Had we not won with conventional forces then by their invasion Argentina risked a nuclear missile attack launched by a British submarine on Argentina. That was the risk they took by the invasion, nuclear weapons being our weapon of last resort to defend British territory (which includes the Falklands)
You do realise that everyone can read this thread and see your original posts where you comment on it being easy don't you? Trying to twist and turn by changing the subject is obvious to everyone.
We were never going to use nukes. We didn't even attack Argentina other than sabotage attempts on planes. We also restricted attacks on shipping to the exclusion zone, hence the issues that arise over the Belgrano.
We had one objective to win back the Falklands, nothing else and your comments saying it was easy and not difficult (see above) is ignorant and insulting to the service men involved. The fact you can not bring yourself to apologize for this is appalling. I would like to see you say that to their face.
Just remembering my father (an ex RN man) watching the news at the time. He was completely shaken by the news, especially when the Argentinians started sinking ships.
It was arguably only a few dodgy bomb fuzes that were the margin between vicxtory and defeat - or indeed other elements, such as the sinking of the Atlantic Conveyor in mistake for a through-deck cruiser.
She was quite prepared to go to war with Argentina over the Falklands as we could easily beat them.
There was nothing easy about it and we very nearly didn't.
Not much more would have had to go wrong for the operation to fail.
Rubbish.
We very easily beat them once we committed to the task force.
The Argentines were poorly trained and full of conscrips even more than the Russians and Thatcher of course sunk the Belgrano without much difficulty
If you speak to anyone who was there then you would know that is rubbish.
We had a more effective army than Argentina and a bigger navy and better trained pilots.
It was not that difficult. Plus of course we had submarines with nuclear missiles and Argentina did not have nuclear weapons.
Russia however does have nuclear weapons
You really do talk nonsense . We lost the Atlantic Conveyor to exocets which was a huge blow. If we had lost an aircraft carrier in the same way there would have been no way of getting troops to the Falklands as we would not have had air cover. That would have been a fatal blow.
It makes not a joy of difference that we had better soldiers, navy and air force if you can't get any of them there.
So what, we still sunk more Argentine ships than they sunk of ours which is the main aim in war.
Thatcher was also not a wet lettuce like you and had the Argentines sunk our aircraft carrier she might even have nuked Buenos Aires who knows. She was not going to lose that war.
However that would have been an absolute last resort to defend the Falklands if we had lost a our aircraft carriers. As we had 4 aircraft carriers at the time even had we lost 1 we would still have had 3 to replace it and could still have continued with the Task Force with them
A) The object of war was not to sink Argentina ships, in fact we made a point of avoiding doing so and could have done so at will, hence the fuss over the Belgrano.The objective was to reclaim the Falklands which we could not have done without the aircraft carriers which were at risk from exocets.
B ) I have never said we should not of reclaimed the Falklands. I just said it wasn't easy like you claim. It was a really big task and not a foregone conclusion or easy like you said.
C) W were never going to launch a nuke on Argentina. You are being ridiculous.
D) And we only had 2 aircraft carriers, Hermes and Invincible not 4.
E) Your comments disrespect the brave men who fought that war and the politicians who made the decisions. It was not easy. It was hard. Many died and it was not a foregone conclusion.
We had 4 aircraft carriers, Hermes, Invincible, Ark Royal and Illustrious
What?
We had scrapped Ark Royal (R09) and its replacement (R07) would not be commissioned until 1985. HMS Hermes was being sold to India. We had to hurriedly undo the sale. HMS Illustrious wasn't ready - it was rushed through commissioning in order to get it to the Falklands. And still didn't get there in time.
At the time war broke out, we technically had one serviceable aircraft carrier (technically, through-deck cruiser), HMS Invincible. We undid the sale of HMS Hermes, and rushed HMS Illustrious through commissioning well ahead of schedule; fortunately, it went well.
So we got from 1-maybe-2 up to trying-to-get-3-in-time but not managing it. We never had four. We were never anywhere near four. Why do you think we had four?
P.S. There is no way the Falklands was easy, straightforward, or a done deal. You don't know what you're talking about.
(Disclosure: I, with many others, covered Op CORPORATE in depth in my Intermediate Command and Staff Course at the Defence Academy, spent a few months in the Falklands in the Nineties on detachment there so I could see the terrain, and went on Invincible a couple of times)
Thankfully we still had a runway at Ascension, and seventeen barely-serviceable V-bombers, for one of the most complex and daring Air Force missions of all time.
The shortage of carriers is why I believe we need several small helicopter/vertical take-off aircraft carriers - like 9 or 10 of them. There is no point in a great lumbering hulk that we don't have adequate escort ships for anyway.
No way we could afford that. Not least because the escort demand would be even greater!
Also the reason for large deck carriers is sortie rates. The invincible class was never really designed for carrier Ops - we bastardised them towards it in the end but then we’re anti submarine platforms with a bit of local air defence for themselves. That remains true for all smaller classes.
I am very much a layman, and I think you might have missed a word after 'we're', so I don't really understand your point.
Sorry, ducking autocorrect! I never know why it prefers “we’re” to “were”.
Should read “they were”. Basically we forced them to act as carriers by the 90s because we didn’t need so much anti sun activity in the North Atlantic, but the size of deck is what limits sortie rates, and it frustrated us, which is why we went bigger on the replacements. And there’s the old maxim that fresh air is free and steel is cheap, so going a bit bigger doesn’t cost as much as you might think.
Could sortie rates be improved by part two of my cunning plan, to bring back the Harriers?
It is bemusing how many people here simultaneously seem to think that it is reasonable for the Iranians to hold hostages until an entirely unrelated debt gets settled, and that somehow what a British Minister said in response to their hostage taking is the reason the hostages were being held.
The only people responsible for the Iranians taking hostages are the Iranians.
Paragraph one is your false narrative. Paragraph 2 is correct. These are the facts:
We owed the Iranian's a debt from the days of the Shah.
The Iranians unacceptably used dual nationality hostages to recover the debt.
A previous FS did not read his brief and suggested a hostage was working for Reuters. The Iranians cynically used this foolishness to bolster their position.
We need Iranian oil so we repaid the debt.
The hostages were released.
HMG have done the right thing, we have not paid a ransom, we have repaid a debt, A former FS nonetheless dropped a massive ******* back in 2017.
She was quite prepared to go to war with Argentina over the Falklands as we could easily beat them.
There was nothing easy about it and we very nearly didn't.
Not much more would have had to go wrong for the operation to fail.
Rubbish.
We very easily beat them once we committed to the task force.
The Argentines were poorly trained and full of conscrips even more than the Russians and Thatcher of course sunk the Belgrano without much difficulty
If you speak to anyone who was there then you would know that is rubbish.
We had a more effective army than Argentina and a bigger navy and better trained pilots.
It was not that difficult. Plus of course we had submarines with nuclear missiles and Argentina did not have nuclear weapons.
Russia however does have nuclear weapons
You really do talk nonsense . We lost the Atlantic Conveyor to exocets which was a huge blow. If we had lost an aircraft carrier in the same way there would have been no way of getting troops to the Falklands as we would not have had air cover. That would have been a fatal blow.
It makes not a joy of difference that we had better soldiers, navy and air force if you can't get any of them there.
So what, we still sunk more Argentine ships than they sunk of ours which is the main aim in war.
Thatcher was also not a wet lettuce like you and had the Argentines sunk our aircraft carrier she might even have nuked Buenos Aires who knows. She was not going to lose that war.
However that would have been an absolute last resort to defend the Falklands if we had lost a our aircraft carriers. As we had 4 aircraft carriers at the time even had we lost 1 we would still have had 3 to replace it and could still have continued with the Task Force with them
A) The object of war was not to sink Argentina ships, in fact we made a point of avoiding doing so and could have done so at will, hence the fuss over the Belgrano.The objective was to reclaim the Falklands which we could not have done without the aircraft carriers which were at risk from exocets.
B ) I have never said we should not of reclaimed the Falklands. I just said it wasn't easy like you claim. It was a really big task and not a foregone conclusion or easy like you said.
C) W were never going to launch a nuke on Argentina. You are being ridiculous.
D) And we only had 2 aircraft carriers, Hermes and Invincible not 4.
E) Your comments disrespect the brave men who fought that war and the politicians who made the decisions. It was not easy. It was hard. Many died and it was not a foregone conclusion.
We had 4 aircraft carriers, Hermes, Invincible, Ark Royal and Illustrious
What?
We had scrapped Ark Royal (R09) and its replacement (R07) would not be commissioned until 1985. HMS Hermes was being sold to India. We had to hurriedly undo the sale. HMS Illustrious wasn't ready - it was rushed through commissioning in order to get it to the Falklands. And still didn't get there in time.
At the time war broke out, we technically had one serviceable aircraft carrier (technically, through-deck cruiser), HMS Invincible. We undid the sale of HMS Hermes, and rushed HMS Illustrious through commissioning well ahead of schedule; fortunately, it went well.
So we got from 1-maybe-2 up to trying-to-get-3-in-time but not managing it. We never had four. We were never anywhere near four. Why do you think we had four?
P.S. There is no way the Falklands was easy, straightforward, or a done deal. You don't know what you're talking about.
(Disclosure: I, with many others, covered Op CORPORATE in depth in my Intermediate Command and Staff Course at the Defence Academy, spent a few months in the Falklands in the Nineties on detachment there so I could see the terrain, and went on Invincible a couple of times)
The original point (which you have obviously arrived late at) was that Thatcher was prepared to go to war with Argentina to defend the Falklands but not China over Hong Kong, hence she agreed to the handover of the latter but not the former. We could defend overseas territories where they wanted to stay British and the only other nations that wanted them were weaker than us but not against nations stronger than us. Hence Thatcher would also not have gone to war with Russia over Ukraine despite Heathener's remarks to the contrary.
In 1982 we had a better trained army, pilots and a bigger navy than Argentina and we also had submarines with nuclear weapons which Argentina did not have. So in the end we would win it regardless. Now of course the Argentine military is even weaker then then.
We also won it with 2 aircraft carriers like now but had the war continued for several years then Ark Royal and Illustrious would have been included in the Task Force too
“So I’m the end we would win it regardless”.
Never spoken to anyone who was there or read up on it then?
War isn’t Top Trumps.
We beat Argentina then and we would beat Argentina now.
Ultimately we would win no matter what the cost and we won it by conventional forces and our armed forces were stronger than Argentina's then and are stronger than Argentina's now.
As I also stated as a last resort had we not won it with conventional forces we had nuclear weapons which Argentina did not have to use as a last resort to defend the British territory of the Falklands and hit Argentine military bases in Argentina
You're insane.
We never had nuclear weapons to attack Argentina with.
We were not using them to attack Argentina with.
It was Argentina's decision to invade the Falklands knowing full well we were a nuclear power with nuclear weapons.
Had we not won with conventional forces then by their invasion Argentina risked a nuclear missile attack launched by a British submarine on Argentina. That was the risk they took by the invasion, nuclear weapons being our weapon of last resort to defend British territory (which includes the Falklands)
You do realise that everyone can read this thread and see your original posts where you comment on it being easy don't you? Trying to twist and turn by changing the subject is obvious to everyone.
We were never going to use nukes. We didn't even attack Argentina other than sabotage attempts on planes. We also restricted attacks on shipping to the exclusion zone, hence the issues that arise over the Belgrano.
We had one objective to win back the Falklands, nothing else and your comments saying it was easy and not difficult (see above) is ignorant and insulting to the service men involved. The fact you can not bring yourself to apologize for this is appalling. I would like to see you say that to their face.
Yes, my original post (which you have still not bothered to find) made at 8 32 am this morning.
'No she wouldn't, Thatcher was a realist about what the UK could do militarily.
She was quite prepared to go to war with Argentina over the Falklands as we could easily beat them. However she never threatened the USSR militarily and she agreed to stick to the Hong Kong handover to China as she knew we could not beat them militarily either'
How do you know we were never going to use nukes? You were not Thatcher, you were a wet SDP Liberal I expect at the time.
We never needed to try as we won the war with conventional forces and without going too far beyond the Falklands and surrounding area.
Had we not won the war with conventional forces anything would have been on the table to defend British territory and that has zero to do with the sacrifices of our forces in the war
"All in all, no other economy in the world has experienced anything like this – extreme de-globalization in a matter of days."
"...the elimination of at least half of the middle class."
Interesting that he makes the same guesstimate as the IMF. A 30% fall in Russia’s GDP. More than the entire Great Depression in the USA (-28%) slightly less than the negative impact of the First World War in Belgium (-32%)
Putin has inflicted all of that, in one year, on his own country
It is the most stupefyingly colossal blunder. Hard to think of anything similar
Zelensky can get away with no NATO membership but on joining the EU that would be very difficult to rule out as there’s a huge majority of Ukrainians in favour of that.
Neither would be happening any time soon. For EU membership, you already hear the comments from some governments in western Europe that it's going to take time.
Ukraine is vast and poor and will need much rebuilding (IF there is peace now, a big IF). EU membership is 10-20 years away; or more
Probably, but being a candidate and actively working towards it with a great deal of EU backing (unlike some other candidates who no longer give a crap about it) would still be significant in near permanently affixing them to the West.
NATO was never going to happen whilst occupied, not in the 21st century, but the EU could be managed better. Russia have been very clear they do not want that, but it is one of their most unreasonable demands (and that is saying something) and simply cannot be accepted I'd think - this whole business started over EU aspirations, and there's no pretext which makes it ok to prevent Ukraine from joining political blocs, especially when Russia is already bordered by other members (also applies to NATO, but easier to slip on that one)
I also hope we've not paid blackmail to let her go free.
You are brighter than this Barty. Remember that bit in Three Kings they explained what it’s all about by pouring oil down his throat?
Message intercepted to Moscow from Iranian Committee for Building Relationships with Infidels and Heretics. ++Thank you for the £400M of British tax payer money. ++We have new markets for our oil despite being gulfs bad guys for goodness knows how long ++hard cheese as our new best buddies say ++Enjoy hell with the Great Satan
Slight correction, the £400 million was for tanks that we never delivered, due to the Iranian revolution. It is, legally, Iranian money. So we are giving them their own money back.
Oh Malmesbury! If that much is true, why didn’t we bung them the lolly years ago?
Barty is right in that it’s kidnapping and blackmailnand we have paid the ransom. I’m right in so much as why we have now paid ransom, if Putin didn’t turn like a snake in the grass, we were still on course to suckle from his energy nipples and no need to wheen off him, at what point do you think we would have paid this honest invoice we have sat on for 43 years?
The fact that it’s ludicrous to defend has to be give away we are doing something wrong.
We shouldn't have withheld their money in the first place.
We should have supported both regimes - the Shah and the one who over threw him? Or put another way, we tried to get him tanks to kill the people who over throw him, you reckon we should give The money back to the people who over through him in first place?
She was quite prepared to go to war with Argentina over the Falklands as we could easily beat them.
There was nothing easy about it and we very nearly didn't.
Not much more would have had to go wrong for the operation to fail.
Rubbish.
We very easily beat them once we committed to the task force.
The Argentines were poorly trained and full of conscrips even more than the Russians and Thatcher of course sunk the Belgrano without much difficulty
If you speak to anyone who was there then you would know that is rubbish.
We had a more effective army than Argentina and a bigger navy and better trained pilots.
It was not that difficult. Plus of course we had submarines with nuclear missiles and Argentina did not have nuclear weapons.
Russia however does have nuclear weapons
You really do talk nonsense . We lost the Atlantic Conveyor to exocets which was a huge blow. If we had lost an aircraft carrier in the same way there would have been no way of getting troops to the Falklands as we would not have had air cover. That would have been a fatal blow.
It makes not a joy of difference that we had better soldiers, navy and air force if you can't get any of them there.
So what, we still sunk more Argentine ships than they sunk of ours which is the main aim in war.
Thatcher was also not a wet lettuce like you and had the Argentines sunk our aircraft carrier she might even have nuked Buenos Aires who knows. She was not going to lose that war.
However that would have been an absolute last resort to defend the Falklands if we had lost a our aircraft carriers. As we had 4 aircraft carriers at the time even had we lost 1 we would still have had 3 to replace it and could still have continued with the Task Force with them
A) The object of war was not to sink Argentina ships, in fact we made a point of avoiding doing so and could have done so at will, hence the fuss over the Belgrano.The objective was to reclaim the Falklands which we could not have done without the aircraft carriers which were at risk from exocets.
B ) I have never said we should not of reclaimed the Falklands. I just said it wasn't easy like you claim. It was a really big task and not a foregone conclusion or easy like you said.
C) W were never going to launch a nuke on Argentina. You are being ridiculous.
D) And we only had 2 aircraft carriers, Hermes and Invincible not 4.
E) Your comments disrespect the brave men who fought that war and the politicians who made the decisions. It was not easy. It was hard. Many died and it was not a foregone conclusion.
We had 4 aircraft carriers, Hermes, Invincible, Ark Royal and Illustrious
What?
We had scrapped Ark Royal (R09) and its replacement (R07) would not be commissioned until 1985. HMS Hermes was being sold to India. We had to hurriedly undo the sale. HMS Illustrious wasn't ready - it was rushed through commissioning in order to get it to the Falklands. And still didn't get there in time.
At the time war broke out, we technically had one serviceable aircraft carrier (technically, through-deck cruiser), HMS Invincible. We undid the sale of HMS Hermes, and rushed HMS Illustrious through commissioning well ahead of schedule; fortunately, it went well.
So we got from 1-maybe-2 up to trying-to-get-3-in-time but not managing it. We never had four. We were never anywhere near four. Why do you think we had four?
P.S. There is no way the Falklands was easy, straightforward, or a done deal. You don't know what you're talking about.
(Disclosure: I, with many others, covered Op CORPORATE in depth in my Intermediate Command and Staff Course at the Defence Academy, spent a few months in the Falklands in the Nineties on detachment there so I could see the terrain, and went on Invincible a couple of times)
The original point (which you have obviously arrived late at) was that Thatcher was prepared to go to war with Argentina to defend the Falklands but not China over Hong Kong, hence she agreed to the handover of the latter but not the former. We could defend overseas territories where they wanted to stay British and the only other nations that wanted them were weaker than us but not against nations stronger than us. Hence Thatcher would also not have gone to war with Russia over Ukraine despite Heathener's remarks to the contrary.
In 1982 we had a better trained army, pilots and a bigger navy than Argentina and we also had submarines with nuclear weapons which Argentina did not have. So in the end we would win it regardless. Now of course the Argentine military is even weaker then then.
We also won it with 2 aircraft carriers like now but had the war continued for several years then Ark Royal and Illustrious would have been included in the Task Force too
“So I’m the end we would win it regardless”.
Never spoken to anyone who was there or read up on it then?
War isn’t Top Trumps.
We beat Argentina then and we would beat Argentina now.
Ultimately we would win no matter what the cost and we won it by conventional forces and our armed forces were stronger than Argentina's then and are stronger than Argentina's now.
As I also stated as a last resort had we not won it with conventional forces we had nuclear weapons which Argentina did not have to use as a last resort to defend the British territory of the Falklands and hit Argentine military bases in Argentina
1) Now, with the garrison and the current state of Argentina, is indeed very different. Then, they were a very serious threat, especially at that distance. Read up on it or speak to people.
2) We would NEVER have used nuclear weapons in a first strike against a non-nuclear armed country. That’s disgusting. Have a word with yourself.
2) We may well have done. Any UK PM who rules out the use of our nuclear weapons as a last resort to defend the UK or British territory if invaded and defence by conventional forces fails is not tough enough for the job.
Thatcher certainly would not have done. Indeed we would be more likely to use them against a non-nuclear armed invading country as they could not respond with a nuclear weapon against us themselves. Pure realpolitik
Oh god, you really mean it.
Thankfully, actual British policy on the use of the deterrent is very different.
No it isn't. We have nuclear weapons to defend the UK and British territory as a last resort, the Falkland Islands are and were British overseas territory
"We need to talk about #Westplaining. "It’s a term coined by the Eastern European left to describe a tendency of certain Western leftists to ascribe everything that happens east of Germany to Western policy."
What is great to think, is that when as seems imminent, this conflict finishes, Russian oil and gas will hopefully be dirt cheap and they will need to sell as much as possible to fill the coffers, the Saudis will be pumping away too, and we'll have hopefully put a lot of useful new renewable capacity in too.
The speaker's not got that wrong: Salisbury was not 12 years ago, and is relevant.
For those not watching, context?
I'd have to re-watch it to accurately get the context. With that caveat: the DPM was answering a question from Rayner, and he mentioned Labour's reaction to the Salisbury attack (*). The speaker then said that events 12 years before were irrelevant. Hope that was right...
(*) As we saw on ehre the other day, some Labourites are in denial over Corbyn's actions.
From this Labourite:
1) Corbyn's response to the Salisbury attack was dreadful, we all know that. 2) Bringing up Corbyn in response to today's issues about Ukraine, Iran and so forth is a complete red herring, and smacks of desperation. Starmer is leader now, and he's clearly very different.
Yes, its fair enough to bring up when Corbyn tries grandstanding, and even as a general 'what if' perhaps, but it's very clear Starmer's approach is not the same so belabouring that point won't work.
She was quite prepared to go to war with Argentina over the Falklands as we could easily beat them.
There was nothing easy about it and we very nearly didn't.
Not much more would have had to go wrong for the operation to fail.
Rubbish.
We very easily beat them once we committed to the task force.
The Argentines were poorly trained and full of conscrips even more than the Russians and Thatcher of course sunk the Belgrano without much difficulty
If you speak to anyone who was there then you would know that is rubbish.
We had a more effective army than Argentina and a bigger navy and better trained pilots.
It was not that difficult. Plus of course we had submarines with nuclear missiles and Argentina did not have nuclear weapons.
Russia however does have nuclear weapons
You really do talk nonsense . We lost the Atlantic Conveyor to exocets which was a huge blow. If we had lost an aircraft carrier in the same way there would have been no way of getting troops to the Falklands as we would not have had air cover. That would have been a fatal blow.
It makes not a joy of difference that we had better soldiers, navy and air force if you can't get any of them there.
So what, we still sunk more Argentine ships than they sunk of ours which is the main aim in war.
Thatcher was also not a wet lettuce like you and had the Argentines sunk our aircraft carrier she might even have nuked Buenos Aires who knows. She was not going to lose that war.
However that would have been an absolute last resort to defend the Falklands if we had lost a our aircraft carriers. As we had 4 aircraft carriers at the time even had we lost 1 we would still have had 3 to replace it and could still have continued with the Task Force with them
A) The object of war was not to sink Argentina ships, in fact we made a point of avoiding doing so and could have done so at will, hence the fuss over the Belgrano.The objective was to reclaim the Falklands which we could not have done without the aircraft carriers which were at risk from exocets.
B ) I have never said we should not of reclaimed the Falklands. I just said it wasn't easy like you claim. It was a really big task and not a foregone conclusion or easy like you said.
C) W were never going to launch a nuke on Argentina. You are being ridiculous.
D) And we only had 2 aircraft carriers, Hermes and Invincible not 4.
E) Your comments disrespect the brave men who fought that war and the politicians who made the decisions. It was not easy. It was hard. Many died and it was not a foregone conclusion.
We had 4 aircraft carriers, Hermes, Invincible, Ark Royal and Illustrious
What?
We had scrapped Ark Royal (R09) and its replacement (R07) would not be commissioned until 1985. HMS Hermes was being sold to India. We had to hurriedly undo the sale. HMS Illustrious wasn't ready - it was rushed through commissioning in order to get it to the Falklands. And still didn't get there in time.
At the time war broke out, we technically had one serviceable aircraft carrier (technically, through-deck cruiser), HMS Invincible. We undid the sale of HMS Hermes, and rushed HMS Illustrious through commissioning well ahead of schedule; fortunately, it went well.
So we got from 1-maybe-2 up to trying-to-get-3-in-time but not managing it. We never had four. We were never anywhere near four. Why do you think we had four?
P.S. There is no way the Falklands was easy, straightforward, or a done deal. You don't know what you're talking about.
(Disclosure: I, with many others, covered Op CORPORATE in depth in my Intermediate Command and Staff Course at the Defence Academy, spent a few months in the Falklands in the Nineties on detachment there so I could see the terrain, and went on Invincible a couple of times)
Thankfully we still had a runway at Ascension, and seventeen barely-serviceable V-bombers, for one of the most complex and daring Air Force missions of all time.
The shortage of carriers is why I believe we need several small helicopter/vertical take-off aircraft carriers - like 9 or 10 of them. There is no point in a great lumbering hulk that we don't have adequate escort ships for anyway.
No way we could afford that. Not least because the escort demand would be even greater!
Also the reason for large deck carriers is sortie rates. The invincible class was never really designed for carrier Ops - we bastardised them towards it in the end but then we’re anti submarine platforms with a bit of local air defence for themselves. That remains true for all smaller classes.
I am very much a layman, and I think you might have missed a word after 'we're', so I don't really understand your point.
Sorry, ducking autocorrect! I never know why it prefers “we’re” to “were”.
Should read “they were”. Basically we forced them to act as carriers by the 90s because we didn’t need so much anti sun activity in the North Atlantic, but the size of deck is what limits sortie rates, and it frustrated us, which is why we went bigger on the replacements. And there’s the old maxim that fresh air is free and steel is cheap, so going a bit bigger doesn’t cost as much as you might think.
Could sortie rates be improved by part two of my cunning plan, to bring back the Harriers?
*Gets coat*
Lol. The F35 launches much like they did at takeoff weight. It literally become a maths problem. It takes X minutes to launch a plane, and Y to first get it into position. You also need to recover ones you previously launched and manoeuvre them somewhere to park. Space just makes the choreography a bit easier, especially in a war scenario where you’ve overloaded it and everyone is tired.
She was quite prepared to go to war with Argentina over the Falklands as we could easily beat them.
There was nothing easy about it and we very nearly didn't.
Not much more would have had to go wrong for the operation to fail.
Rubbish.
We very easily beat them once we committed to the task force.
The Argentines were poorly trained and full of conscrips even more than the Russians and Thatcher of course sunk the Belgrano without much difficulty
If you speak to anyone who was there then you would know that is rubbish.
We had a more effective army than Argentina and a bigger navy and better trained pilots.
It was not that difficult. Plus of course we had submarines with nuclear missiles and Argentina did not have nuclear weapons.
Russia however does have nuclear weapons
You really do talk nonsense . We lost the Atlantic Conveyor to exocets which was a huge blow. If we had lost an aircraft carrier in the same way there would have been no way of getting troops to the Falklands as we would not have had air cover. That would have been a fatal blow.
It makes not a joy of difference that we had better soldiers, navy and air force if you can't get any of them there.
So what, we still sunk more Argentine ships than they sunk of ours which is the main aim in war.
Thatcher was also not a wet lettuce like you and had the Argentines sunk our aircraft carrier she might even have nuked Buenos Aires who knows. She was not going to lose that war.
However that would have been an absolute last resort to defend the Falklands if we had lost a our aircraft carriers. As we had 4 aircraft carriers at the time even had we lost 1 we would still have had 3 to replace it and could still have continued with the Task Force with them
A) The object of war was not to sink Argentina ships, in fact we made a point of avoiding doing so and could have done so at will, hence the fuss over the Belgrano.The objective was to reclaim the Falklands which we could not have done without the aircraft carriers which were at risk from exocets.
B ) I have never said we should not of reclaimed the Falklands. I just said it wasn't easy like you claim. It was a really big task and not a foregone conclusion or easy like you said.
C) W were never going to launch a nuke on Argentina. You are being ridiculous.
D) And we only had 2 aircraft carriers, Hermes and Invincible not 4.
E) Your comments disrespect the brave men who fought that war and the politicians who made the decisions. It was not easy. It was hard. Many died and it was not a foregone conclusion.
We had 4 aircraft carriers, Hermes, Invincible, Ark Royal and Illustrious
What?
We had scrapped Ark Royal (R09) and its replacement (R07) would not be commissioned until 1985. HMS Hermes was being sold to India. We had to hurriedly undo the sale. HMS Illustrious wasn't ready - it was rushed through commissioning in order to get it to the Falklands. And still didn't get there in time.
At the time war broke out, we technically had one serviceable aircraft carrier (technically, through-deck cruiser), HMS Invincible. We undid the sale of HMS Hermes, and rushed HMS Illustrious through commissioning well ahead of schedule; fortunately, it went well.
So we got from 1-maybe-2 up to trying-to-get-3-in-time but not managing it. We never had four. We were never anywhere near four. Why do you think we had four?
P.S. There is no way the Falklands was easy, straightforward, or a done deal. You don't know what you're talking about.
(Disclosure: I, with many others, covered Op CORPORATE in depth in my Intermediate Command and Staff Course at the Defence Academy, spent a few months in the Falklands in the Nineties on detachment there so I could see the terrain, and went on Invincible a couple of times)
The original point (which you have obviously arrived late at) was that Thatcher was prepared to go to war with Argentina to defend the Falklands but not China over Hong Kong, hence she agreed to the handover of the latter but not the former. We could defend overseas territories where they wanted to stay British and the only other nations that wanted them were weaker than us but not against nations stronger than us. Hence Thatcher would also not have gone to war with Russia over Ukraine despite Heathener's remarks to the contrary.
In 1982 we had a better trained army, pilots and a bigger navy than Argentina and we also had submarines with nuclear weapons which Argentina did not have. So in the end we would win it regardless. Now of course the Argentine military is even weaker then then.
We also won it with 2 aircraft carriers like now but had the war continued for several years then Ark Royal and Illustrious would have been included in the Task Force too
“So I’m the end we would win it regardless”.
Never spoken to anyone who was there or read up on it then?
War isn’t Top Trumps.
We beat Argentina then and we would beat Argentina now.
Ultimately we would win no matter what the cost and we won it by conventional forces and our armed forces were stronger than Argentina's then and are stronger than Argentina's now.
As I also stated as a last resort had we not won it with conventional forces we had nuclear weapons which Argentina did not have to use as a last resort to defend the British territory of the Falklands and hit Argentine military bases in Argentina
1) Now, with the garrison and the current state of Argentina, is indeed very different. Then, they were a very serious threat, especially at that distance. Read up on it or speak to people.
2) We would NEVER have used nuclear weapons in a first strike against a non-nuclear armed country. That’s disgusting. Have a word with yourself.
2) We may well have done. Any UK PM who rules out the use of our nuclear weapons as a last resort to defend the UK or British territory if invaded and defence by conventional forces fails is not tough enough for the job.
Thatcher certainly would not have done. Indeed we would be more likely to use them against a non-nuclear armed invading country as they could not respond with a nuclear weapon against us themselves. Pure realpolitik
These are strategic nuclear weapons - I don't know what the payload is, but we are talking world changing destruction. Nobody would do that to defend or attack in a conventional war. If you want the British PM to be armed with a range of nuclear options, that's fine, but that means you need to argue for a range of tactical nuclear warheads and delivery options, either in addition to, or instead of Trident. Both of which have arguments for and against. But don't pretend Trident is it.
She was quite prepared to go to war with Argentina over the Falklands as we could easily beat them.
There was nothing easy about it and we very nearly didn't.
Not much more would have had to go wrong for the operation to fail.
Rubbish.
We very easily beat them once we committed to the task force.
The Argentines were poorly trained and full of conscrips even more than the Russians and Thatcher of course sunk the Belgrano without much difficulty
If you speak to anyone who was there then you would know that is rubbish.
We had a more effective army than Argentina and a bigger navy and better trained pilots.
It was not that difficult. Plus of course we had submarines with nuclear missiles and Argentina did not have nuclear weapons.
Russia however does have nuclear weapons
You really do talk nonsense . We lost the Atlantic Conveyor to exocets which was a huge blow. If we had lost an aircraft carrier in the same way there would have been no way of getting troops to the Falklands as we would not have had air cover. That would have been a fatal blow.
It makes not a joy of difference that we had better soldiers, navy and air force if you can't get any of them there.
So what, we still sunk more Argentine ships than they sunk of ours which is the main aim in war.
Thatcher was also not a wet lettuce like you and had the Argentines sunk our aircraft carrier she might even have nuked Buenos Aires who knows. She was not going to lose that war.
However that would have been an absolute last resort to defend the Falklands if we had lost a our aircraft carriers. As we had 4 aircraft carriers at the time even had we lost 1 we would still have had 3 to replace it and could still have continued with the Task Force with them
A) The object of war was not to sink Argentina ships, in fact we made a point of avoiding doing so and could have done so at will, hence the fuss over the Belgrano.The objective was to reclaim the Falklands which we could not have done without the aircraft carriers which were at risk from exocets.
B ) I have never said we should not of reclaimed the Falklands. I just said it wasn't easy like you claim. It was a really big task and not a foregone conclusion or easy like you said.
C) W were never going to launch a nuke on Argentina. You are being ridiculous.
D) And we only had 2 aircraft carriers, Hermes and Invincible not 4.
E) Your comments disrespect the brave men who fought that war and the politicians who made the decisions. It was not easy. It was hard. Many died and it was not a foregone conclusion.
We had 4 aircraft carriers, Hermes, Invincible, Ark Royal and Illustrious
What?
We had scrapped Ark Royal (R09) and its replacement (R07) would not be commissioned until 1985. HMS Hermes was being sold to India. We had to hurriedly undo the sale. HMS Illustrious wasn't ready - it was rushed through commissioning in order to get it to the Falklands. And still didn't get there in time.
At the time war broke out, we technically had one serviceable aircraft carrier (technically, through-deck cruiser), HMS Invincible. We undid the sale of HMS Hermes, and rushed HMS Illustrious through commissioning well ahead of schedule; fortunately, it went well.
So we got from 1-maybe-2 up to trying-to-get-3-in-time but not managing it. We never had four. We were never anywhere near four. Why do you think we had four?
P.S. There is no way the Falklands was easy, straightforward, or a done deal. You don't know what you're talking about.
(Disclosure: I, with many others, covered Op CORPORATE in depth in my Intermediate Command and Staff Course at the Defence Academy, spent a few months in the Falklands in the Nineties on detachment there so I could see the terrain, and went on Invincible a couple of times)
Thankfully we still had a runway at Ascension, and seventeen barely-serviceable V-bombers, for one of the most complex and daring Air Force missions of all time.
The shortage of carriers is why I believe we need several small helicopter/vertical take-off aircraft carriers - like 9 or 10 of them. There is no point in a great lumbering hulk that we don't have adequate escort ships for anyway.
No way we could afford that. Not least because the escort demand would be even greater!
Also the reason for large deck carriers is sortie rates. The invincible class was never really designed for carrier Ops - we bastardised them towards it in the end but then we’re anti submarine platforms with a bit of local air defence for themselves. That remains true for all smaller classes.
I am very much a layman, and I think you might have missed a word after 'we're', so I don't really understand your point.
Sorry, ducking autocorrect! I never know why it prefers “we’re” to “were”.
Should read “they were”. Basically we forced them to act as carriers by the 90s because we didn’t need so much anti sun activity in the North Atlantic, but the size of deck is what limits sortie rates, and it frustrated us, which is why we went bigger on the replacements. And there’s the old maxim that fresh air is free and steel is cheap, so going a bit bigger doesn’t cost as much as you might think.
Could sortie rates be improved by part two of my cunning plan, to bring back the Harriers?
*Gets coat*
The Harriers had next to no electric warfare capability, a very small payload and short range. 1982 only worked because the Argentines had worse air-to-air capability.
By the 90s it was clear that Sea Harrier vs Mig29/Su27 would be a very bad thing.
So you need an aircraft with more payload, more space and power for electronics, more space for weapons....
Hell, the original idea was that the Kestrel would lead to a "proper" aircraft
It is bemusing how many people here simultaneously seem to think that it is reasonable for the Iranians to hold hostages until an entirely unrelated debt gets settled, and that somehow what a British Minister said in response to their hostage taking is the reason the hostages were being held.
The only people responsible for the Iranians taking hostages are the Iranians.
Paragraph one is your false narrative. Paragraph 2 is correct. These are the facts:
We owed the Iranian's a debt from the days of the Shah.
The Iranians unacceptably used dual nationality hostages to recover the debt.
A previous FS did not read his brief and suggested a hostage was working for Reuters. The Iranians cynically used this foolishness to bolster their position.
We need Iranian oil so we repaid the debt.
The hostages were released.
HMG have done the right thing, we have not paid a ransom, we have repaid a debt, A former FS nonetheless dropped a massive ******* back in 2017.
She was quite prepared to go to war with Argentina over the Falklands as we could easily beat them.
There was nothing easy about it and we very nearly didn't.
Not much more would have had to go wrong for the operation to fail.
Rubbish.
We very easily beat them once we committed to the task force.
The Argentines were poorly trained and full of conscrips even more than the Russians and Thatcher of course sunk the Belgrano without much difficulty
If you speak to anyone who was there then you would know that is rubbish.
We had a more effective army than Argentina and a bigger navy and better trained pilots.
It was not that difficult. Plus of course we had submarines with nuclear missiles and Argentina did not have nuclear weapons.
Russia however does have nuclear weapons
You really do talk nonsense . We lost the Atlantic Conveyor to exocets which was a huge blow. If we had lost an aircraft carrier in the same way there would have been no way of getting troops to the Falklands as we would not have had air cover. That would have been a fatal blow.
It makes not a joy of difference that we had better soldiers, navy and air force if you can't get any of them there.
So what, we still sunk more Argentine ships than they sunk of ours which is the main aim in war.
Thatcher was also not a wet lettuce like you and had the Argentines sunk our aircraft carrier she might even have nuked Buenos Aires who knows. She was not going to lose that war.
However that would have been an absolute last resort to defend the Falklands if we had lost a our aircraft carriers. As we had 4 aircraft carriers at the time even had we lost 1 we would still have had 3 to replace it and could still have continued with the Task Force with them
A) The object of war was not to sink Argentina ships, in fact we made a point of avoiding doing so and could have done so at will, hence the fuss over the Belgrano.The objective was to reclaim the Falklands which we could not have done without the aircraft carriers which were at risk from exocets.
B ) I have never said we should not of reclaimed the Falklands. I just said it wasn't easy like you claim. It was a really big task and not a foregone conclusion or easy like you said.
C) W were never going to launch a nuke on Argentina. You are being ridiculous.
D) And we only had 2 aircraft carriers, Hermes and Invincible not 4.
E) Your comments disrespect the brave men who fought that war and the politicians who made the decisions. It was not easy. It was hard. Many died and it was not a foregone conclusion.
We had 4 aircraft carriers, Hermes, Invincible, Ark Royal and Illustrious
What?
We had scrapped Ark Royal (R09) and its replacement (R07) would not be commissioned until 1985. HMS Hermes was being sold to India. We had to hurriedly undo the sale. HMS Illustrious wasn't ready - it was rushed through commissioning in order to get it to the Falklands. And still didn't get there in time.
At the time war broke out, we technically had one serviceable aircraft carrier (technically, through-deck cruiser), HMS Invincible. We undid the sale of HMS Hermes, and rushed HMS Illustrious through commissioning well ahead of schedule; fortunately, it went well.
So we got from 1-maybe-2 up to trying-to-get-3-in-time but not managing it. We never had four. We were never anywhere near four. Why do you think we had four?
P.S. There is no way the Falklands was easy, straightforward, or a done deal. You don't know what you're talking about.
(Disclosure: I, with many others, covered Op CORPORATE in depth in my Intermediate Command and Staff Course at the Defence Academy, spent a few months in the Falklands in the Nineties on detachment there so I could see the terrain, and went on Invincible a couple of times)
The original point (which you have obviously arrived late at) was that Thatcher was prepared to go to war with Argentina to defend the Falklands but not China over Hong Kong, hence she agreed to the handover of the latter but not the former. We could defend overseas territories where they wanted to stay British and the only other nations that wanted them were weaker than us but not against nations stronger than us. Hence Thatcher would also not have gone to war with Russia over Ukraine despite Heathener's remarks to the contrary.
In 1982 we had a better trained army, pilots and a bigger navy than Argentina and we also had submarines with nuclear weapons which Argentina did not have. So in the end we would win it regardless. Now of course the Argentine military is even weaker then then.
We also won it with 2 aircraft carriers like now but had the war continued for several years then Ark Royal and Illustrious would have been included in the Task Force too
“So I’m the end we would win it regardless”.
Never spoken to anyone who was there or read up on it then?
War isn’t Top Trumps.
We beat Argentina then and we would beat Argentina now.
Ultimately we would win no matter what the cost and we won it by conventional forces and our armed forces were stronger than Argentina's then and are stronger than Argentina's now.
As I also stated as a last resort had we not won it with conventional forces we had nuclear weapons which Argentina did not have to use as a last resort to defend the British territory of the Falklands and hit Argentine military bases in Argentina
You're insane.
We never had nuclear weapons to attack Argentina with.
We were not using them to attack Argentina with.
It was Argentina's decision to invade the Falklands knowing full well we were a nuclear power with nuclear weapons.
Had we not won with conventional forces then by their invasion Argentina risked a nuclear missile attack launched by a British submarine on Argentina. That was the risk they took by the invasion, nuclear weapons being our weapon of last resort to defend British territory (which includes the Falklands)
You do realise that everyone can read this thread and see your original posts where you comment on it being easy don't you? Trying to twist and turn by changing the subject is obvious to everyone.
We were never going to use nukes. We didn't even attack Argentina other than sabotage attempts on planes. We also restricted attacks on shipping to the exclusion zone, hence the issues that arise over the Belgrano.
We had one objective to win back the Falklands, nothing else and your comments saying it was easy and not difficult (see above) is ignorant and insulting to the service men involved. The fact you can not bring yourself to apologize for this is appalling. I would like to see you say that to their face.
Just remembering my father (an ex RN man) watching the news at the time. He was completely shaken by the news, especially when the Argentinians started sinking ships.
It was arguably only a few dodgy bomb fuzes that were the margin between vicxtory and defeat - or indeed other elements, such as the sinking of the Atlantic Conveyor in mistake for a through-deck cruiser.
IIRC weren't we almost out of ammo and supplies too? That they surrendered when they did rather than defend Stanley was the decisive factor. We could have lost.
She was quite prepared to go to war with Argentina over the Falklands as we could easily beat them.
There was nothing easy about it and we very nearly didn't.
Not much more would have had to go wrong for the operation to fail.
Rubbish.
We very easily beat them once we committed to the task force.
The Argentines were poorly trained and full of conscrips even more than the Russians and Thatcher of course sunk the Belgrano without much difficulty
If you speak to anyone who was there then you would know that is rubbish.
We had a more effective army than Argentina and a bigger navy and better trained pilots.
It was not that difficult. Plus of course we had submarines with nuclear missiles and Argentina did not have nuclear weapons.
Russia however does have nuclear weapons
You really do talk nonsense . We lost the Atlantic Conveyor to exocets which was a huge blow. If we had lost an aircraft carrier in the same way there would have been no way of getting troops to the Falklands as we would not have had air cover. That would have been a fatal blow.
It makes not a joy of difference that we had better soldiers, navy and air force if you can't get any of them there.
So what, we still sunk more Argentine ships than they sunk of ours which is the main aim in war.
Thatcher was also not a wet lettuce like you and had the Argentines sunk our aircraft carrier she might even have nuked Buenos Aires who knows. She was not going to lose that war.
However that would have been an absolute last resort to defend the Falklands if we had lost a our aircraft carriers. As we had 4 aircraft carriers at the time even had we lost 1 we would still have had 3 to replace it and could still have continued with the Task Force with them
A) The object of war was not to sink Argentina ships, in fact we made a point of avoiding doing so and could have done so at will, hence the fuss over the Belgrano.The objective was to reclaim the Falklands which we could not have done without the aircraft carriers which were at risk from exocets.
B ) I have never said we should not of reclaimed the Falklands. I just said it wasn't easy like you claim. It was a really big task and not a foregone conclusion or easy like you said.
C) W were never going to launch a nuke on Argentina. You are being ridiculous.
D) And we only had 2 aircraft carriers, Hermes and Invincible not 4.
E) Your comments disrespect the brave men who fought that war and the politicians who made the decisions. It was not easy. It was hard. Many died and it was not a foregone conclusion.
We had 4 aircraft carriers, Hermes, Invincible, Ark Royal and Illustrious
What?
We had scrapped Ark Royal (R09) and its replacement (R07) would not be commissioned until 1985. HMS Hermes was being sold to India. We had to hurriedly undo the sale. HMS Illustrious wasn't ready - it was rushed through commissioning in order to get it to the Falklands. And still didn't get there in time.
At the time war broke out, we technically had one serviceable aircraft carrier (technically, through-deck cruiser), HMS Invincible. We undid the sale of HMS Hermes, and rushed HMS Illustrious through commissioning well ahead of schedule; fortunately, it went well.
So we got from 1-maybe-2 up to trying-to-get-3-in-time but not managing it. We never had four. We were never anywhere near four. Why do you think we had four?
P.S. There is no way the Falklands was easy, straightforward, or a done deal. You don't know what you're talking about.
(Disclosure: I, with many others, covered Op CORPORATE in depth in my Intermediate Command and Staff Course at the Defence Academy, spent a few months in the Falklands in the Nineties on detachment there so I could see the terrain, and went on Invincible a couple of times)
The original point (which you have obviously arrived late at) was that Thatcher was prepared to go to war with Argentina to defend the Falklands but not China over Hong Kong, hence she agreed to the handover of the latter but not the former. We could defend overseas territories where they wanted to stay British and the only other nations that wanted them were weaker than us but not against nations stronger than us. Hence Thatcher would also not have gone to war with Russia over Ukraine despite Heathener's remarks to the contrary.
In 1982 we had a better trained army, pilots and a bigger navy than Argentina and we also had submarines with nuclear weapons which Argentina did not have. So in the end we would win it regardless. Now of course the Argentine military is even weaker then then.
We also won it with 2 aircraft carriers like now but had the war continued for several years then Ark Royal and Illustrious would have been included in the Task Force too
“So I’m the end we would win it regardless”.
Never spoken to anyone who was there or read up on it then?
War isn’t Top Trumps.
We beat Argentina then and we would beat Argentina now.
Ultimately we would win no matter what the cost and we won it by conventional forces and our armed forces were stronger than Argentina's then and are stronger than Argentina's now.
As I also stated as a last resort had we not won it with conventional forces we had nuclear weapons which Argentina did not have to use as a last resort to defend the British territory of the Falklands and hit Argentine military bases in Argentina
You're insane.
We never had nuclear weapons to attack Argentina with.
We were not using them to attack Argentina with.
It was Argentina's decision to invade the Falklands knowing full well we were a nuclear power with nuclear weapons.
Had we not won with conventional forces then by their invasion Argentina risked a nuclear missile attack launched by a British submarine on Argentina. That was the risk they took by the invasion, nuclear weapons being our weapon of last resort to defend British territory (which includes the Falklands)
You do realise that everyone can read this thread and see your original posts where you comment on it being easy don't you? Trying to twist and turn by changing the subject is obvious to everyone.
We were never going to use nukes. We didn't even attack Argentina other than sabotage attempts on planes. We also restricted attacks on shipping to the exclusion zone, hence the issues that arise over the Belgrano.
We had one objective to win back the Falklands, nothing else and your comments saying it was easy and not difficult (see above) is ignorant and insulting to the service men involved. The fact you can not bring yourself to apologize for this is appalling. I would like to see you say that to their face.
Yes, my original post (which you have still not bothered to find) made at 8 32 am this morning.
'No she wouldn't, Thatcher was a realist about what the UK could do militarily.
She was quite prepared to go to war with Argentina over the Falklands as we could easily beat them. However she never threatened the USSR militarily and she agreed to stick to the Hong Kong handover to China as she knew we could not beat them militarily either'
How do you know we were never going to use nukes? You were not Thatcher, you were a wet SDP Liberal I expect at the time.
We never needed to try as we won the war with conventional forces and without going too far beyond the Falklands and surrounding area.
Had we not won the war with conventional forces anything would have been on the table to defend British territory and that has zero to do with the sacrifices of our forces in the war
I think Reagan and the US Govt would have had quite a lot to say if nuclear weapons had got anywhere near being used. And none of it would have been supportive. The US is very touchy about what happens in what it considers it's backyard.
I also hope we've not paid blackmail to let her go free.
You are brighter than this Barty. Remember that bit in Three Kings they explained what it’s all about by pouring oil down his throat?
Message intercepted to Moscow from Iranian Committee for Building Relationships with Infidels and Heretics. ++Thank you for the £400M of British tax payer money. ++We have new markets for our oil despite being gulfs bad guys for goodness knows how long ++hard cheese as our new best buddies say ++Enjoy hell with the Great Satan
Slight correction, the £400 million was for tanks that we never delivered, due to the Iranian revolution. It is, legally, Iranian money. So we are giving them their own money back.
Oh Malmesbury! If that much is true, why didn’t we bung them the lolly years ago?
Barty is right in that it’s kidnapping and blackmailnand we have paid the ransom. I’m right in so much as why we have now paid ransom, if Putin didn’t turn like a snake in the grass, we were still on course to suckle from his energy nipples and no need to wheen off him, at what point do you think we would have paid this honest invoice we have sat on for 43 years?
The fact that it’s ludicrous to defend has to be give away we are doing something wrong.
Pre revolution (1979) we were selling the Shah 1500 tanks. We delivered a couple of hundred. The cash is the balance.
After the revolution Iran was all "Death to the West!" - so the money sat in a bank account. Then there was Salman Rushdie and a bunch of financing terrorism around the world.
There is/was a similar situation with the US having a similar debt.
Revolutions and ideologies are all very well and good, but the prospect of giving up cold hard cash makes people much less willing to break with every element of a regime they overthrew.
The speaker's not got that wrong: Salisbury was not 12 years ago, and is relevant.
For those not watching, context?
I'd have to re-watch it to accurately get the context. With that caveat: the DPM was answering a question from Rayner, and he mentioned Labour's reaction to the Salisbury attack (*). The speaker then said that events 12 years before were irrelevant. Hope that was right...
(*) As we saw on ehre the other day, some Labourites are in denial over Corbyn's actions.
From this Labourite:
1) Corbyn's response to the Salisbury attack was dreadful, we all know that. 2) Bringing up Corbyn in response to today's issues about Ukraine, Iran and so forth is a complete red herring, and smacks of desperation. Starmer is leader now, and he's clearly very different.
Starmer was in Corbyn's shadow cabinet at the time of Salisbury. wasn't he?
And Ange. And they both stayed there in full throated support until the bitter end.
She was quite prepared to go to war with Argentina over the Falklands as we could easily beat them.
There was nothing easy about it and we very nearly didn't.
Not much more would have had to go wrong for the operation to fail.
Rubbish.
We very easily beat them once we committed to the task force.
The Argentines were poorly trained and full of conscrips even more than the Russians and Thatcher of course sunk the Belgrano without much difficulty
If you speak to anyone who was there then you would know that is rubbish.
We had a more effective army than Argentina and a bigger navy and better trained pilots.
It was not that difficult. Plus of course we had submarines with nuclear missiles and Argentina did not have nuclear weapons.
Russia however does have nuclear weapons
You really do talk nonsense . We lost the Atlantic Conveyor to exocets which was a huge blow. If we had lost an aircraft carrier in the same way there would have been no way of getting troops to the Falklands as we would not have had air cover. That would have been a fatal blow.
It makes not a joy of difference that we had better soldiers, navy and air force if you can't get any of them there.
So what, we still sunk more Argentine ships than they sunk of ours which is the main aim in war.
Thatcher was also not a wet lettuce like you and had the Argentines sunk our aircraft carrier she might even have nuked Buenos Aires who knows. She was not going to lose that war.
However that would have been an absolute last resort to defend the Falklands if we had lost a our aircraft carriers. As we had 4 aircraft carriers at the time even had we lost 1 we would still have had 3 to replace it and could still have continued with the Task Force with them
A) The object of war was not to sink Argentina ships, in fact we made a point of avoiding doing so and could have done so at will, hence the fuss over the Belgrano.The objective was to reclaim the Falklands which we could not have done without the aircraft carriers which were at risk from exocets.
B ) I have never said we should not of reclaimed the Falklands. I just said it wasn't easy like you claim. It was a really big task and not a foregone conclusion or easy like you said.
C) W were never going to launch a nuke on Argentina. You are being ridiculous.
D) And we only had 2 aircraft carriers, Hermes and Invincible not 4.
E) Your comments disrespect the brave men who fought that war and the politicians who made the decisions. It was not easy. It was hard. Many died and it was not a foregone conclusion.
We had 4 aircraft carriers, Hermes, Invincible, Ark Royal and Illustrious
What?
We had scrapped Ark Royal (R09) and its replacement (R07) would not be commissioned until 1985. HMS Hermes was being sold to India. We had to hurriedly undo the sale. HMS Illustrious wasn't ready - it was rushed through commissioning in order to get it to the Falklands. And still didn't get there in time.
At the time war broke out, we technically had one serviceable aircraft carrier (technically, through-deck cruiser), HMS Invincible. We undid the sale of HMS Hermes, and rushed HMS Illustrious through commissioning well ahead of schedule; fortunately, it went well.
So we got from 1-maybe-2 up to trying-to-get-3-in-time but not managing it. We never had four. We were never anywhere near four. Why do you think we had four?
P.S. There is no way the Falklands was easy, straightforward, or a done deal. You don't know what you're talking about.
(Disclosure: I, with many others, covered Op CORPORATE in depth in my Intermediate Command and Staff Course at the Defence Academy, spent a few months in the Falklands in the Nineties on detachment there so I could see the terrain, and went on Invincible a couple of times)
The original point (which you have obviously arrived late at) was that Thatcher was prepared to go to war with Argentina to defend the Falklands but not China over Hong Kong, hence she agreed to the handover of the latter but not the former. We could defend overseas territories where they wanted to stay British and the only other nations that wanted them were weaker than us but not against nations stronger than us. Hence Thatcher would also not have gone to war with Russia over Ukraine despite Heathener's remarks to the contrary.
In 1982 we had a better trained army, pilots and a bigger navy than Argentina and we also had submarines with nuclear weapons which Argentina did not have. So in the end we would win it regardless. Now of course the Argentine military is even weaker then then.
We also won it with 2 aircraft carriers like now but had the war continued for several years then Ark Royal and Illustrious would have been included in the Task Force too
“So I’m the end we would win it regardless”.
Never spoken to anyone who was there or read up on it then?
War isn’t Top Trumps.
We beat Argentina then and we would beat Argentina now.
Ultimately we would win no matter what the cost and we won it by conventional forces and our armed forces were stronger than Argentina's then and are stronger than Argentina's now.
As I also stated as a last resort had we not won it with conventional forces we had nuclear weapons which Argentina did not have to use as a last resort to defend the British territory of the Falklands and hit Argentine military bases in Argentina
1) Now, with the garrison and the current state of Argentina, is indeed very different. Then, they were a very serious threat, especially at that distance. Read up on it or speak to people.
2) We would NEVER have used nuclear weapons in a first strike against a non-nuclear armed country. That’s disgusting. Have a word with yourself.
2) We may well have done. Any UK PM who rules out the use of our nuclear weapons as a last resort to defend the UK or British territory if invaded and defence by conventional forces fails is not tough enough for the job.
Thatcher certainly would not have done. Indeed we would be more likely to use them against a non-nuclear armed invading country as they could not respond with a nuclear weapon against us themselves. Pure realpolitik
She wouldn't have been PM any more, after the kind of conventional defeat that she was risking.
Hence had she faced loss of a conventional war by our conventional forces, which fortunately she did not, you cannot rule out she would have given Argentina 48 hours to withdraw from the Falklands or ordered a British submarine to launch a Polaris nuclear missile on a military base in Argentina
I also hope we've not paid blackmail to let her go free.
You are brighter than this Barty. Remember that bit in Three Kings they explained what it’s all about by pouring oil down his throat?
Message intercepted to Moscow from Iranian Committee for Building Relationships with Infidels and Heretics. ++Thank you for the £400M of British tax payer money. ++We have new markets for our oil despite being gulfs bad guys for goodness knows how long ++hard cheese as our new best buddies say ++Enjoy hell with the Great Satan
Slight correction, the £400 million was for tanks that we never delivered, due to the Iranian revolution. It is, legally, Iranian money. So we are giving them their own money back.
Oh Malmesbury! If that much is true, why didn’t we bung them the lolly years ago?
Barty is right in that it’s kidnapping and blackmailnand we have paid the ransom. I’m right in so much as why we have now paid ransom, if Putin didn’t turn like a snake in the grass, we were still on course to suckle from his energy nipples and no need to wheen off him, at what point do you think we would have paid this honest invoice we have sat on for 43 years?
The fact that it’s ludicrous to defend has to be give away we are doing something wrong.
We shouldn't have withheld their money in the first place.
We should have supported both regimes - the Shah and the one who over threw him? Or put another way, we tried to get him tanks to kill the people who over throw him, you reckon we should give The money back to the people who over through him in first place?
Some people find it a bit hard to give money to people who are screaming "Death to You!" non stop.....
It is bemusing how many people here simultaneously seem to think that it is reasonable for the Iranians to hold hostages until an entirely unrelated debt gets settled, and that somehow what a British Minister said in response to their hostage taking is the reason the hostages were being held.
The only people responsible for the Iranians taking hostages are the Iranians.
It's true, and its state piracy (and pretty blatantly too). In international relations to do whatever you feel you can get away with, as recent events have demonstrated, so we can but hope that we don't have too many other threads like this that awful regimes can exploit.
The speaker's not got that wrong: Salisbury was not 12 years ago, and is relevant.
For those not watching, context?
I'd have to re-watch it to accurately get the context. With that caveat: the DPM was answering a question from Rayner, and he mentioned Labour's reaction to the Salisbury attack (*). The speaker then said that events 12 years before were irrelevant. Hope that was right...
(*) As we saw on ehre the other day, some Labourites are in denial over Corbyn's actions.
From this Labourite:
1) Corbyn's response to the Salisbury attack was dreadful, we all know that. 2) Bringing up Corbyn in response to today's issues about Ukraine, Iran and so forth is a complete red herring, and smacks of desperation. Starmer is leader now, and he's clearly very different.
Labour are (rightly) going on about the PMs and the Conservative Party's links to Russia. Why is it wrong to point out that the Labour Party's previous leader was (ahem) rather friendly towards Russia, and in denial over their culpability for a hideous attack on our own soil?
How current those matters are is relevant, and so a line between mentioning and relying desperately on and overdoing it.
The Tories on here are weirdly, dangerously obsessed with Corbyn – a bloke who is not even a Labour MP anymore never mind being leader (having been kicked out by, er, the actual leader).
It's all rather creepy and sinister, this infatuation.
It is bemusing how many people here simultaneously seem to think that it is reasonable for the Iranians to hold hostages until an entirely unrelated debt gets settled, and that somehow what a British Minister said in response to their hostage taking is the reason the hostages were being held.
The only people responsible for the Iranians taking hostages are the Iranians.
Some people can handle nuance shocker. An aggressive desire to shut down what are incorrectly perceived to be "unpatriotic" opinions is a rare downside of this site.
The following can all be true.
Iran is responsible for taking hostages. Boris was irresponsible for his words. The UKs withholding Irans cash is not clear cut, or at least has not been throughout its 40+ year history.
Posters mentioning the second two points should be allowed to do so, without being accused of denying the first.
That's not nuance. This comes back to the earlier linguistics conversation, context matters.
If you are bringing up the second points in isolation then absolutely that's OK. If you're bringing up the latter as a justification/reason for Iran taking hostages, then its unmitigated bullshit.
Its like saying in response to someone being raped "but they were wearing a short skirt" "oh and they were drunk".
She was quite prepared to go to war with Argentina over the Falklands as we could easily beat them.
There was nothing easy about it and we very nearly didn't.
Not much more would have had to go wrong for the operation to fail.
Rubbish.
We very easily beat them once we committed to the task force.
The Argentines were poorly trained and full of conscrips even more than the Russians and Thatcher of course sunk the Belgrano without much difficulty
If you speak to anyone who was there then you would know that is rubbish.
We had a more effective army than Argentina and a bigger navy and better trained pilots.
It was not that difficult. Plus of course we had submarines with nuclear missiles and Argentina did not have nuclear weapons.
Russia however does have nuclear weapons
You really do talk nonsense . We lost the Atlantic Conveyor to exocets which was a huge blow. If we had lost an aircraft carrier in the same way there would have been no way of getting troops to the Falklands as we would not have had air cover. That would have been a fatal blow.
It makes not a joy of difference that we had better soldiers, navy and air force if you can't get any of them there.
So what, we still sunk more Argentine ships than they sunk of ours which is the main aim in war.
Thatcher was also not a wet lettuce like you and had the Argentines sunk our aircraft carrier she might even have nuked Buenos Aires who knows. She was not going to lose that war.
However that would have been an absolute last resort to defend the Falklands if we had lost a our aircraft carriers. As we had 4 aircraft carriers at the time even had we lost 1 we would still have had 3 to replace it and could still have continued with the Task Force with them
A) The object of war was not to sink Argentina ships, in fact we made a point of avoiding doing so and could have done so at will, hence the fuss over the Belgrano.The objective was to reclaim the Falklands which we could not have done without the aircraft carriers which were at risk from exocets.
B ) I have never said we should not of reclaimed the Falklands. I just said it wasn't easy like you claim. It was a really big task and not a foregone conclusion or easy like you said.
C) W were never going to launch a nuke on Argentina. You are being ridiculous.
D) And we only had 2 aircraft carriers, Hermes and Invincible not 4.
E) Your comments disrespect the brave men who fought that war and the politicians who made the decisions. It was not easy. It was hard. Many died and it was not a foregone conclusion.
We had 4 aircraft carriers, Hermes, Invincible, Ark Royal and Illustrious
What?
We had scrapped Ark Royal (R09) and its replacement (R07) would not be commissioned until 1985. HMS Hermes was being sold to India. We had to hurriedly undo the sale. HMS Illustrious wasn't ready - it was rushed through commissioning in order to get it to the Falklands. And still didn't get there in time.
At the time war broke out, we technically had one serviceable aircraft carrier (technically, through-deck cruiser), HMS Invincible. We undid the sale of HMS Hermes, and rushed HMS Illustrious through commissioning well ahead of schedule; fortunately, it went well.
So we got from 1-maybe-2 up to trying-to-get-3-in-time but not managing it. We never had four. We were never anywhere near four. Why do you think we had four?
P.S. There is no way the Falklands was easy, straightforward, or a done deal. You don't know what you're talking about.
(Disclosure: I, with many others, covered Op CORPORATE in depth in my Intermediate Command and Staff Course at the Defence Academy, spent a few months in the Falklands in the Nineties on detachment there so I could see the terrain, and went on Invincible a couple of times)
The original point (which you have obviously arrived late at) was that Thatcher was prepared to go to war with Argentina to defend the Falklands but not China over Hong Kong, hence she agreed to the handover of the latter but not the former. We could defend overseas territories where they wanted to stay British and the only other nations that wanted them were weaker than us but not against nations stronger than us. Hence Thatcher would also not have gone to war with Russia over Ukraine despite Heathener's remarks to the contrary.
In 1982 we had a better trained army, pilots and a bigger navy than Argentina and we also had submarines with nuclear weapons which Argentina did not have. So in the end we would win it regardless. Now of course the Argentine military is even weaker then then.
We also won it with 2 aircraft carriers like now but had the war continued for several years then Ark Royal and Illustrious would have been included in the Task Force too
“So I’m the end we would win it regardless”.
Never spoken to anyone who was there or read up on it then?
War isn’t Top Trumps.
We beat Argentina then and we would beat Argentina now.
Ultimately we would win no matter what the cost and we won it by conventional forces and our armed forces were stronger than Argentina's then and are stronger than Argentina's now.
As I also stated as a last resort had we not won it with conventional forces we had nuclear weapons which Argentina did not have to use as a last resort to defend the British territory of the Falklands and hit Argentine military bases in Argentina
1) Now, with the garrison and the current state of Argentina, is indeed very different. Then, they were a very serious threat, especially at that distance. Read up on it or speak to people.
2) We would NEVER have used nuclear weapons in a first strike against a non-nuclear armed country. That’s disgusting. Have a word with yourself.
2) We may well have done. Any UK PM who rules out the use of our nuclear weapons as a last resort to defend the UK or British territory if invaded and defence by conventional forces fails is not tough enough for the job.
Thatcher certainly would not have done. Indeed we would be more likely to use them against a non-nuclear armed invading country as they could not respond with a nuclear weapon against us themselves. Pure realpolitik
Oh god, you really mean it.
Thankfully, actual British policy on the use of the deterrent is very different.
No it isn't. We have nuclear weapons to defend the UK and British territory as a last resort, the Falkland Islands are and were British overseas territory
You’re never going to be allowed anywhere near a decision making role. However if someone mad enough did that take view in Government, and threatened to use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear state, then large parts of MOD and the FCO would resign in protest rather than act on those orders. I’m far from sure a sub captain would obey the order to launch.
If we launched, or went around threatening to, then he US and NATO would drop us, and we’d (rightly) be an international pariah.
I also hope we've not paid blackmail to let her go free.
You are brighter than this Barty. Remember that bit in Three Kings they explained what it’s all about by pouring oil down his throat?
Message intercepted to Moscow from Iranian Committee for Building Relationships with Infidels and Heretics. ++Thank you for the £400M of British tax payer money. ++We have new markets for our oil despite being gulfs bad guys for goodness knows how long ++hard cheese as our new best buddies say ++Enjoy hell with the Great Satan
Slight correction, the £400 million was for tanks that we never delivered, due to the Iranian revolution. It is, legally, Iranian money. So we are giving them their own money back.
Oh Malmesbury! If that much is true, why didn’t we bung them the lolly years ago?
Barty is right in that it’s kidnapping and blackmailnand we have paid the ransom. I’m right in so much as why we have now paid ransom, if Putin didn’t turn like a snake in the grass, we were still on course to suckle from his energy nipples and no need to wheen off him, at what point do you think we would have paid this honest invoice we have sat on for 43 years?
The fact that it’s ludicrous to defend has to be give away we are doing something wrong.
It’s easy to defend. It’s realpolitik
Sadly, before Ukraine, the British hostages suffered because we had a grievance with Iran which was deemed more important than 2 people. Now the grievance seems way more trivial, as the world needs Iranian oil
The west gets non-Russian oil. Iran gets its £400m. Russia loses leverage. Two hostages are released. Pressure in the MENA eases, at least slightly
Win win win win win. So it happened
If you describe it as realpolitik and so easy to defend like that yes, Leon, that is a true description of what is happening, the point is Malmesbury wasn’t, he was saying, like Jeremy Hunt has been saying, it’s just an honest late paid bill no strings attached, certainly not a ransom.
So you and I agree, it can’t be described as Malmesbury did because it sounds laughable in the face of the realpolitik? Agreed?
Now to take your ludicrous realpolitik win win win win nonsense apart. The strongest maxim to follow for a truly ethical foreign policy is, if you are friend of the bastard doing bad things, then you are the bastard doing bad things too.
So what to do when you need the oil, yet oil supplies are in the hands of the bastards? As the Iranians said in their communique to Putin, we have new friends, and our new friends say hard cheese to you.
It's sort of a ransom - but its their money. The hold up in paying was because we don't like their government and they don't like us.
There's tons of stuff like this in international relations - sums frozen between enemies. I'm pretty sure there is some US/Cuban stuff, for example.
One chap made a mint at the end of the Cold War. He collected the certificates for Imperial Russian Government bonds. After the revolution, the Bolsheviks defaulted on them. People bought them because the looked pretty.
As part of Russia rejoining the international community, they honoured the bonds. Inflation had meant that millions which were awesome in 1910 were trivial in 199X. But for the chap actually owning them....
“ It's sort of a ransom “. I’m glad we’ve talked you round into admitting bloody obvious. But that’s really interesting what you shared about defaulted debt, because any second history is about to repeat itself. Buying Russian debt may be a great business idea right now?
The Tories on here are weirdly, dangerously obsessed with Corbyn – a bloke who is not even a Labour MP anymore never mind being leader (having been kicked out by, er, the actual leader).
It's all rather creepy and sinister, this infatuation.
The Tories on here are weirdly, dangerously obsessed with Corbyn – a bloke who is not even a Labour MP anymore never mind being leader (having been kicked out by, er, the actual leader).
It's all rather creepy and sinister, this infatuation.
As creepy and sinister as Labour’s obsession with Thatcher, when she hadn’t been near power for a decade or more?
She was quite prepared to go to war with Argentina over the Falklands as we could easily beat them.
There was nothing easy about it and we very nearly didn't.
Not much more would have had to go wrong for the operation to fail.
Rubbish.
We very easily beat them once we committed to the task force.
The Argentines were poorly trained and full of conscrips even more than the Russians and Thatcher of course sunk the Belgrano without much difficulty
If you speak to anyone who was there then you would know that is rubbish.
We had a more effective army than Argentina and a bigger navy and better trained pilots.
It was not that difficult. Plus of course we had submarines with nuclear missiles and Argentina did not have nuclear weapons.
Russia however does have nuclear weapons
You really do talk nonsense . We lost the Atlantic Conveyor to exocets which was a huge blow. If we had lost an aircraft carrier in the same way there would have been no way of getting troops to the Falklands as we would not have had air cover. That would have been a fatal blow.
It makes not a joy of difference that we had better soldiers, navy and air force if you can't get any of them there.
So what, we still sunk more Argentine ships than they sunk of ours which is the main aim in war.
Thatcher was also not a wet lettuce like you and had the Argentines sunk our aircraft carrier she might even have nuked Buenos Aires who knows. She was not going to lose that war.
However that would have been an absolute last resort to defend the Falklands if we had lost a our aircraft carriers. As we had 4 aircraft carriers at the time even had we lost 1 we would still have had 3 to replace it and could still have continued with the Task Force with them
A) The object of war was not to sink Argentina ships, in fact we made a point of avoiding doing so and could have done so at will, hence the fuss over the Belgrano.The objective was to reclaim the Falklands which we could not have done without the aircraft carriers which were at risk from exocets.
B ) I have never said we should not of reclaimed the Falklands. I just said it wasn't easy like you claim. It was a really big task and not a foregone conclusion or easy like you said.
C) W were never going to launch a nuke on Argentina. You are being ridiculous.
D) And we only had 2 aircraft carriers, Hermes and Invincible not 4.
E) Your comments disrespect the brave men who fought that war and the politicians who made the decisions. It was not easy. It was hard. Many died and it was not a foregone conclusion.
We had 4 aircraft carriers, Hermes, Invincible, Ark Royal and Illustrious
What?
We had scrapped Ark Royal (R09) and its replacement (R07) would not be commissioned until 1985. HMS Hermes was being sold to India. We had to hurriedly undo the sale. HMS Illustrious wasn't ready - it was rushed through commissioning in order to get it to the Falklands. And still didn't get there in time.
At the time war broke out, we technically had one serviceable aircraft carrier (technically, through-deck cruiser), HMS Invincible. We undid the sale of HMS Hermes, and rushed HMS Illustrious through commissioning well ahead of schedule; fortunately, it went well.
So we got from 1-maybe-2 up to trying-to-get-3-in-time but not managing it. We never had four. We were never anywhere near four. Why do you think we had four?
P.S. There is no way the Falklands was easy, straightforward, or a done deal. You don't know what you're talking about.
(Disclosure: I, with many others, covered Op CORPORATE in depth in my Intermediate Command and Staff Course at the Defence Academy, spent a few months in the Falklands in the Nineties on detachment there so I could see the terrain, and went on Invincible a couple of times)
The original point (which you have obviously arrived late at) was that Thatcher was prepared to go to war with Argentina to defend the Falklands but not China over Hong Kong, hence she agreed to the handover of the latter but not the former. We could defend overseas territories where they wanted to stay British and the only other nations that wanted them were weaker than us but not against nations stronger than us. Hence Thatcher would also not have gone to war with Russia over Ukraine despite Heathener's remarks to the contrary.
In 1982 we had a better trained army, pilots and a bigger navy than Argentina and we also had submarines with nuclear weapons which Argentina did not have. So in the end we would win it regardless. Now of course the Argentine military is even weaker then then.
We also won it with 2 aircraft carriers like now but had the war continued for several years then Ark Royal and Illustrious would have been included in the Task Force too
“So I’m the end we would win it regardless”.
Never spoken to anyone who was there or read up on it then?
War isn’t Top Trumps.
We beat Argentina then and we would beat Argentina now.
Ultimately we would win no matter what the cost and we won it by conventional forces and our armed forces were stronger than Argentina's then and are stronger than Argentina's now.
As I also stated as a last resort had we not won it with conventional forces we had nuclear weapons which Argentina did not have to use as a last resort to defend the British territory of the Falklands and hit Argentine military bases in Argentina
1) Now, with the garrison and the current state of Argentina, is indeed very different. Then, they were a very serious threat, especially at that distance. Read up on it or speak to people.
2) We would NEVER have used nuclear weapons in a first strike against a non-nuclear armed country. That’s disgusting. Have a word with yourself.
2) We may well have done. Any UK PM who rules out the use of our nuclear weapons as a last resort to defend the UK or British territory if invaded and defence by conventional forces fails is not tough enough for the job.
Thatcher certainly would not have done. Indeed we would be more likely to use them against a non-nuclear armed invading country as they could not respond with a nuclear weapon against us themselves. Pure realpolitik
These are strategic nuclear weapons - I don't know what the payload is, but we are talking world changing destruction. Nobody would do that to defend or attack in a conventional war. If you want the British PM to be armed with a range of nuclear options, that's fine, but that means you need to argue for a range of tactical nuclear warheads and delivery options, either in addition to, or instead of Trident. Both of which have arguments for and against. But don't pretend Trident is it.
In 1982 we had Polaris, not Trident.
Though the Argentine military is weaker now
His point was even more true of Polaris than Trident…
"We need to talk about #Westplaining. "It’s a term coined by the Eastern European left to describe a tendency of certain Western leftists to ascribe everything that happens east of Germany to Western policy."
Works much wider than that (and not merely from leftists). There's a lot of infantilising commentary around the ME putting everything that occurs there down to Iraq and Post WW1 boundary drawing, which are certainly very significant but cannot be said to make up the entirety of historic tensions in the region which go back a long long way, or entirely remove agency of local participants.
She was quite prepared to go to war with Argentina over the Falklands as we could easily beat them.
There was nothing easy about it and we very nearly didn't.
Not much more would have had to go wrong for the operation to fail.
Rubbish.
We very easily beat them once we committed to the task force.
The Argentines were poorly trained and full of conscrips even more than the Russians and Thatcher of course sunk the Belgrano without much difficulty
If you speak to anyone who was there then you would know that is rubbish.
We had a more effective army than Argentina and a bigger navy and better trained pilots.
It was not that difficult. Plus of course we had submarines with nuclear missiles and Argentina did not have nuclear weapons.
Russia however does have nuclear weapons
You really do talk nonsense . We lost the Atlantic Conveyor to exocets which was a huge blow. If we had lost an aircraft carrier in the same way there would have been no way of getting troops to the Falklands as we would not have had air cover. That would have been a fatal blow.
It makes not a joy of difference that we had better soldiers, navy and air force if you can't get any of them there.
So what, we still sunk more Argentine ships than they sunk of ours which is the main aim in war.
Thatcher was also not a wet lettuce like you and had the Argentines sunk our aircraft carrier she might even have nuked Buenos Aires who knows. She was not going to lose that war.
However that would have been an absolute last resort to defend the Falklands if we had lost a our aircraft carriers. As we had 4 aircraft carriers at the time even had we lost 1 we would still have had 3 to replace it and could still have continued with the Task Force with them
A) The object of war was not to sink Argentina ships, in fact we made a point of avoiding doing so and could have done so at will, hence the fuss over the Belgrano.The objective was to reclaim the Falklands which we could not have done without the aircraft carriers which were at risk from exocets.
B ) I have never said we should not of reclaimed the Falklands. I just said it wasn't easy like you claim. It was a really big task and not a foregone conclusion or easy like you said.
C) W were never going to launch a nuke on Argentina. You are being ridiculous.
D) And we only had 2 aircraft carriers, Hermes and Invincible not 4.
E) Your comments disrespect the brave men who fought that war and the politicians who made the decisions. It was not easy. It was hard. Many died and it was not a foregone conclusion.
We had 4 aircraft carriers, Hermes, Invincible, Ark Royal and Illustrious
What?
We had scrapped Ark Royal (R09) and its replacement (R07) would not be commissioned until 1985. HMS Hermes was being sold to India. We had to hurriedly undo the sale. HMS Illustrious wasn't ready - it was rushed through commissioning in order to get it to the Falklands. And still didn't get there in time.
At the time war broke out, we technically had one serviceable aircraft carrier (technically, through-deck cruiser), HMS Invincible. We undid the sale of HMS Hermes, and rushed HMS Illustrious through commissioning well ahead of schedule; fortunately, it went well.
So we got from 1-maybe-2 up to trying-to-get-3-in-time but not managing it. We never had four. We were never anywhere near four. Why do you think we had four?
P.S. There is no way the Falklands was easy, straightforward, or a done deal. You don't know what you're talking about.
(Disclosure: I, with many others, covered Op CORPORATE in depth in my Intermediate Command and Staff Course at the Defence Academy, spent a few months in the Falklands in the Nineties on detachment there so I could see the terrain, and went on Invincible a couple of times)
The original point (which you have obviously arrived late at) was that Thatcher was prepared to go to war with Argentina to defend the Falklands but not China over Hong Kong, hence she agreed to the handover of the latter but not the former. We could defend overseas territories where they wanted to stay British and the only other nations that wanted them were weaker than us but not against nations stronger than us. Hence Thatcher would also not have gone to war with Russia over Ukraine despite Heathener's remarks to the contrary.
In 1982 we had a better trained army, pilots and a bigger navy than Argentina and we also had submarines with nuclear weapons which Argentina did not have. So in the end we would win it regardless. Now of course the Argentine military is even weaker then then.
We also won it with 2 aircraft carriers like now but had the war continued for several years then Ark Royal and Illustrious would have been included in the Task Force too
“So I’m the end we would win it regardless”.
Never spoken to anyone who was there or read up on it then?
War isn’t Top Trumps.
We beat Argentina then and we would beat Argentina now.
Ultimately we would win no matter what the cost and we won it by conventional forces and our armed forces were stronger than Argentina's then and are stronger than Argentina's now.
As I also stated as a last resort had we not won it with conventional forces we had nuclear weapons which Argentina did not have to use as a last resort to defend the British territory of the Falklands and hit Argentine military bases in Argentina
You're insane.
We never had nuclear weapons to attack Argentina with.
We were not using them to attack Argentina with.
It was Argentina's decision to invade the Falklands knowing full well we were a nuclear power with nuclear weapons.
Had we not won with conventional forces then by their invasion Argentina risked a nuclear missile attack launched by a British submarine on Argentina. That was the risk they took by the invasion, nuclear weapons being our weapon of last resort to defend British territory (which includes the Falklands)
I'm no expert in this and it is irrelevant anyway because #hyufd is clearly bonkers in thinking we would nuke Argentina, but would it even have been possible then to do so from a sub to an unexpected target. And if possible has @HYUFD considered what Russia, China, USA would have done if we randomly fired an ICBM towards the Americas. I mine possible global destruction over a little lightly populated island.
The Tories on here are weirdly, dangerously obsessed with Corbyn – a bloke who is not even a Labour MP anymore never mind being leader (having been kicked out by, er, the actual leader).
It's all rather creepy and sinister, this infatuation.
The Tories on here are weirdly, dangerously obsessed with Corbyn – a bloke who is not even a Labour MP anymore never mind being leader (having been kicked out by, er, the actual leader).
It's all rather creepy and sinister, this infatuation.
It's politics
That they think it is their strongest card speaks to the weakness of the current Tory party attack lines.
She was quite prepared to go to war with Argentina over the Falklands as we could easily beat them.
There was nothing easy about it and we very nearly didn't.
Not much more would have had to go wrong for the operation to fail.
Rubbish.
We very easily beat them once we committed to the task force.
The Argentines were poorly trained and full of conscrips even more than the Russians and Thatcher of course sunk the Belgrano without much difficulty
If you speak to anyone who was there then you would know that is rubbish.
We had a more effective army than Argentina and a bigger navy and better trained pilots.
It was not that difficult. Plus of course we had submarines with nuclear missiles and Argentina did not have nuclear weapons.
Russia however does have nuclear weapons
You really do talk nonsense . We lost the Atlantic Conveyor to exocets which was a huge blow. If we had lost an aircraft carrier in the same way there would have been no way of getting troops to the Falklands as we would not have had air cover. That would have been a fatal blow.
It makes not a joy of difference that we had better soldiers, navy and air force if you can't get any of them there.
So what, we still sunk more Argentine ships than they sunk of ours which is the main aim in war.
Thatcher was also not a wet lettuce like you and had the Argentines sunk our aircraft carrier she might even have nuked Buenos Aires who knows. She was not going to lose that war.
However that would have been an absolute last resort to defend the Falklands if we had lost a our aircraft carriers. As we had 4 aircraft carriers at the time even had we lost 1 we would still have had 3 to replace it and could still have continued with the Task Force with them
A) The object of war was not to sink Argentina ships, in fact we made a point of avoiding doing so and could have done so at will, hence the fuss over the Belgrano.The objective was to reclaim the Falklands which we could not have done without the aircraft carriers which were at risk from exocets.
B ) I have never said we should not of reclaimed the Falklands. I just said it wasn't easy like you claim. It was a really big task and not a foregone conclusion or easy like you said.
C) W were never going to launch a nuke on Argentina. You are being ridiculous.
D) And we only had 2 aircraft carriers, Hermes and Invincible not 4.
E) Your comments disrespect the brave men who fought that war and the politicians who made the decisions. It was not easy. It was hard. Many died and it was not a foregone conclusion.
We had 4 aircraft carriers, Hermes, Invincible, Ark Royal and Illustrious
What?
We had scrapped Ark Royal (R09) and its replacement (R07) would not be commissioned until 1985. HMS Hermes was being sold to India. We had to hurriedly undo the sale. HMS Illustrious wasn't ready - it was rushed through commissioning in order to get it to the Falklands. And still didn't get there in time.
At the time war broke out, we technically had one serviceable aircraft carrier (technically, through-deck cruiser), HMS Invincible. We undid the sale of HMS Hermes, and rushed HMS Illustrious through commissioning well ahead of schedule; fortunately, it went well.
So we got from 1-maybe-2 up to trying-to-get-3-in-time but not managing it. We never had four. We were never anywhere near four. Why do you think we had four?
P.S. There is no way the Falklands was easy, straightforward, or a done deal. You don't know what you're talking about.
(Disclosure: I, with many others, covered Op CORPORATE in depth in my Intermediate Command and Staff Course at the Defence Academy, spent a few months in the Falklands in the Nineties on detachment there so I could see the terrain, and went on Invincible a couple of times)
The original point (which you have obviously arrived late at) was that Thatcher was prepared to go to war with Argentina to defend the Falklands but not China over Hong Kong, hence she agreed to the handover of the latter but not the former. We could defend overseas territories where they wanted to stay British and the only other nations that wanted them were weaker than us but not against nations stronger than us. Hence Thatcher would also not have gone to war with Russia over Ukraine despite Heathener's remarks to the contrary.
In 1982 we had a better trained army, pilots and a bigger navy than Argentina and we also had submarines with nuclear weapons which Argentina did not have. So in the end we would win it regardless. Now of course the Argentine military is even weaker then then.
We also won it with 2 aircraft carriers like now but had the war continued for several years then Ark Royal and Illustrious would have been included in the Task Force too
“So I’m the end we would win it regardless”.
Never spoken to anyone who was there or read up on it then?
War isn’t Top Trumps.
We beat Argentina then and we would beat Argentina now.
Ultimately we would win no matter what the cost and we won it by conventional forces and our armed forces were stronger than Argentina's then and are stronger than Argentina's now.
As I also stated as a last resort had we not won it with conventional forces we had nuclear weapons which Argentina did not have to use as a last resort to defend the British territory of the Falklands and hit Argentine military bases in Argentina
1) Now, with the garrison and the current state of Argentina, is indeed very different. Then, they were a very serious threat, especially at that distance. Read up on it or speak to people.
2) We would NEVER have used nuclear weapons in a first strike against a non-nuclear armed country. That’s disgusting. Have a word with yourself.
2) We may well have done. Any UK PM who rules out the use of our nuclear weapons as a last resort to defend the UK or British territory if invaded and defence by conventional forces fails is not tough enough for the job.
Thatcher certainly would not have done. Indeed we would be more likely to use them against a non-nuclear armed invading country as they could not respond with a nuclear weapon against us themselves. Pure realpolitik
Oh god, you really mean it.
Thankfully, actual British policy on the use of the deterrent is very different.
No it isn't. We have nuclear weapons to defend the UK and British territory as a last resort, the Falkland Islands are and were British overseas territory
You’re never going to be allowed anywhere near a decision making role. However if someone mad enough did that take view in Government, and threatened to use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear state, then large parts of MOD and the FCO would resign in protest rather than act on those orders. I’m far from sure a sub captain would obey the order to launch.
If we launched, or went around threatening to, then he US and NATO would drop us, and we’d (rightly) be an international pariah.
Actually every PM writes a letter of last resort already (which could including wiping out as much of the country which has attacked us using our nuclear weapons).
The PM has the authority to take the final decision to defend our nation and its territories, if some civil servants are too wet and weak to do that fine, they can be replaced.
Sub captains also have no alternative but to obey the orders of the PM and government of the day or be dismissed and replaced by the next in command.
The US and NATO alliance is ultimately there to defend us, if they are unwilling to support us in defence of our overseas territories then the alliance is ended anyway
The Tories on here are weirdly, dangerously obsessed with Corbyn – a bloke who is not even a Labour MP anymore never mind being leader (having been kicked out by, er, the actual leader).
It's all rather creepy and sinister, this infatuation.
As creepy and sinister as Labour’s obsession with Thatcher, when she hadn’t been near power for a decade or more?
Is that a particularly common occurrence on PB? I haven't seen it.
The Tories on here are weirdly, dangerously obsessed with Corbyn – a bloke who is not even a Labour MP anymore never mind being leader (having been kicked out by, er, the actual leader).
It's all rather creepy and sinister, this infatuation.
As creepy and sinister as Labour’s obsession with Thatcher, when she hadn’t been near power for a decade or more?
People overdo both (and the creepy Tory obsession with Thatcher too, though it may be my imagination but it feels like people are starting to dial both down), but Corbyn was Leader only 2 and a bit years ago - it doesn't mean Tories don't fallback on the 'But Corbyn' line too often as a distraction, they clearly do, but it is more likely to be relevant from time to time at least.
She was quite prepared to go to war with Argentina over the Falklands as we could easily beat them.
There was nothing easy about it and we very nearly didn't.
Not much more would have had to go wrong for the operation to fail.
Rubbish.
We very easily beat them once we committed to the task force.
The Argentines were poorly trained and full of conscrips even more than the Russians and Thatcher of course sunk the Belgrano without much difficulty
If you speak to anyone who was there then you would know that is rubbish.
We had a more effective army than Argentina and a bigger navy and better trained pilots.
It was not that difficult. Plus of course we had submarines with nuclear missiles and Argentina did not have nuclear weapons.
Russia however does have nuclear weapons
You really do talk nonsense . We lost the Atlantic Conveyor to exocets which was a huge blow. If we had lost an aircraft carrier in the same way there would have been no way of getting troops to the Falklands as we would not have had air cover. That would have been a fatal blow.
It makes not a joy of difference that we had better soldiers, navy and air force if you can't get any of them there.
So what, we still sunk more Argentine ships than they sunk of ours which is the main aim in war.
Thatcher was also not a wet lettuce like you and had the Argentines sunk our aircraft carrier she might even have nuked Buenos Aires who knows. She was not going to lose that war.
However that would have been an absolute last resort to defend the Falklands if we had lost a our aircraft carriers. As we had 4 aircraft carriers at the time even had we lost 1 we would still have had 3 to replace it and could still have continued with the Task Force with them
A) The object of war was not to sink Argentina ships, in fact we made a point of avoiding doing so and could have done so at will, hence the fuss over the Belgrano.The objective was to reclaim the Falklands which we could not have done without the aircraft carriers which were at risk from exocets.
B ) I have never said we should not of reclaimed the Falklands. I just said it wasn't easy like you claim. It was a really big task and not a foregone conclusion or easy like you said.
C) W were never going to launch a nuke on Argentina. You are being ridiculous.
D) And we only had 2 aircraft carriers, Hermes and Invincible not 4.
E) Your comments disrespect the brave men who fought that war and the politicians who made the decisions. It was not easy. It was hard. Many died and it was not a foregone conclusion.
We had 4 aircraft carriers, Hermes, Invincible, Ark Royal and Illustrious
What?
We had scrapped Ark Royal (R09) and its replacement (R07) would not be commissioned until 1985. HMS Hermes was being sold to India. We had to hurriedly undo the sale. HMS Illustrious wasn't ready - it was rushed through commissioning in order to get it to the Falklands. And still didn't get there in time.
At the time war broke out, we technically had one serviceable aircraft carrier (technically, through-deck cruiser), HMS Invincible. We undid the sale of HMS Hermes, and rushed HMS Illustrious through commissioning well ahead of schedule; fortunately, it went well.
So we got from 1-maybe-2 up to trying-to-get-3-in-time but not managing it. We never had four. We were never anywhere near four. Why do you think we had four?
P.S. There is no way the Falklands was easy, straightforward, or a done deal. You don't know what you're talking about.
(Disclosure: I, with many others, covered Op CORPORATE in depth in my Intermediate Command and Staff Course at the Defence Academy, spent a few months in the Falklands in the Nineties on detachment there so I could see the terrain, and went on Invincible a couple of times)
Thankfully we still had a runway at Ascension, and seventeen barely-serviceable V-bombers, for one of the most complex and daring Air Force missions of all time.
The shortage of carriers is why I believe we need several small helicopter/vertical take-off aircraft carriers - like 9 or 10 of them. There is no point in a great lumbering hulk that we don't have adequate escort ships for anyway.
No way we could afford that. Not least because the escort demand would be even greater!
Also the reason for large deck carriers is sortie rates. The invincible class was never really designed for carrier Ops - we bastardised them towards it in the end but then we’re anti submarine platforms with a bit of local air defence for themselves. That remains true for all smaller classes.
I am very much a layman, and I think you might have missed a word after 'we're', so I don't really understand your point.
Sorry, ducking autocorrect! I never know why it prefers “we’re” to “were”.
Should read “they were”. Basically we forced them to act as carriers by the 90s because we didn’t need so much anti sun activity in the North Atlantic, but the size of deck is what limits sortie rates, and it frustrated us, which is why we went bigger on the replacements. And there’s the old maxim that fresh air is free and steel is cheap, so going a bit bigger doesn’t cost as much as you might think.
Could sortie rates be improved by part two of my cunning plan, to bring back the Harriers?
*Gets coat*
The Harrier's shortcomings are one of the reasons the QE class is so ludicrously big.
On Invincible we could generate another 8-10 sorties per day usually constrained by technical availability of aircraft which was quite poor. Meanwhile a Nimitz could enerate 120 sorties in 12 hours and that stung. In order to be taken seriously by the USN the RN specified an absolutely ludicrous 150/day sortie rate for the QE class. This is the reason they are so fucking big and expensive.
However it quickly became obvious that there would never be enough aircraft bought to hit that sortie rate so we've ended up with ships that are completely over-sized for the available aviation assets.
As always any attempt to evaluate the QE class in terms of military capability is pointless. That's not what they are for; they serve chiefly as a totem of national virility.
The Tories on here are weirdly, dangerously obsessed with Corbyn – a bloke who is not even a Labour MP anymore never mind being leader (having been kicked out by, er, the actual leader).
It's all rather creepy and sinister, this infatuation.
It's politics
Ugh. It's all rather... flesh-crawling.
What's flesh-crawling is that so many were willing to vote for Corbyn's Labour - and most of the current Shadow Cabinet including its current Leader were happy to be in Corbyn's Cabinet and put Corbyn forward for being Prime Minister. That raises serious question marks over everyone who served in Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet.
Had enough of the public not had the good sense to vote against them, then Corbyn would be Prime Minister today.
If the UK had used a nuclear strike against Argentina, then Argentina would probably have surrendered immediately. The UK would have, also immediately, and permanently, then lost every friend worth having.
She was quite prepared to go to war with Argentina over the Falklands as we could easily beat them.
There was nothing easy about it and we very nearly didn't.
Not much more would have had to go wrong for the operation to fail.
Rubbish.
We very easily beat them once we committed to the task force.
The Argentines were poorly trained and full of conscrips even more than the Russians and Thatcher of course sunk the Belgrano without much difficulty
If you speak to anyone who was there then you would know that is rubbish.
We had a more effective army than Argentina and a bigger navy and better trained pilots.
It was not that difficult. Plus of course we had submarines with nuclear missiles and Argentina did not have nuclear weapons.
Russia however does have nuclear weapons
You really do talk nonsense . We lost the Atlantic Conveyor to exocets which was a huge blow. If we had lost an aircraft carrier in the same way there would have been no way of getting troops to the Falklands as we would not have had air cover. That would have been a fatal blow.
It makes not a joy of difference that we had better soldiers, navy and air force if you can't get any of them there.
So what, we still sunk more Argentine ships than they sunk of ours which is the main aim in war.
Thatcher was also not a wet lettuce like you and had the Argentines sunk our aircraft carrier she might even have nuked Buenos Aires who knows. She was not going to lose that war.
However that would have been an absolute last resort to defend the Falklands if we had lost a our aircraft carriers. As we had 4 aircraft carriers at the time even had we lost 1 we would still have had 3 to replace it and could still have continued with the Task Force with them
A) The object of war was not to sink Argentina ships, in fact we made a point of avoiding doing so and could have done so at will, hence the fuss over the Belgrano.The objective was to reclaim the Falklands which we could not have done without the aircraft carriers which were at risk from exocets.
B ) I have never said we should not of reclaimed the Falklands. I just said it wasn't easy like you claim. It was a really big task and not a foregone conclusion or easy like you said.
C) W were never going to launch a nuke on Argentina. You are being ridiculous.
D) And we only had 2 aircraft carriers, Hermes and Invincible not 4.
E) Your comments disrespect the brave men who fought that war and the politicians who made the decisions. It was not easy. It was hard. Many died and it was not a foregone conclusion.
We had 4 aircraft carriers, Hermes, Invincible, Ark Royal and Illustrious
What?
We had scrapped Ark Royal (R09) and its replacement (R07) would not be commissioned until 1985. HMS Hermes was being sold to India. We had to hurriedly undo the sale. HMS Illustrious wasn't ready - it was rushed through commissioning in order to get it to the Falklands. And still didn't get there in time.
At the time war broke out, we technically had one serviceable aircraft carrier (technically, through-deck cruiser), HMS Invincible. We undid the sale of HMS Hermes, and rushed HMS Illustrious through commissioning well ahead of schedule; fortunately, it went well.
So we got from 1-maybe-2 up to trying-to-get-3-in-time but not managing it. We never had four. We were never anywhere near four. Why do you think we had four?
P.S. There is no way the Falklands was easy, straightforward, or a done deal. You don't know what you're talking about.
(Disclosure: I, with many others, covered Op CORPORATE in depth in my Intermediate Command and Staff Course at the Defence Academy, spent a few months in the Falklands in the Nineties on detachment there so I could see the terrain, and went on Invincible a couple of times)
Thankfully we still had a runway at Ascension, and seventeen barely-serviceable V-bombers, for one of the most complex and daring Air Force missions of all time.
The shortage of carriers is why I believe we need several small helicopter/vertical take-off aircraft carriers - like 9 or 10 of them. There is no point in a great lumbering hulk that we don't have adequate escort ships for anyway.
No way we could afford that. Not least because the escort demand would be even greater!
Also the reason for large deck carriers is sortie rates. The invincible class was never really designed for carrier Ops - we bastardised them towards it in the end but then we’re anti submarine platforms with a bit of local air defence for themselves. That remains true for all smaller classes.
I am very much a layman, and I think you might have missed a word after 'we're', so I don't really understand your point.
Sorry, ducking autocorrect! I never know why it prefers “we’re” to “were”.
Should read “they were”. Basically we forced them to act as carriers by the 90s because we didn’t need so much anti sun activity in the North Atlantic, but the size of deck is what limits sortie rates, and it frustrated us, which is why we went bigger on the replacements. And there’s the old maxim that fresh air is free and steel is cheap, so going a bit bigger doesn’t cost as much as you might think.
Could sortie rates be improved by part two of my cunning plan, to bring back the Harriers?
*Gets coat*
The Harriers had next to no electric warfare capability, a very small payload and short range. 1982 only worked because the Argentines had worse air-to-air capability.
By the 90s it was clear that Sea Harrier vs Mig29/Su27 would be a very bad thing.
So you need an aircraft with more payload, more space and power for electronics, more space for weapons....
Hell, the original idea was that the Kestrel would lead to a "proper" aircraft
Awwwwww ... plenum chamber reheat ... I can remember the headlines when the 1154(RN) was scrapped ...
She was quite prepared to go to war with Argentina over the Falklands as we could easily beat them.
There was nothing easy about it and we very nearly didn't.
Not much more would have had to go wrong for the operation to fail.
Rubbish.
We very easily beat them once we committed to the task force.
The Argentines were poorly trained and full of conscrips even more than the Russians and Thatcher of course sunk the Belgrano without much difficulty
If you speak to anyone who was there then you would know that is rubbish.
We had a more effective army than Argentina and a bigger navy and better trained pilots.
It was not that difficult. Plus of course we had submarines with nuclear missiles and Argentina did not have nuclear weapons.
Russia however does have nuclear weapons
You really do talk nonsense . We lost the Atlantic Conveyor to exocets which was a huge blow. If we had lost an aircraft carrier in the same way there would have been no way of getting troops to the Falklands as we would not have had air cover. That would have been a fatal blow.
It makes not a joy of difference that we had better soldiers, navy and air force if you can't get any of them there.
So what, we still sunk more Argentine ships than they sunk of ours which is the main aim in war.
Thatcher was also not a wet lettuce like you and had the Argentines sunk our aircraft carrier she might even have nuked Buenos Aires who knows. She was not going to lose that war.
However that would have been an absolute last resort to defend the Falklands if we had lost a our aircraft carriers. As we had 4 aircraft carriers at the time even had we lost 1 we would still have had 3 to replace it and could still have continued with the Task Force with them
A) The object of war was not to sink Argentina ships, in fact we made a point of avoiding doing so and could have done so at will, hence the fuss over the Belgrano.The objective was to reclaim the Falklands which we could not have done without the aircraft carriers which were at risk from exocets.
B ) I have never said we should not of reclaimed the Falklands. I just said it wasn't easy like you claim. It was a really big task and not a foregone conclusion or easy like you said.
C) W were never going to launch a nuke on Argentina. You are being ridiculous.
D) And we only had 2 aircraft carriers, Hermes and Invincible not 4.
E) Your comments disrespect the brave men who fought that war and the politicians who made the decisions. It was not easy. It was hard. Many died and it was not a foregone conclusion.
We had 4 aircraft carriers, Hermes, Invincible, Ark Royal and Illustrious
What?
We had scrapped Ark Royal (R09) and its replacement (R07) would not be commissioned until 1985. HMS Hermes was being sold to India. We had to hurriedly undo the sale. HMS Illustrious wasn't ready - it was rushed through commissioning in order to get it to the Falklands. And still didn't get there in time.
At the time war broke out, we technically had one serviceable aircraft carrier (technically, through-deck cruiser), HMS Invincible. We undid the sale of HMS Hermes, and rushed HMS Illustrious through commissioning well ahead of schedule; fortunately, it went well.
So we got from 1-maybe-2 up to trying-to-get-3-in-time but not managing it. We never had four. We were never anywhere near four. Why do you think we had four?
P.S. There is no way the Falklands was easy, straightforward, or a done deal. You don't know what you're talking about.
(Disclosure: I, with many others, covered Op CORPORATE in depth in my Intermediate Command and Staff Course at the Defence Academy, spent a few months in the Falklands in the Nineties on detachment there so I could see the terrain, and went on Invincible a couple of times)
The original point (which you have obviously arrived late at) was that Thatcher was prepared to go to war with Argentina to defend the Falklands but not China over Hong Kong, hence she agreed to the handover of the latter but not the former. We could defend overseas territories where they wanted to stay British and the only other nations that wanted them were weaker than us but not against nations stronger than us. Hence Thatcher would also not have gone to war with Russia over Ukraine despite Heathener's remarks to the contrary.
In 1982 we had a better trained army, pilots and a bigger navy than Argentina and we also had submarines with nuclear weapons which Argentina did not have. So in the end we would win it regardless. Now of course the Argentine military is even weaker then then.
We also won it with 2 aircraft carriers like now but had the war continued for several years then Ark Royal and Illustrious would have been included in the Task Force too
“So I’m the end we would win it regardless”.
Never spoken to anyone who was there or read up on it then?
War isn’t Top Trumps.
We beat Argentina then and we would beat Argentina now.
Ultimately we would win no matter what the cost and we won it by conventional forces and our armed forces were stronger than Argentina's then and are stronger than Argentina's now.
As I also stated as a last resort had we not won it with conventional forces we had nuclear weapons which Argentina did not have to use as a last resort to defend the British territory of the Falklands and hit Argentine military bases in Argentina
You're insane.
We never had nuclear weapons to attack Argentina with.
We were not using them to attack Argentina with.
It was Argentina's decision to invade the Falklands knowing full well we were a nuclear power with nuclear weapons.
Had we not won with conventional forces then by their invasion Argentina risked a nuclear missile attack launched by a British submarine on Argentina. That was the risk they took by the invasion, nuclear weapons being our weapon of last resort to defend British territory (which includes the Falklands)
I'm no expert in this and it is irrelevant anyway because #hyufd is clearly bonkers in thinking we would nuke Argentina, but would it even have been possible then to do so from a sub to an unexpected target. And if possible has @HYUFD considered what Russia, China, USA would have done if we randomly fired an ICBM towards the Americas. I mine possible global destruction over a little lightly populated island.
Possible? Yes. Wise or ever on the table? No, for all the reasons you and many of us have said.
Oh and one more. In 1982 there were WWII veterans in Government and senior military roles. The chances of them supporting delivering a nuclear attack in this way? Zero.
I also hope we've not paid blackmail to let her go free.
You are brighter than this Barty. Remember that bit in Three Kings they explained what it’s all about by pouring oil down his throat?
Message intercepted to Moscow from Iranian Committee for Building Relationships with Infidels and Heretics. ++Thank you for the £400M of British tax payer money. ++We have new markets for our oil despite being gulfs bad guys for goodness knows how long ++hard cheese as our new best buddies say ++Enjoy hell with the Great Satan
Slight correction, the £400 million was for tanks that we never delivered, due to the Iranian revolution. It is, legally, Iranian money. So we are giving them their own money back.
Oh Malmesbury! If that much is true, why didn’t we bung them the lolly years ago?
Barty is right in that it’s kidnapping and blackmailnand we have paid the ransom. I’m right in so much as why we have now paid ransom, if Putin didn’t turn like a snake in the grass, we were still on course to suckle from his energy nipples and no need to wheen off him, at what point do you think we would have paid this honest invoice we have sat on for 43 years?
The fact that it’s ludicrous to defend has to be give away we are doing something wrong.
We shouldn't have withheld their money in the first place.
We should have supported both regimes - the Shah and the one who over threw him? Or put another way, we tried to get him tanks to kill the people who over throw him, you reckon we should give The money back to the people who over through him in first place?
We owed the money we should have repaid it. There have been plenty of times in the intervening time period where Iran has been far more benign than it was after the revolution. A revolution that threw off one grubby exploitative regime and replaced it with another.
She was quite prepared to go to war with Argentina over the Falklands as we could easily beat them.
There was nothing easy about it and we very nearly didn't.
Not much more would have had to go wrong for the operation to fail.
Rubbish.
We very easily beat them once we committed to the task force.
The Argentines were poorly trained and full of conscrips even more than the Russians and Thatcher of course sunk the Belgrano without much difficulty
If you speak to anyone who was there then you would know that is rubbish.
We had a more effective army than Argentina and a bigger navy and better trained pilots.
It was not that difficult. Plus of course we had submarines with nuclear missiles and Argentina did not have nuclear weapons.
Russia however does have nuclear weapons
You really do talk nonsense . We lost the Atlantic Conveyor to exocets which was a huge blow. If we had lost an aircraft carrier in the same way there would have been no way of getting troops to the Falklands as we would not have had air cover. That would have been a fatal blow.
It makes not a joy of difference that we had better soldiers, navy and air force if you can't get any of them there.
So what, we still sunk more Argentine ships than they sunk of ours which is the main aim in war.
Thatcher was also not a wet lettuce like you and had the Argentines sunk our aircraft carrier she might even have nuked Buenos Aires who knows. She was not going to lose that war.
However that would have been an absolute last resort to defend the Falklands if we had lost a our aircraft carriers. As we had 4 aircraft carriers at the time even had we lost 1 we would still have had 3 to replace it and could still have continued with the Task Force with them
A) The object of war was not to sink Argentina ships, in fact we made a point of avoiding doing so and could have done so at will, hence the fuss over the Belgrano.The objective was to reclaim the Falklands which we could not have done without the aircraft carriers which were at risk from exocets.
B ) I have never said we should not of reclaimed the Falklands. I just said it wasn't easy like you claim. It was a really big task and not a foregone conclusion or easy like you said.
C) W were never going to launch a nuke on Argentina. You are being ridiculous.
D) And we only had 2 aircraft carriers, Hermes and Invincible not 4.
E) Your comments disrespect the brave men who fought that war and the politicians who made the decisions. It was not easy. It was hard. Many died and it was not a foregone conclusion.
We had 4 aircraft carriers, Hermes, Invincible, Ark Royal and Illustrious
What?
We had scrapped Ark Royal (R09) and its replacement (R07) would not be commissioned until 1985. HMS Hermes was being sold to India. We had to hurriedly undo the sale. HMS Illustrious wasn't ready - it was rushed through commissioning in order to get it to the Falklands. And still didn't get there in time.
At the time war broke out, we technically had one serviceable aircraft carrier (technically, through-deck cruiser), HMS Invincible. We undid the sale of HMS Hermes, and rushed HMS Illustrious through commissioning well ahead of schedule; fortunately, it went well.
So we got from 1-maybe-2 up to trying-to-get-3-in-time but not managing it. We never had four. We were never anywhere near four. Why do you think we had four?
P.S. There is no way the Falklands was easy, straightforward, or a done deal. You don't know what you're talking about.
(Disclosure: I, with many others, covered Op CORPORATE in depth in my Intermediate Command and Staff Course at the Defence Academy, spent a few months in the Falklands in the Nineties on detachment there so I could see the terrain, and went on Invincible a couple of times)
Thankfully we still had a runway at Ascension, and seventeen barely-serviceable V-bombers, for one of the most complex and daring Air Force missions of all time.
The shortage of carriers is why I believe we need several small helicopter/vertical take-off aircraft carriers - like 9 or 10 of them. There is no point in a great lumbering hulk that we don't have adequate escort ships for anyway.
No way we could afford that. Not least because the escort demand would be even greater!
Also the reason for large deck carriers is sortie rates. The invincible class was never really designed for carrier Ops - we bastardised them towards it in the end but then we’re anti submarine platforms with a bit of local air defence for themselves. That remains true for all smaller classes.
I am very much a layman, and I think you might have missed a word after 'we're', so I don't really understand your point.
Sorry, ducking autocorrect! I never know why it prefers “we’re” to “were”.
Should read “they were”. Basically we forced them to act as carriers by the 90s because we didn’t need so much anti sun activity in the North Atlantic, but the size of deck is what limits sortie rates, and it frustrated us, which is why we went bigger on the replacements. And there’s the old maxim that fresh air is free and steel is cheap, so going a bit bigger doesn’t cost as much as you might think.
Could sortie rates be improved by part two of my cunning plan, to bring back the Harriers?
*Gets coat*
The Harriers had next to no electric warfare capability, a very small payload and short range. 1982 only worked because the Argentines had worse air-to-air capability.
By the 90s it was clear that Sea Harrier vs Mig29/Su27 would be a very bad thing.
So you need an aircraft with more payload, more space and power for electronics, more space for weapons....
Hell, the original idea was that the Kestrel would lead to a "proper" aircraft
Awwwwww ... plenum chamber reheat ... I can remember the headlines when the 1154(RN) was scrapped ...
Another brilliant British invention that had a slight problem - it didn't work.
What could possibly go wrong with running a afterburner against both sides of the fuselage of an aircraft made of aluminium?
She was quite prepared to go to war with Argentina over the Falklands as we could easily beat them.
There was nothing easy about it and we very nearly didn't.
Not much more would have had to go wrong for the operation to fail.
Rubbish.
We very easily beat them once we committed to the task force.
The Argentines were poorly trained and full of conscrips even more than the Russians and Thatcher of course sunk the Belgrano without much difficulty
If you speak to anyone who was there then you would know that is rubbish.
We had a more effective army than Argentina and a bigger navy and better trained pilots.
It was not that difficult. Plus of course we had submarines with nuclear missiles and Argentina did not have nuclear weapons.
Russia however does have nuclear weapons
You really do talk nonsense . We lost the Atlantic Conveyor to exocets which was a huge blow. If we had lost an aircraft carrier in the same way there would have been no way of getting troops to the Falklands as we would not have had air cover. That would have been a fatal blow.
It makes not a joy of difference that we had better soldiers, navy and air force if you can't get any of them there.
So what, we still sunk more Argentine ships than they sunk of ours which is the main aim in war.
Thatcher was also not a wet lettuce like you and had the Argentines sunk our aircraft carrier she might even have nuked Buenos Aires who knows. She was not going to lose that war.
However that would have been an absolute last resort to defend the Falklands if we had lost a our aircraft carriers. As we had 4 aircraft carriers at the time even had we lost 1 we would still have had 3 to replace it and could still have continued with the Task Force with them
A) The object of war was not to sink Argentina ships, in fact we made a point of avoiding doing so and could have done so at will, hence the fuss over the Belgrano.The objective was to reclaim the Falklands which we could not have done without the aircraft carriers which were at risk from exocets.
B ) I have never said we should not of reclaimed the Falklands. I just said it wasn't easy like you claim. It was a really big task and not a foregone conclusion or easy like you said.
C) W were never going to launch a nuke on Argentina. You are being ridiculous.
D) And we only had 2 aircraft carriers, Hermes and Invincible not 4.
E) Your comments disrespect the brave men who fought that war and the politicians who made the decisions. It was not easy. It was hard. Many died and it was not a foregone conclusion.
We had 4 aircraft carriers, Hermes, Invincible, Ark Royal and Illustrious
What?
We had scrapped Ark Royal (R09) and its replacement (R07) would not be commissioned until 1985. HMS Hermes was being sold to India. We had to hurriedly undo the sale. HMS Illustrious wasn't ready - it was rushed through commissioning in order to get it to the Falklands. And still didn't get there in time.
At the time war broke out, we technically had one serviceable aircraft carrier (technically, through-deck cruiser), HMS Invincible. We undid the sale of HMS Hermes, and rushed HMS Illustrious through commissioning well ahead of schedule; fortunately, it went well.
So we got from 1-maybe-2 up to trying-to-get-3-in-time but not managing it. We never had four. We were never anywhere near four. Why do you think we had four?
P.S. There is no way the Falklands was easy, straightforward, or a done deal. You don't know what you're talking about.
(Disclosure: I, with many others, covered Op CORPORATE in depth in my Intermediate Command and Staff Course at the Defence Academy, spent a few months in the Falklands in the Nineties on detachment there so I could see the terrain, and went on Invincible a couple of times)
The original point (which you have obviously arrived late at) was that Thatcher was prepared to go to war with Argentina to defend the Falklands but not China over Hong Kong, hence she agreed to the handover of the latter but not the former. We could defend overseas territories where they wanted to stay British and the only other nations that wanted them were weaker than us but not against nations stronger than us. Hence Thatcher would also not have gone to war with Russia over Ukraine despite Heathener's remarks to the contrary.
In 1982 we had a better trained army, pilots and a bigger navy than Argentina and we also had submarines with nuclear weapons which Argentina did not have. So in the end we would win it regardless. Now of course the Argentine military is even weaker then then.
We also won it with 2 aircraft carriers like now but had the war continued for several years then Ark Royal and Illustrious would have been included in the Task Force too
“So I’m the end we would win it regardless”.
Never spoken to anyone who was there or read up on it then?
War isn’t Top Trumps.
We beat Argentina then and we would beat Argentina now.
Ultimately we would win no matter what the cost and we won it by conventional forces and our armed forces were stronger than Argentina's then and are stronger than Argentina's now.
As I also stated as a last resort had we not won it with conventional forces we had nuclear weapons which Argentina did not have to use as a last resort to defend the British territory of the Falklands and hit Argentine military bases in Argentina
You're insane.
We never had nuclear weapons to attack Argentina with.
We were not using them to attack Argentina with.
It was Argentina's decision to invade the Falklands knowing full well we were a nuclear power with nuclear weapons.
Had we not won with conventional forces then by their invasion Argentina risked a nuclear missile attack launched by a British submarine on Argentina. That was the risk they took by the invasion, nuclear weapons being our weapon of last resort to defend British territory (which includes the Falklands)
I'm no expert in this and it is irrelevant anyway because #hyufd is clearly bonkers in thinking we would nuke Argentina, but would it even have been possible then to do so from a sub to an unexpected target. And if possible has @HYUFD considered what Russia, China, USA would have done if we randomly fired an ICBM towards the Americas. I mine possible global destruction over a little lightly populated island.
The Falklands is not merely 'a lightly populated island' it is British overseas territory to be defended at all costs
The Tories on here are weirdly, dangerously obsessed with Corbyn – a bloke who is not even a Labour MP anymore never mind being leader (having been kicked out by, er, the actual leader).
It's all rather creepy and sinister, this infatuation.
As creepy and sinister as Labour’s obsession with Thatcher, when she hadn’t been near power for a decade or more?
Yes, rather similar. It wasn't a winning strategy for Labour to keep bringing up Thatcher. And it won't be a winning strategy for the Tories to keep bringing up Corbyn. Even less so, actually, as at least Thatcher held power whereas Corbyn didn't.
I also hope we've not paid blackmail to let her go free.
You are brighter than this Barty. Remember that bit in Three Kings they explained what it’s all about by pouring oil down his throat?
Message intercepted to Moscow from Iranian Committee for Building Relationships with Infidels and Heretics. ++Thank you for the £400M of British tax payer money. ++We have new markets for our oil despite being gulfs bad guys for goodness knows how long ++hard cheese as our new best buddies say ++Enjoy hell with the Great Satan
Slight correction, the £400 million was for tanks that we never delivered, due to the Iranian revolution. It is, legally, Iranian money. So we are giving them their own money back.
Oh Malmesbury! If that much is true, why didn’t we bung them the lolly years ago?
Barty is right in that it’s kidnapping and blackmailnand we have paid the ransom. I’m right in so much as why we have now paid ransom, if Putin didn’t turn like a snake in the grass, we were still on course to suckle from his energy nipples and no need to wheen off him, at what point do you think we would have paid this honest invoice we have sat on for 43 years?
The fact that it’s ludicrous to defend has to be give away we are doing something wrong.
We shouldn't have withheld their money in the first place.
We should have supported both regimes - the Shah and the one who over threw him? Or put another way, we tried to get him tanks to kill the people who over throw him, you reckon we should give The money back to the people who over through him in first place?
We owed the money we should have repaid it. There have been plenty of times in the intervening time period where Iran has been far more benign than it was after the revolution. A revolution that threw off one grubby exploitative regime and replaced it with another.
There has never been a time period under the Ayatollahs were it would have been appropriate to lift all sanctions.
The Tories on here are weirdly, dangerously obsessed with Corbyn – a bloke who is not even a Labour MP anymore never mind being leader (having been kicked out by, er, the actual leader).
It's all rather creepy and sinister, this infatuation.
As creepy and sinister as Labour’s obsession with Thatcher, when she hadn’t been near power for a decade or more?
People overdo both (and the creepy Tory obsession with Thatcher too, though it may be my imagination but it feels like people are starting to dial both down), but Corbyn was Leader only 2 and a bit years ago - it doesn't mean Tories don't fallback on the 'But Corbyn' line too often as a distraction, they clearly do, but it is more likely to be relevant from time to time at least.
The Tories on here are weirdly, dangerously obsessed with Corbyn – a bloke who is not even a Labour MP anymore never mind being leader (having been kicked out by, er, the actual leader).
It's all rather creepy and sinister, this infatuation.
Stop. Just because you're embarrassed by the Corbyn years doesn't change the fact they happened and that Keir Starmer et al were front and centre in support. What you call 'weird', 'dangerous obsession', etc normal folk call politics.
"We need to talk about #Westplaining. "It’s a term coined by the Eastern European left to describe a tendency of certain Western leftists to ascribe everything that happens east of Germany to Western policy."
Yup
Do Westplainers really think they know something that the Kremlin doesn’t? That after a couple of hours googling, they've seen into the dark heart of Western strategy, and the Russian government hasn’t? That Putin is being led blindly into a trap they have spotted and he hasn't?
This story suits Putin very well, and he tells a cynical version of it himself: I was provoked, I had no choice, Russia is encircled by NATO and has to strike back. It is used to disguise a highly aggressive, imperialist strategy of his own
It’s notable that some of those who treat him as a mindless victim of Western scheming are also happy to recite blatant Kremlin propaganda, for example grossly overemphasising the influence of Ukrainian fascists, and describing the 2014 revolution as a “US coup”.
Or indeed, that 'neturality' at the point of a gun is a reasonable and essentially harmless demand, rather than, at best, a deeply regrettable and humiliating concession from Ukraine if it must be granted, as it would mean they have been abandoned.
I also hope we've not paid blackmail to let her go free.
You are brighter than this Barty. Remember that bit in Three Kings they explained what it’s all about by pouring oil down his throat?
Message intercepted to Moscow from Iranian Committee for Building Relationships with Infidels and Heretics. ++Thank you for the £400M of British tax payer money. ++We have new markets for our oil despite being gulfs bad guys for goodness knows how long ++hard cheese as our new best buddies say ++Enjoy hell with the Great Satan
Slight correction, the £400 million was for tanks that we never delivered, due to the Iranian revolution. It is, legally, Iranian money. So we are giving them their own money back.
Oh Malmesbury! If that much is true, why didn’t we bung them the lolly years ago?
Barty is right in that it’s kidnapping and blackmailnand we have paid the ransom. I’m right in so much as why we have now paid ransom, if Putin didn’t turn like a snake in the grass, we were still on course to suckle from his energy nipples and no need to wheen off him, at what point do you think we would have paid this honest invoice we have sat on for 43 years?
The fact that it’s ludicrous to defend has to be give away we are doing something wrong.
We shouldn't have withheld their money in the first place.
We should have supported both regimes - the Shah and the one who over threw him? Or put another way, we tried to get him tanks to kill the people who over throw him, you reckon we should give The money back to the people who over through him in first place?
We already have done. And yes. If someone pays me for something and I don't deliver I repay with interest. Not to do so is fraud or theft. Even if the original person has died, or the company has been taken over by a completely different owner.
The Tories on here are weirdly, dangerously obsessed with Corbyn – a bloke who is not even a Labour MP anymore never mind being leader (having been kicked out by, er, the actual leader).
It's all rather creepy and sinister, this infatuation.
As creepy and sinister as Labour’s obsession with Thatcher, when she hadn’t been near power for a decade or more?
People overdo both (and the creepy Tory obsession with Thatcher too, though it may be my imagination but it feels like people are starting to dial both down), but Corbyn was Leader only 2 and a bit years ago - it doesn't mean Tories don't fallback on the 'But Corbyn' line too often as a distraction, they clearly do, but it is more likely to be relevant from time to time at least.
Corbo isn't even a Labour MP FFS.
And yet the current Leader and Deputy Leader had such atrociously appalling judgment that its there but for the good sense of the British electorate that they wanted Corbyn to be our Prime Minister right now.
She was quite prepared to go to war with Argentina over the Falklands as we could easily beat them.
There was nothing easy about it and we very nearly didn't.
Not much more would have had to go wrong for the operation to fail.
Rubbish.
We very easily beat them once we committed to the task force.
The Argentines were poorly trained and full of conscrips even more than the Russians and Thatcher of course sunk the Belgrano without much difficulty
If you speak to anyone who was there then you would know that is rubbish.
We had a more effective army than Argentina and a bigger navy and better trained pilots.
It was not that difficult. Plus of course we had submarines with nuclear missiles and Argentina did not have nuclear weapons.
Russia however does have nuclear weapons
You really do talk nonsense . We lost the Atlantic Conveyor to exocets which was a huge blow. If we had lost an aircraft carrier in the same way there would have been no way of getting troops to the Falklands as we would not have had air cover. That would have been a fatal blow.
It makes not a joy of difference that we had better soldiers, navy and air force if you can't get any of them there.
So what, we still sunk more Argentine ships than they sunk of ours which is the main aim in war.
Thatcher was also not a wet lettuce like you and had the Argentines sunk our aircraft carrier she might even have nuked Buenos Aires who knows. She was not going to lose that war.
However that would have been an absolute last resort to defend the Falklands if we had lost a our aircraft carriers. As we had 4 aircraft carriers at the time even had we lost 1 we would still have had 3 to replace it and could still have continued with the Task Force with them
A) The object of war was not to sink Argentina ships, in fact we made a point of avoiding doing so and could have done so at will, hence the fuss over the Belgrano.The objective was to reclaim the Falklands which we could not have done without the aircraft carriers which were at risk from exocets.
B ) I have never said we should not of reclaimed the Falklands. I just said it wasn't easy like you claim. It was a really big task and not a foregone conclusion or easy like you said.
C) W were never going to launch a nuke on Argentina. You are being ridiculous.
D) And we only had 2 aircraft carriers, Hermes and Invincible not 4.
E) Your comments disrespect the brave men who fought that war and the politicians who made the decisions. It was not easy. It was hard. Many died and it was not a foregone conclusion.
We had 4 aircraft carriers, Hermes, Invincible, Ark Royal and Illustrious
What?
We had scrapped Ark Royal (R09) and its replacement (R07) would not be commissioned until 1985. HMS Hermes was being sold to India. We had to hurriedly undo the sale. HMS Illustrious wasn't ready - it was rushed through commissioning in order to get it to the Falklands. And still didn't get there in time.
At the time war broke out, we technically had one serviceable aircraft carrier (technically, through-deck cruiser), HMS Invincible. We undid the sale of HMS Hermes, and rushed HMS Illustrious through commissioning well ahead of schedule; fortunately, it went well.
So we got from 1-maybe-2 up to trying-to-get-3-in-time but not managing it. We never had four. We were never anywhere near four. Why do you think we had four?
P.S. There is no way the Falklands was easy, straightforward, or a done deal. You don't know what you're talking about.
(Disclosure: I, with many others, covered Op CORPORATE in depth in my Intermediate Command and Staff Course at the Defence Academy, spent a few months in the Falklands in the Nineties on detachment there so I could see the terrain, and went on Invincible a couple of times)
The original point (which you have obviously arrived late at) was that Thatcher was prepared to go to war with Argentina to defend the Falklands but not China over Hong Kong, hence she agreed to the handover of the latter but not the former. We could defend overseas territories where they wanted to stay British and the only other nations that wanted them were weaker than us but not against nations stronger than us. Hence Thatcher would also not have gone to war with Russia over Ukraine despite Heathener's remarks to the contrary.
In 1982 we had a better trained army, pilots and a bigger navy than Argentina and we also had submarines with nuclear weapons which Argentina did not have. So in the end we would win it regardless. Now of course the Argentine military is even weaker then then.
We also won it with 2 aircraft carriers like now but had the war continued for several years then Ark Royal and Illustrious would have been included in the Task Force too
“So I’m the end we would win it regardless”.
Never spoken to anyone who was there or read up on it then?
War isn’t Top Trumps.
We beat Argentina then and we would beat Argentina now.
Ultimately we would win no matter what the cost and we won it by conventional forces and our armed forces were stronger than Argentina's then and are stronger than Argentina's now.
As I also stated as a last resort had we not won it with conventional forces we had nuclear weapons which Argentina did not have to use as a last resort to defend the British territory of the Falklands and hit Argentine military bases in Argentina
You're insane.
We never had nuclear weapons to attack Argentina with.
We were not using them to attack Argentina with.
It was Argentina's decision to invade the Falklands knowing full well we were a nuclear power with nuclear weapons.
Had we not won with conventional forces then by their invasion Argentina risked a nuclear missile attack launched by a British submarine on Argentina. That was the risk they took by the invasion, nuclear weapons being our weapon of last resort to defend British territory (which includes the Falklands)
I'm no expert in this and it is irrelevant anyway because #hyufd is clearly bonkers in thinking we would nuke Argentina, but would it even have been possible then to do so from a sub to an unexpected target. And if possible has @HYUFD considered what Russia, China, USA would have done if we randomly fired an ICBM towards the Americas. I mine possible global destruction over a little lightly populated island.
Possible? Yes. Wise or ever on the table? No, for all the reasons you and many of us have said.
Oh and one more. In 1982 there were WWII veterans in Government and senior military roles. The chances of them supporting delivering a nuclear attack in this way? Zero.
The US launched an atomic bomb to end WW2 in Japan against a non nuclear armed nation, it delivered the desired result
She was quite prepared to go to war with Argentina over the Falklands as we could easily beat them.
There was nothing easy about it and we very nearly didn't.
Not much more would have had to go wrong for the operation to fail.
Rubbish.
We very easily beat them once we committed to the task force.
The Argentines were poorly trained and full of conscrips even more than the Russians and Thatcher of course sunk the Belgrano without much difficulty
If you speak to anyone who was there then you would know that is rubbish.
We had a more effective army than Argentina and a bigger navy and better trained pilots.
It was not that difficult. Plus of course we had submarines with nuclear missiles and Argentina did not have nuclear weapons.
Russia however does have nuclear weapons
You really do talk nonsense . We lost the Atlantic Conveyor to exocets which was a huge blow. If we had lost an aircraft carrier in the same way there would have been no way of getting troops to the Falklands as we would not have had air cover. That would have been a fatal blow.
It makes not a joy of difference that we had better soldiers, navy and air force if you can't get any of them there.
So what, we still sunk more Argentine ships than they sunk of ours which is the main aim in war.
Thatcher was also not a wet lettuce like you and had the Argentines sunk our aircraft carrier she might even have nuked Buenos Aires who knows. She was not going to lose that war.
However that would have been an absolute last resort to defend the Falklands if we had lost a our aircraft carriers. As we had 4 aircraft carriers at the time even had we lost 1 we would still have had 3 to replace it and could still have continued with the Task Force with them
A) The object of war was not to sink Argentina ships, in fact we made a point of avoiding doing so and could have done so at will, hence the fuss over the Belgrano.The objective was to reclaim the Falklands which we could not have done without the aircraft carriers which were at risk from exocets.
B ) I have never said we should not of reclaimed the Falklands. I just said it wasn't easy like you claim. It was a really big task and not a foregone conclusion or easy like you said.
C) W were never going to launch a nuke on Argentina. You are being ridiculous.
D) And we only had 2 aircraft carriers, Hermes and Invincible not 4.
E) Your comments disrespect the brave men who fought that war and the politicians who made the decisions. It was not easy. It was hard. Many died and it was not a foregone conclusion.
We had 4 aircraft carriers, Hermes, Invincible, Ark Royal and Illustrious
What?
We had scrapped Ark Royal (R09) and its replacement (R07) would not be commissioned until 1985. HMS Hermes was being sold to India. We had to hurriedly undo the sale. HMS Illustrious wasn't ready - it was rushed through commissioning in order to get it to the Falklands. And still didn't get there in time.
At the time war broke out, we technically had one serviceable aircraft carrier (technically, through-deck cruiser), HMS Invincible. We undid the sale of HMS Hermes, and rushed HMS Illustrious through commissioning well ahead of schedule; fortunately, it went well.
So we got from 1-maybe-2 up to trying-to-get-3-in-time but not managing it. We never had four. We were never anywhere near four. Why do you think we had four?
P.S. There is no way the Falklands was easy, straightforward, or a done deal. You don't know what you're talking about.
(Disclosure: I, with many others, covered Op CORPORATE in depth in my Intermediate Command and Staff Course at the Defence Academy, spent a few months in the Falklands in the Nineties on detachment there so I could see the terrain, and went on Invincible a couple of times)
Thankfully we still had a runway at Ascension, and seventeen barely-serviceable V-bombers, for one of the most complex and daring Air Force missions of all time.
The shortage of carriers is why I believe we need several small helicopter/vertical take-off aircraft carriers - like 9 or 10 of them. There is no point in a great lumbering hulk that we don't have adequate escort ships for anyway.
No way we could afford that. Not least because the escort demand would be even greater!
Also the reason for large deck carriers is sortie rates. The invincible class was never really designed for carrier Ops - we bastardised them towards it in the end but then we’re anti submarine platforms with a bit of local air defence for themselves. That remains true for all smaller classes.
I am very much a layman, and I think you might have missed a word after 'we're', so I don't really understand your point.
Sorry, ducking autocorrect! I never know why it prefers “we’re” to “were”.
Should read “they were”. Basically we forced them to act as carriers by the 90s because we didn’t need so much anti sun activity in the North Atlantic, but the size of deck is what limits sortie rates, and it frustrated us, which is why we went bigger on the replacements. And there’s the old maxim that fresh air is free and steel is cheap, so going a bit bigger doesn’t cost as much as you might think.
Could sortie rates be improved by part two of my cunning plan, to bring back the Harriers?
*Gets coat*
The Harriers had next to no electric warfare capability, a very small payload and short range. 1982 only worked because the Argentines had worse air-to-air capability.
By the 90s it was clear that Sea Harrier vs Mig29/Su27 would be a very bad thing.
So you need an aircraft with more payload, more space and power for electronics, more space for weapons....
Hell, the original idea was that the Kestrel would lead to a "proper" aircraft
It wasn't an entirely serious idea, but what an aircraft!
She was quite prepared to go to war with Argentina over the Falklands as we could easily beat them.
There was nothing easy about it and we very nearly didn't.
Not much more would have had to go wrong for the operation to fail.
Rubbish.
We very easily beat them once we committed to the task force.
The Argentines were poorly trained and full of conscrips even more than the Russians and Thatcher of course sunk the Belgrano without much difficulty
If you speak to anyone who was there then you would know that is rubbish.
We had a more effective army than Argentina and a bigger navy and better trained pilots.
It was not that difficult. Plus of course we had submarines with nuclear missiles and Argentina did not have nuclear weapons.
Russia however does have nuclear weapons
You really do talk nonsense . We lost the Atlantic Conveyor to exocets which was a huge blow. If we had lost an aircraft carrier in the same way there would have been no way of getting troops to the Falklands as we would not have had air cover. That would have been a fatal blow.
It makes not a joy of difference that we had better soldiers, navy and air force if you can't get any of them there.
So what, we still sunk more Argentine ships than they sunk of ours which is the main aim in war.
Thatcher was also not a wet lettuce like you and had the Argentines sunk our aircraft carrier she might even have nuked Buenos Aires who knows. She was not going to lose that war.
However that would have been an absolute last resort to defend the Falklands if we had lost a our aircraft carriers. As we had 4 aircraft carriers at the time even had we lost 1 we would still have had 3 to replace it and could still have continued with the Task Force with them
A) The object of war was not to sink Argentina ships, in fact we made a point of avoiding doing so and could have done so at will, hence the fuss over the Belgrano.The objective was to reclaim the Falklands which we could not have done without the aircraft carriers which were at risk from exocets.
B ) I have never said we should not of reclaimed the Falklands. I just said it wasn't easy like you claim. It was a really big task and not a foregone conclusion or easy like you said.
C) W were never going to launch a nuke on Argentina. You are being ridiculous.
D) And we only had 2 aircraft carriers, Hermes and Invincible not 4.
E) Your comments disrespect the brave men who fought that war and the politicians who made the decisions. It was not easy. It was hard. Many died and it was not a foregone conclusion.
We had 4 aircraft carriers, Hermes, Invincible, Ark Royal and Illustrious
What?
We had scrapped Ark Royal (R09) and its replacement (R07) would not be commissioned until 1985. HMS Hermes was being sold to India. We had to hurriedly undo the sale. HMS Illustrious wasn't ready - it was rushed through commissioning in order to get it to the Falklands. And still didn't get there in time.
At the time war broke out, we technically had one serviceable aircraft carrier (technically, through-deck cruiser), HMS Invincible. We undid the sale of HMS Hermes, and rushed HMS Illustrious through commissioning well ahead of schedule; fortunately, it went well.
So we got from 1-maybe-2 up to trying-to-get-3-in-time but not managing it. We never had four. We were never anywhere near four. Why do you think we had four?
P.S. There is no way the Falklands was easy, straightforward, or a done deal. You don't know what you're talking about.
(Disclosure: I, with many others, covered Op CORPORATE in depth in my Intermediate Command and Staff Course at the Defence Academy, spent a few months in the Falklands in the Nineties on detachment there so I could see the terrain, and went on Invincible a couple of times)
The original point (which you have obviously arrived late at) was that Thatcher was prepared to go to war with Argentina to defend the Falklands but not China over Hong Kong, hence she agreed to the handover of the latter but not the former. We could defend overseas territories where they wanted to stay British and the only other nations that wanted them were weaker than us but not against nations stronger than us. Hence Thatcher would also not have gone to war with Russia over Ukraine despite Heathener's remarks to the contrary.
In 1982 we had a better trained army, pilots and a bigger navy than Argentina and we also had submarines with nuclear weapons which Argentina did not have. So in the end we would win it regardless. Now of course the Argentine military is even weaker then then.
We also won it with 2 aircraft carriers like now but had the war continued for several years then Ark Royal and Illustrious would have been included in the Task Force too
“So I’m the end we would win it regardless”.
Never spoken to anyone who was there or read up on it then?
War isn’t Top Trumps.
We beat Argentina then and we would beat Argentina now.
Ultimately we would win no matter what the cost and we won it by conventional forces and our armed forces were stronger than Argentina's then and are stronger than Argentina's now.
As I also stated as a last resort had we not won it with conventional forces we had nuclear weapons which Argentina did not have to use as a last resort to defend the British territory of the Falklands and hit Argentine military bases in Argentina
1) Now, with the garrison and the current state of Argentina, is indeed very different. Then, they were a very serious threat, especially at that distance. Read up on it or speak to people.
2) We would NEVER have used nuclear weapons in a first strike against a non-nuclear armed country. That’s disgusting. Have a word with yourself.
2) We may well have done. Any UK PM who rules out the use of our nuclear weapons as a last resort to defend the UK or British territory if invaded and defence by conventional forces fails is not tough enough for the job.
Thatcher certainly would not have done. Indeed we would be more likely to use them against a non-nuclear armed invading country as they could not respond with a nuclear weapon against us themselves. Pure realpolitik
Oh god, you really mean it.
Thankfully, actual British policy on the use of the deterrent is very different.
No it isn't. We have nuclear weapons to defend the UK and British territory as a last resort, the Falkland Islands are and were British overseas territory
You’re never going to be allowed anywhere near a decision making role. However if someone mad enough did that take view in Government, and threatened to use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear state, then large parts of MOD and the FCO would resign in protest rather than act on those orders. I’m far from sure a sub captain would obey the order to launch.
If we launched, or went around threatening to, then he US and NATO would drop us, and we’d (rightly) be an international pariah.
Actually every PM writes a letter of last resort already (which could including wiping out as much of the country which has attacked us using our nuclear weapons).
The PM has the authority to take the final decision to defend our nation and its territories, if some civil servants are too wet and weak to do that fine, they can be replaced.
Sub captains also have no alternative but to obey the orders of the PM and government of the day or be dismissed and replaced by the next in command.
The US and NATO alliance is ultimately there to defend us, if they are unwilling to support us in defence of our overseas territories then the alliance is ended anyway
I give up. You’re bonkers.
How is the letter of last resort relevant to a Falklands invasion? Have you ever met a bomber crew? Have you read the NATO treaty? First clue is in the “NA” bit.
The Tories on here are weirdly, dangerously obsessed with Corbyn – a bloke who is not even a Labour MP anymore never mind being leader (having been kicked out by, er, the actual leader).
It's all rather creepy and sinister, this infatuation.
It's politics
Ugh. It's all rather... flesh-crawling.
It's not an infatuation. He was leader of the Labour party just three years ago. He still has a large following in the Labour party. The Conservative Party has issues it needs to sort out; so does the Labour Party. Thankfully Starmer is making a good start.
(As an aside, if there were to be an election tomorrow, I'd probably vote Labour, depending on the local candidate though.)
The Tories on here are weirdly, dangerously obsessed with Corbyn – a bloke who is not even a Labour MP anymore never mind being leader (having been kicked out by, er, the actual leader).
It's all rather creepy and sinister, this infatuation.
As creepy and sinister as Labour’s obsession with Thatcher, when she hadn’t been near power for a decade or more?
Angie would love to dig her up and burn her at the stake! It narks them that she achieved what none of them have got near in the 'Peoples' party'.
The Tories on here are weirdly, dangerously obsessed with Corbyn – a bloke who is not even a Labour MP anymore never mind being leader (having been kicked out by, er, the actual leader).
It's all rather creepy and sinister, this infatuation.
As creepy and sinister as Labour’s obsession with Thatcher, when she hadn’t been near power for a decade or more?
People overdo both (and the creepy Tory obsession with Thatcher too, though it may be my imagination but it feels like people are starting to dial both down), but Corbyn was Leader only 2 and a bit years ago - it doesn't mean Tories don't fallback on the 'But Corbyn' line too often as a distraction, they clearly do, but it is more likely to be relevant from time to time at least.
Corbo isn't even a Labour MP FFS.
Right - a highly relevant factor when people seek to imply Starmer and co must be the same as him because they served under him. But that doesn't mean any mention of them backing him is always unreasonable, it was very recent. It just cannot be pretended things have not moved on which counter that point, so it cannot be relied upon as a get of jail free card.
It's not very relevant, but nor is it entirely irrelevant. It's like how Godwin's law doesn't mean you can never bring up Nazis.
She was quite prepared to go to war with Argentina over the Falklands as we could easily beat them.
There was nothing easy about it and we very nearly didn't.
Not much more would have had to go wrong for the operation to fail.
Rubbish.
We very easily beat them once we committed to the task force.
The Argentines were poorly trained and full of conscrips even more than the Russians and Thatcher of course sunk the Belgrano without much difficulty
If you speak to anyone who was there then you would know that is rubbish.
We had a more effective army than Argentina and a bigger navy and better trained pilots.
It was not that difficult. Plus of course we had submarines with nuclear missiles and Argentina did not have nuclear weapons.
Russia however does have nuclear weapons
You really do talk nonsense . We lost the Atlantic Conveyor to exocets which was a huge blow. If we had lost an aircraft carrier in the same way there would have been no way of getting troops to the Falklands as we would not have had air cover. That would have been a fatal blow.
It makes not a joy of difference that we had better soldiers, navy and air force if you can't get any of them there.
So what, we still sunk more Argentine ships than they sunk of ours which is the main aim in war.
Thatcher was also not a wet lettuce like you and had the Argentines sunk our aircraft carrier she might even have nuked Buenos Aires who knows. She was not going to lose that war.
However that would have been an absolute last resort to defend the Falklands if we had lost a our aircraft carriers. As we had 4 aircraft carriers at the time even had we lost 1 we would still have had 3 to replace it and could still have continued with the Task Force with them
A) The object of war was not to sink Argentina ships, in fact we made a point of avoiding doing so and could have done so at will, hence the fuss over the Belgrano.The objective was to reclaim the Falklands which we could not have done without the aircraft carriers which were at risk from exocets.
B ) I have never said we should not of reclaimed the Falklands. I just said it wasn't easy like you claim. It was a really big task and not a foregone conclusion or easy like you said.
C) W were never going to launch a nuke on Argentina. You are being ridiculous.
D) And we only had 2 aircraft carriers, Hermes and Invincible not 4.
E) Your comments disrespect the brave men who fought that war and the politicians who made the decisions. It was not easy. It was hard. Many died and it was not a foregone conclusion.
We had 4 aircraft carriers, Hermes, Invincible, Ark Royal and Illustrious
What?
We had scrapped Ark Royal (R09) and its replacement (R07) would not be commissioned until 1985. HMS Hermes was being sold to India. We had to hurriedly undo the sale. HMS Illustrious wasn't ready - it was rushed through commissioning in order to get it to the Falklands. And still didn't get there in time.
At the time war broke out, we technically had one serviceable aircraft carrier (technically, through-deck cruiser), HMS Invincible. We undid the sale of HMS Hermes, and rushed HMS Illustrious through commissioning well ahead of schedule; fortunately, it went well.
So we got from 1-maybe-2 up to trying-to-get-3-in-time but not managing it. We never had four. We were never anywhere near four. Why do you think we had four?
P.S. There is no way the Falklands was easy, straightforward, or a done deal. You don't know what you're talking about.
(Disclosure: I, with many others, covered Op CORPORATE in depth in my Intermediate Command and Staff Course at the Defence Academy, spent a few months in the Falklands in the Nineties on detachment there so I could see the terrain, and went on Invincible a couple of times)
The original point (which you have obviously arrived late at) was that Thatcher was prepared to go to war with Argentina to defend the Falklands but not China over Hong Kong, hence she agreed to the handover of the latter but not the former. We could defend overseas territories where they wanted to stay British and the only other nations that wanted them were weaker than us but not against nations stronger than us. Hence Thatcher would also not have gone to war with Russia over Ukraine despite Heathener's remarks to the contrary.
In 1982 we had a better trained army, pilots and a bigger navy than Argentina and we also had submarines with nuclear weapons which Argentina did not have. So in the end we would win it regardless. Now of course the Argentine military is even weaker then then.
We also won it with 2 aircraft carriers like now but had the war continued for several years then Ark Royal and Illustrious would have been included in the Task Force too
“So I’m the end we would win it regardless”.
Never spoken to anyone who was there or read up on it then?
War isn’t Top Trumps.
We beat Argentina then and we would beat Argentina now.
Ultimately we would win no matter what the cost and we won it by conventional forces and our armed forces were stronger than Argentina's then and are stronger than Argentina's now.
As I also stated as a last resort had we not won it with conventional forces we had nuclear weapons which Argentina did not have to use as a last resort to defend the British territory of the Falklands and hit Argentine military bases in Argentina
You're insane.
We never had nuclear weapons to attack Argentina with.
We were not using them to attack Argentina with.
It was Argentina's decision to invade the Falklands knowing full well we were a nuclear power with nuclear weapons.
Had we not won with conventional forces then by their invasion Argentina risked a nuclear missile attack launched by a British submarine on Argentina. That was the risk they took by the invasion, nuclear weapons being our weapon of last resort to defend British territory (which includes the Falklands)
I'm no expert in this and it is irrelevant anyway because #hyufd is clearly bonkers in thinking we would nuke Argentina, but would it even have been possible then to do so from a sub to an unexpected target. And if possible has @HYUFD considered what Russia, China, USA would have done if we randomly fired an ICBM towards the Americas. I mine possible global destruction over a little lightly populated island.
Possible? Yes. Wise or ever on the table? No, for all the reasons you and many of us have said.
Oh and one more. In 1982 there were WWII veterans in Government and senior military roles. The chances of them supporting delivering a nuclear attack in this way? Zero.
The US launched an atomic bomb to end WW2 in Japan against a non nuclear armed nation, it delivered the desired result
The Tories on here are weirdly, dangerously obsessed with Corbyn – a bloke who is not even a Labour MP anymore never mind being leader (having been kicked out by, er, the actual leader).
It's all rather creepy and sinister, this infatuation.
As creepy and sinister as Labour’s obsession with Thatcher, when she hadn’t been near power for a decade or more?
People overdo both (and the creepy Tory obsession with Thatcher too, though it may be my imagination but it feels like people are starting to dial both down), but Corbyn was Leader only 2 and a bit years ago - it doesn't mean Tories don't fallback on the 'But Corbyn' line too often as a distraction, they clearly do, but it is more likely to be relevant from time to time at least.
Corbo isn't even a Labour MP FFS.
But the Labour leader and his deputy were in Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet less than two years ago. It's hardly ancient history!
We made tactical peace with Stalin so as to defeat Hitler. Dealing with Iran to thwart Putin is small beer by comparison
It does sound like peace is near. Hard to believe given the horrors of these weeks. Please let it be so
If peace arrives - if if if - it’s hard to see Putin surviving in the medium term
In your eyes, and the big majority of posters on here today, our new best buddies the Iranians have never did no harm? What are they now, the Dukes of Hazard?
Are we not missing the lesson to be learnt, just shrugging and excusing reactionary policy as realpolitik?
But your post actually sums up beautifully why Boris could be being reactionary and stupid and making mistakes - if Putin is replaced by a better government, the one who opposed this war, our buying Russian gas and oil is the win win win win scenario you errantly mentioned. Are we at war with the Russian people after Putin is gone, at war with those who opposed him, or supporting them and making their government a success?
Yes. Yes of course we will remain at war with them, friends with our new Iranian allies and at war with the post Putin Russia is exactly the ideological position of Boris’ government as of today.
The lesson for today is, If you are so happy to support the bad guys in this world doing bad things, you have to be happy being the bastard doing bad things too.
The Tories on here are weirdly, dangerously obsessed with Corbyn – a bloke who is not even a Labour MP anymore never mind being leader (having been kicked out by, er, the actual leader).
It's all rather creepy and sinister, this infatuation.
It's politics
Ugh. It's all rather... flesh-crawling.
It's not an infatuation. He was leader of the Labour party just three years ago. He still has a large following in the Labour party. The Conservative Party has issues it needs to sort out; so does the Labour Party. Thankfully Starmer is making a good start.
(As an aside, if there were to be an election tomorrow, I'd probably vote Labour, depending on the local candidate though.)
Less than 2 years. He was leader until 4 April 2020.
The Tories on here are weirdly, dangerously obsessed with Corbyn – a bloke who is not even a Labour MP anymore never mind being leader (having been kicked out by, er, the actual leader).
It's all rather creepy and sinister, this infatuation.
As creepy and sinister as Labour’s obsession with Thatcher, when she hadn’t been near power for a decade or more?
Hardly equivalent! Thatcher was in power for 11 years, Corbyn for not a single day. Also Thatcher held considerable sway over the Tory Party for long after she'd gone. Corbyn and its associated 'ism' has been utterly cancelled by Starmer's Labour.
She was quite prepared to go to war with Argentina over the Falklands as we could easily beat them.
There was nothing easy about it and we very nearly didn't.
Not much more would have had to go wrong for the operation to fail.
Rubbish.
We very easily beat them once we committed to the task force.
The Argentines were poorly trained and full of conscrips even more than the Russians and Thatcher of course sunk the Belgrano without much difficulty
If you speak to anyone who was there then you would know that is rubbish.
We had a more effective army than Argentina and a bigger navy and better trained pilots.
It was not that difficult. Plus of course we had submarines with nuclear missiles and Argentina did not have nuclear weapons.
Russia however does have nuclear weapons
You really do talk nonsense . We lost the Atlantic Conveyor to exocets which was a huge blow. If we had lost an aircraft carrier in the same way there would have been no way of getting troops to the Falklands as we would not have had air cover. That would have been a fatal blow.
It makes not a joy of difference that we had better soldiers, navy and air force if you can't get any of them there.
So what, we still sunk more Argentine ships than they sunk of ours which is the main aim in war.
Thatcher was also not a wet lettuce like you and had the Argentines sunk our aircraft carrier she might even have nuked Buenos Aires who knows. She was not going to lose that war.
However that would have been an absolute last resort to defend the Falklands if we had lost a our aircraft carriers. As we had 4 aircraft carriers at the time even had we lost 1 we would still have had 3 to replace it and could still have continued with the Task Force with them
A) The object of war was not to sink Argentina ships, in fact we made a point of avoiding doing so and could have done so at will, hence the fuss over the Belgrano.The objective was to reclaim the Falklands which we could not have done without the aircraft carriers which were at risk from exocets.
B ) I have never said we should not of reclaimed the Falklands. I just said it wasn't easy like you claim. It was a really big task and not a foregone conclusion or easy like you said.
C) W were never going to launch a nuke on Argentina. You are being ridiculous.
D) And we only had 2 aircraft carriers, Hermes and Invincible not 4.
E) Your comments disrespect the brave men who fought that war and the politicians who made the decisions. It was not easy. It was hard. Many died and it was not a foregone conclusion.
We had 4 aircraft carriers, Hermes, Invincible, Ark Royal and Illustrious
What?
We had scrapped Ark Royal (R09) and its replacement (R07) would not be commissioned until 1985. HMS Hermes was being sold to India. We had to hurriedly undo the sale. HMS Illustrious wasn't ready - it was rushed through commissioning in order to get it to the Falklands. And still didn't get there in time.
At the time war broke out, we technically had one serviceable aircraft carrier (technically, through-deck cruiser), HMS Invincible. We undid the sale of HMS Hermes, and rushed HMS Illustrious through commissioning well ahead of schedule; fortunately, it went well.
So we got from 1-maybe-2 up to trying-to-get-3-in-time but not managing it. We never had four. We were never anywhere near four. Why do you think we had four?
P.S. There is no way the Falklands was easy, straightforward, or a done deal. You don't know what you're talking about.
(Disclosure: I, with many others, covered Op CORPORATE in depth in my Intermediate Command and Staff Course at the Defence Academy, spent a few months in the Falklands in the Nineties on detachment there so I could see the terrain, and went on Invincible a couple of times)
The original point (which you have obviously arrived late at) was that Thatcher was prepared to go to war with Argentina to defend the Falklands but not China over Hong Kong, hence she agreed to the handover of the latter but not the former. We could defend overseas territories where they wanted to stay British and the only other nations that wanted them were weaker than us but not against nations stronger than us. Hence Thatcher would also not have gone to war with Russia over Ukraine despite Heathener's remarks to the contrary.
In 1982 we had a better trained army, pilots and a bigger navy than Argentina and we also had submarines with nuclear weapons which Argentina did not have. So in the end we would win it regardless. Now of course the Argentine military is even weaker then then.
We also won it with 2 aircraft carriers like now but had the war continued for several years then Ark Royal and Illustrious would have been included in the Task Force too
“So I’m the end we would win it regardless”.
Never spoken to anyone who was there or read up on it then?
War isn’t Top Trumps.
We beat Argentina then and we would beat Argentina now.
Ultimately we would win no matter what the cost and we won it by conventional forces and our armed forces were stronger than Argentina's then and are stronger than Argentina's now.
As I also stated as a last resort had we not won it with conventional forces we had nuclear weapons which Argentina did not have to use as a last resort to defend the British territory of the Falklands and hit Argentine military bases in Argentina
You're insane.
We never had nuclear weapons to attack Argentina with.
We were not using them to attack Argentina with.
It was Argentina's decision to invade the Falklands knowing full well we were a nuclear power with nuclear weapons.
Had we not won with conventional forces then by their invasion Argentina risked a nuclear missile attack launched by a British submarine on Argentina. That was the risk they took by the invasion, nuclear weapons being our weapon of last resort to defend British territory (which includes the Falklands)
I'm no expert in this and it is irrelevant anyway because #hyufd is clearly bonkers in thinking we would nuke Argentina, but would it even have been possible then to do so from a sub to an unexpected target. And if possible has @HYUFD considered what Russia, China, USA would have done if we randomly fired an ICBM towards the Americas. I mine possible global destruction over a little lightly populated island.
The Falklands is not merely 'a lightly populated island' it is British overseas territory to be defended at all costs
And at no point did I say we shouldn't. However I do draw the line at starting WW3 over it by nuking people.
She was quite prepared to go to war with Argentina over the Falklands as we could easily beat them.
There was nothing easy about it and we very nearly didn't.
Not much more would have had to go wrong for the operation to fail.
Rubbish.
We very easily beat them once we committed to the task force.
The Argentines were poorly trained and full of conscrips even more than the Russians and Thatcher of course sunk the Belgrano without much difficulty
If you speak to anyone who was there then you would know that is rubbish.
We had a more effective army than Argentina and a bigger navy and better trained pilots.
It was not that difficult. Plus of course we had submarines with nuclear missiles and Argentina did not have nuclear weapons.
Russia however does have nuclear weapons
You really do talk nonsense . We lost the Atlantic Conveyor to exocets which was a huge blow. If we had lost an aircraft carrier in the same way there would have been no way of getting troops to the Falklands as we would not have had air cover. That would have been a fatal blow.
It makes not a joy of difference that we had better soldiers, navy and air force if you can't get any of them there.
So what, we still sunk more Argentine ships than they sunk of ours which is the main aim in war.
Thatcher was also not a wet lettuce like you and had the Argentines sunk our aircraft carrier she might even have nuked Buenos Aires who knows. She was not going to lose that war.
However that would have been an absolute last resort to defend the Falklands if we had lost a our aircraft carriers. As we had 4 aircraft carriers at the time even had we lost 1 we would still have had 3 to replace it and could still have continued with the Task Force with them
A) The object of war was not to sink Argentina ships, in fact we made a point of avoiding doing so and could have done so at will, hence the fuss over the Belgrano.The objective was to reclaim the Falklands which we could not have done without the aircraft carriers which were at risk from exocets.
B ) I have never said we should not of reclaimed the Falklands. I just said it wasn't easy like you claim. It was a really big task and not a foregone conclusion or easy like you said.
C) W were never going to launch a nuke on Argentina. You are being ridiculous.
D) And we only had 2 aircraft carriers, Hermes and Invincible not 4.
E) Your comments disrespect the brave men who fought that war and the politicians who made the decisions. It was not easy. It was hard. Many died and it was not a foregone conclusion.
We had 4 aircraft carriers, Hermes, Invincible, Ark Royal and Illustrious
What?
We had scrapped Ark Royal (R09) and its replacement (R07) would not be commissioned until 1985. HMS Hermes was being sold to India. We had to hurriedly undo the sale. HMS Illustrious wasn't ready - it was rushed through commissioning in order to get it to the Falklands. And still didn't get there in time.
At the time war broke out, we technically had one serviceable aircraft carrier (technically, through-deck cruiser), HMS Invincible. We undid the sale of HMS Hermes, and rushed HMS Illustrious through commissioning well ahead of schedule; fortunately, it went well.
So we got from 1-maybe-2 up to trying-to-get-3-in-time but not managing it. We never had four. We were never anywhere near four. Why do you think we had four?
P.S. There is no way the Falklands was easy, straightforward, or a done deal. You don't know what you're talking about.
(Disclosure: I, with many others, covered Op CORPORATE in depth in my Intermediate Command and Staff Course at the Defence Academy, spent a few months in the Falklands in the Nineties on detachment there so I could see the terrain, and went on Invincible a couple of times)
The original point (which you have obviously arrived late at) was that Thatcher was prepared to go to war with Argentina to defend the Falklands but not China over Hong Kong, hence she agreed to the handover of the latter but not the former. We could defend overseas territories where they wanted to stay British and the only other nations that wanted them were weaker than us but not against nations stronger than us. Hence Thatcher would also not have gone to war with Russia over Ukraine despite Heathener's remarks to the contrary.
In 1982 we had a better trained army, pilots and a bigger navy than Argentina and we also had submarines with nuclear weapons which Argentina did not have. So in the end we would win it regardless. Now of course the Argentine military is even weaker then then.
We also won it with 2 aircraft carriers like now but had the war continued for several years then Ark Royal and Illustrious would have been included in the Task Force too
“So I’m the end we would win it regardless”.
Never spoken to anyone who was there or read up on it then?
War isn’t Top Trumps.
We beat Argentina then and we would beat Argentina now.
Ultimately we would win no matter what the cost and we won it by conventional forces and our armed forces were stronger than Argentina's then and are stronger than Argentina's now.
As I also stated as a last resort had we not won it with conventional forces we had nuclear weapons which Argentina did not have to use as a last resort to defend the British territory of the Falklands and hit Argentine military bases in Argentina
You're insane.
We never had nuclear weapons to attack Argentina with.
We were not using them to attack Argentina with.
It was Argentina's decision to invade the Falklands knowing full well we were a nuclear power with nuclear weapons.
Had we not won with conventional forces then by their invasion Argentina risked a nuclear missile attack launched by a British submarine on Argentina. That was the risk they took by the invasion, nuclear weapons being our weapon of last resort to defend British territory (which includes the Falklands)
I'm no expert in this and it is irrelevant anyway because #hyufd is clearly bonkers in thinking we would nuke Argentina, but would it even have been possible then to do so from a sub to an unexpected target. And if possible has @HYUFD considered what Russia, China, USA would have done if we randomly fired an ICBM towards the Americas. I mine possible global destruction over a little lightly populated island.
Possible? Yes. Wise or ever on the table? No, for all the reasons you and many of us have said.
Oh and one more. In 1982 there were WWII veterans in Government and senior military roles. The chances of them supporting delivering a nuclear attack in this way? Zero.
The US launched an atomic bomb to end WW2 in Japan against a non nuclear armed nation, it delivered the desired result
If we had nuked even an Argentinian base manned by three guys and a penguin, we would have been the most reviled nation on Earth.
She was quite prepared to go to war with Argentina over the Falklands as we could easily beat them.
There was nothing easy about it and we very nearly didn't.
Not much more would have had to go wrong for the operation to fail.
Rubbish.
We very easily beat them once we committed to the task force.
The Argentines were poorly trained and full of conscrips even more than the Russians and Thatcher of course sunk the Belgrano without much difficulty
If you speak to anyone who was there then you would know that is rubbish.
We had a more effective army than Argentina and a bigger navy and better trained pilots.
It was not that difficult. Plus of course we had submarines with nuclear missiles and Argentina did not have nuclear weapons.
Russia however does have nuclear weapons
You really do talk nonsense . We lost the Atlantic Conveyor to exocets which was a huge blow. If we had lost an aircraft carrier in the same way there would have been no way of getting troops to the Falklands as we would not have had air cover. That would have been a fatal blow.
It makes not a joy of difference that we had better soldiers, navy and air force if you can't get any of them there.
So what, we still sunk more Argentine ships than they sunk of ours which is the main aim in war.
Thatcher was also not a wet lettuce like you and had the Argentines sunk our aircraft carrier she might even have nuked Buenos Aires who knows. She was not going to lose that war.
However that would have been an absolute last resort to defend the Falklands if we had lost a our aircraft carriers. As we had 4 aircraft carriers at the time even had we lost 1 we would still have had 3 to replace it and could still have continued with the Task Force with them
A) The object of war was not to sink Argentina ships, in fact we made a point of avoiding doing so and could have done so at will, hence the fuss over the Belgrano.The objective was to reclaim the Falklands which we could not have done without the aircraft carriers which were at risk from exocets.
B ) I have never said we should not of reclaimed the Falklands. I just said it wasn't easy like you claim. It was a really big task and not a foregone conclusion or easy like you said.
C) W were never going to launch a nuke on Argentina. You are being ridiculous.
D) And we only had 2 aircraft carriers, Hermes and Invincible not 4.
E) Your comments disrespect the brave men who fought that war and the politicians who made the decisions. It was not easy. It was hard. Many died and it was not a foregone conclusion.
We had 4 aircraft carriers, Hermes, Invincible, Ark Royal and Illustrious
What?
We had scrapped Ark Royal (R09) and its replacement (R07) would not be commissioned until 1985. HMS Hermes was being sold to India. We had to hurriedly undo the sale. HMS Illustrious wasn't ready - it was rushed through commissioning in order to get it to the Falklands. And still didn't get there in time.
At the time war broke out, we technically had one serviceable aircraft carrier (technically, through-deck cruiser), HMS Invincible. We undid the sale of HMS Hermes, and rushed HMS Illustrious through commissioning well ahead of schedule; fortunately, it went well.
So we got from 1-maybe-2 up to trying-to-get-3-in-time but not managing it. We never had four. We were never anywhere near four. Why do you think we had four?
P.S. There is no way the Falklands was easy, straightforward, or a done deal. You don't know what you're talking about.
(Disclosure: I, with many others, covered Op CORPORATE in depth in my Intermediate Command and Staff Course at the Defence Academy, spent a few months in the Falklands in the Nineties on detachment there so I could see the terrain, and went on Invincible a couple of times)
Thankfully we still had a runway at Ascension, and seventeen barely-serviceable V-bombers, for one of the most complex and daring Air Force missions of all time.
The shortage of carriers is why I believe we need several small helicopter/vertical take-off aircraft carriers - like 9 or 10 of them. There is no point in a great lumbering hulk that we don't have adequate escort ships for anyway.
No way we could afford that. Not least because the escort demand would be even greater!
Also the reason for large deck carriers is sortie rates. The invincible class was never really designed for carrier Ops - we bastardised them towards it in the end but then we’re anti submarine platforms with a bit of local air defence for themselves. That remains true for all smaller classes.
I am very much a layman, and I think you might have missed a word after 'we're', so I don't really understand your point.
Sorry, ducking autocorrect! I never know why it prefers “we’re” to “were”.
Should read “they were”. Basically we forced them to act as carriers by the 90s because we didn’t need so much anti sun activity in the North Atlantic, but the size of deck is what limits sortie rates, and it frustrated us, which is why we went bigger on the replacements. And there’s the old maxim that fresh air is free and steel is cheap, so going a bit bigger doesn’t cost as much as you might think.
Could sortie rates be improved by part two of my cunning plan, to bring back the Harriers?
*Gets coat*
The Harriers had next to no electric warfare capability, a very small payload and short range. 1982 only worked because the Argentines had worse air-to-air capability.
By the 90s it was clear that Sea Harrier vs Mig29/Su27 would be a very bad thing.
So you need an aircraft with more payload, more space and power for electronics, more space for weapons....
Hell, the original idea was that the Kestrel would lead to a "proper" aircraft
It wasn't an entirely serious idea, but what an aircraft!
They'd built a fair bit of several prototypes before it got cancelled IIRC.
She was quite prepared to go to war with Argentina over the Falklands as we could easily beat them.
There was nothing easy about it and we very nearly didn't.
Not much more would have had to go wrong for the operation to fail.
Rubbish.
We very easily beat them once we committed to the task force.
The Argentines were poorly trained and full of conscrips even more than the Russians and Thatcher of course sunk the Belgrano without much difficulty
If you speak to anyone who was there then you would know that is rubbish.
We had a more effective army than Argentina and a bigger navy and better trained pilots.
It was not that difficult. Plus of course we had submarines with nuclear missiles and Argentina did not have nuclear weapons.
Russia however does have nuclear weapons
You really do talk nonsense . We lost the Atlantic Conveyor to exocets which was a huge blow. If we had lost an aircraft carrier in the same way there would have been no way of getting troops to the Falklands as we would not have had air cover. That would have been a fatal blow.
It makes not a joy of difference that we had better soldiers, navy and air force if you can't get any of them there.
So what, we still sunk more Argentine ships than they sunk of ours which is the main aim in war.
Thatcher was also not a wet lettuce like you and had the Argentines sunk our aircraft carrier she might even have nuked Buenos Aires who knows. She was not going to lose that war.
However that would have been an absolute last resort to defend the Falklands if we had lost a our aircraft carriers. As we had 4 aircraft carriers at the time even had we lost 1 we would still have had 3 to replace it and could still have continued with the Task Force with them
A) The object of war was not to sink Argentina ships, in fact we made a point of avoiding doing so and could have done so at will, hence the fuss over the Belgrano.The objective was to reclaim the Falklands which we could not have done without the aircraft carriers which were at risk from exocets.
B ) I have never said we should not of reclaimed the Falklands. I just said it wasn't easy like you claim. It was a really big task and not a foregone conclusion or easy like you said.
C) W were never going to launch a nuke on Argentina. You are being ridiculous.
D) And we only had 2 aircraft carriers, Hermes and Invincible not 4.
E) Your comments disrespect the brave men who fought that war and the politicians who made the decisions. It was not easy. It was hard. Many died and it was not a foregone conclusion.
We had 4 aircraft carriers, Hermes, Invincible, Ark Royal and Illustrious
What?
We had scrapped Ark Royal (R09) and its replacement (R07) would not be commissioned until 1985. HMS Hermes was being sold to India. We had to hurriedly undo the sale. HMS Illustrious wasn't ready - it was rushed through commissioning in order to get it to the Falklands. And still didn't get there in time.
At the time war broke out, we technically had one serviceable aircraft carrier (technically, through-deck cruiser), HMS Invincible. We undid the sale of HMS Hermes, and rushed HMS Illustrious through commissioning well ahead of schedule; fortunately, it went well.
So we got from 1-maybe-2 up to trying-to-get-3-in-time but not managing it. We never had four. We were never anywhere near four. Why do you think we had four?
P.S. There is no way the Falklands was easy, straightforward, or a done deal. You don't know what you're talking about.
(Disclosure: I, with many others, covered Op CORPORATE in depth in my Intermediate Command and Staff Course at the Defence Academy, spent a few months in the Falklands in the Nineties on detachment there so I could see the terrain, and went on Invincible a couple of times)
The original point (which you have obviously arrived late at) was that Thatcher was prepared to go to war with Argentina to defend the Falklands but not China over Hong Kong, hence she agreed to the handover of the latter but not the former. We could defend overseas territories where they wanted to stay British and the only other nations that wanted them were weaker than us but not against nations stronger than us. Hence Thatcher would also not have gone to war with Russia over Ukraine despite Heathener's remarks to the contrary.
In 1982 we had a better trained army, pilots and a bigger navy than Argentina and we also had submarines with nuclear weapons which Argentina did not have. So in the end we would win it regardless. Now of course the Argentine military is even weaker then then.
We also won it with 2 aircraft carriers like now but had the war continued for several years then Ark Royal and Illustrious would have been included in the Task Force too
“So I’m the end we would win it regardless”.
Never spoken to anyone who was there or read up on it then?
War isn’t Top Trumps.
We beat Argentina then and we would beat Argentina now.
Ultimately we would win no matter what the cost and we won it by conventional forces and our armed forces were stronger than Argentina's then and are stronger than Argentina's now.
As I also stated as a last resort had we not won it with conventional forces we had nuclear weapons which Argentina did not have to use as a last resort to defend the British territory of the Falklands and hit Argentine military bases in Argentina
You're insane.
We never had nuclear weapons to attack Argentina with.
We were not using them to attack Argentina with.
It was Argentina's decision to invade the Falklands knowing full well we were a nuclear power with nuclear weapons.
Had we not won with conventional forces then by their invasion Argentina risked a nuclear missile attack launched by a British submarine on Argentina. That was the risk they took by the invasion, nuclear weapons being our weapon of last resort to defend British territory (which includes the Falklands)
I'm no expert in this and it is irrelevant anyway because #hyufd is clearly bonkers in thinking we would nuke Argentina, but would it even have been possible then to do so from a sub to an unexpected target. And if possible has @HYUFD considered what Russia, China, USA would have done if we randomly fired an ICBM towards the Americas. I mine possible global destruction over a little lightly populated island.
Possible? Yes. Wise or ever on the table? No, for all the reasons you and many of us have said.
Oh and one more. In 1982 there were WWII veterans in Government and senior military roles. The chances of them supporting delivering a nuclear attack in this way? Zero.
The US launched an atomic bomb to end WW2 in Japan against a non nuclear armed nation, it delivered the desired result
We made tactical peace with Stalin so as to defeat Hitler. Dealing with Iran to thwart Putin is small beer by comparison
It does sound like peace is near. Hard to believe given the horrors of these weeks. Please let it be so
If peace arrives - if if if - it’s hard to see Putin surviving in the medium term
In your eyes, and the big majority of posters on here today, our new best buddies the Iranians have never did no harm? What are they now, the Dukes of Hazard?
Are we not missing the lesson to be learnt, just shrugging and excusing reactionary policy as realpolitik?
But your post actually sums up beautifully why Boris could be being reactionary and stupid and making mistakes - if Putin is replaced by a better government, the one who opposed this war, our buying Russian gas and oil is the win win win win scenario you errantly mentioned. Are we at war with the Russian people after Putin is gone, at war with those who opposed him, or supporting them and making their government a success?
Yes. Yes of course we will remain at war with them, friends with our new Iranian allies and at war with the post Putin Russia is exactly the position of Boris’ government as of today.
The lesson for today is, If you are so happy to support the bad guys in this world doing bad things, you have to be happy being the bastard doing bad things too.
That's utter garbage.
No of course we will not remain the same thing indefinitely. Churchill and Stalin is a good example, as he said If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons.
Hitler was the greater evil in World War II, but once the War ended Churchill and the West didn't simply remain good friends and allies with Stalin. Even before he returned as PM, Churchill was immediately warning the West about the threats of the Soviet Union. Once the 'greater evil' was dealt with, our erstwhile allies became our greater evil themselves.
Realpolitik means dealing with the Iranians today because Putin is the greater evil, but once Putin is gone, we will have to deal with the world as it is then, not the world as it is today.
Iran has an opportunity at the moment to come in from the cold. If they behave nicely they can stay in and reintegrate ultimately into the civilised world. If they don't, they will be ostracised again before long.
She was quite prepared to go to war with Argentina over the Falklands as we could easily beat them.
There was nothing easy about it and we very nearly didn't.
Not much more would have had to go wrong for the operation to fail.
Rubbish.
We very easily beat them once we committed to the task force.
The Argentines were poorly trained and full of conscrips even more than the Russians and Thatcher of course sunk the Belgrano without much difficulty
If you speak to anyone who was there then you would know that is rubbish.
We had a more effective army than Argentina and a bigger navy and better trained pilots.
It was not that difficult. Plus of course we had submarines with nuclear missiles and Argentina did not have nuclear weapons.
Russia however does have nuclear weapons
You really do talk nonsense . We lost the Atlantic Conveyor to exocets which was a huge blow. If we had lost an aircraft carrier in the same way there would have been no way of getting troops to the Falklands as we would not have had air cover. That would have been a fatal blow.
It makes not a joy of difference that we had better soldiers, navy and air force if you can't get any of them there.
So what, we still sunk more Argentine ships than they sunk of ours which is the main aim in war.
Thatcher was also not a wet lettuce like you and had the Argentines sunk our aircraft carrier she might even have nuked Buenos Aires who knows. She was not going to lose that war.
However that would have been an absolute last resort to defend the Falklands if we had lost a our aircraft carriers. As we had 4 aircraft carriers at the time even had we lost 1 we would still have had 3 to replace it and could still have continued with the Task Force with them
A) The object of war was not to sink Argentina ships, in fact we made a point of avoiding doing so and could have done so at will, hence the fuss over the Belgrano.The objective was to reclaim the Falklands which we could not have done without the aircraft carriers which were at risk from exocets.
B ) I have never said we should not of reclaimed the Falklands. I just said it wasn't easy like you claim. It was a really big task and not a foregone conclusion or easy like you said.
C) W were never going to launch a nuke on Argentina. You are being ridiculous.
D) And we only had 2 aircraft carriers, Hermes and Invincible not 4.
E) Your comments disrespect the brave men who fought that war and the politicians who made the decisions. It was not easy. It was hard. Many died and it was not a foregone conclusion.
We had 4 aircraft carriers, Hermes, Invincible, Ark Royal and Illustrious
What?
We had scrapped Ark Royal (R09) and its replacement (R07) would not be commissioned until 1985. HMS Hermes was being sold to India. We had to hurriedly undo the sale. HMS Illustrious wasn't ready - it was rushed through commissioning in order to get it to the Falklands. And still didn't get there in time.
At the time war broke out, we technically had one serviceable aircraft carrier (technically, through-deck cruiser), HMS Invincible. We undid the sale of HMS Hermes, and rushed HMS Illustrious through commissioning well ahead of schedule; fortunately, it went well.
So we got from 1-maybe-2 up to trying-to-get-3-in-time but not managing it. We never had four. We were never anywhere near four. Why do you think we had four?
P.S. There is no way the Falklands was easy, straightforward, or a done deal. You don't know what you're talking about.
(Disclosure: I, with many others, covered Op CORPORATE in depth in my Intermediate Command and Staff Course at the Defence Academy, spent a few months in the Falklands in the Nineties on detachment there so I could see the terrain, and went on Invincible a couple of times)
Thankfully we still had a runway at Ascension, and seventeen barely-serviceable V-bombers, for one of the most complex and daring Air Force missions of all time.
The shortage of carriers is why I believe we need several small helicopter/vertical take-off aircraft carriers - like 9 or 10 of them. There is no point in a great lumbering hulk that we don't have adequate escort ships for anyway.
No way we could afford that. Not least because the escort demand would be even greater!
Also the reason for large deck carriers is sortie rates. The invincible class was never really designed for carrier Ops - we bastardised them towards it in the end but then we’re anti submarine platforms with a bit of local air defence for themselves. That remains true for all smaller classes.
I am very much a layman, and I think you might have missed a word after 'we're', so I don't really understand your point.
Sorry, ducking autocorrect! I never know why it prefers “we’re” to “were”.
Should read “they were”. Basically we forced them to act as carriers by the 90s because we didn’t need so much anti sun activity in the North Atlantic, but the size of deck is what limits sortie rates, and it frustrated us, which is why we went bigger on the replacements. And there’s the old maxim that fresh air is free and steel is cheap, so going a bit bigger doesn’t cost as much as you might think.
Could sortie rates be improved by part two of my cunning plan, to bring back the Harriers?
*Gets coat*
The Harrier's shortcomings are one of the reasons the QE class is so ludicrously big.
On Invincible we could generate another 8-10 sorties per day usually constrained by technical availability of aircraft which was quite poor. Meanwhile a Nimitz could enerate 120 sorties in 12 hours and that stung. In order to be taken seriously by the USN the RN specified an absolutely ludicrous 150/day sortie rate for the QE class. This is the reason they are so fucking big and expensive.
However it quickly became obvious that there would never be enough aircraft bought to hit that sortie rate so we've ended up with ships that are completely over-sized for the available aviation assets.
As always any attempt to evaluate the QE class in terms of military capability is pointless. That's not what they are for; they serve chiefly as a totem of national virility.
We have useless nukes as a totem of national virility, now two useless aircraft carriers as symobols of national virility. Can a fleet of tumescent airships be far away?
The Tories on here are weirdly, dangerously obsessed with Corbyn – a bloke who is not even a Labour MP anymore never mind being leader (having been kicked out by, er, the actual leader).
It's all rather creepy and sinister, this infatuation.
As creepy and sinister as Labour’s obsession with Thatcher, when she hadn’t been near power for a decade or more?
People overdo both (and the creepy Tory obsession with Thatcher too, though it may be my imagination but it feels like people are starting to dial both down), but Corbyn was Leader only 2 and a bit years ago - it doesn't mean Tories don't fallback on the 'But Corbyn' line too often as a distraction, they clearly do, but it is more likely to be relevant from time to time at least.
I've never understood the hatred for Corbyn particularly from Labour centrists even though I don't have an issue with people that merely dislike him/don't care for him which is their right. I haven't seen much evidence that Corbyn is directly shilling for Russia, although it would have been more sensible if he had directly called out Russia at the same time as McDonnell had done.
I think there has been a lot of silly comment on Russia and also 'crying wolf' with regard to Syria and 'Russiagate' which hasn't been helpful to the overall discourse and understanding of Russia's military ambitions as well as smearing the left on any issues to with NATO even though the vast majority of the left has recognised Putin as the aggressor in this conflict overall.
The Tories on here are weirdly, dangerously obsessed with Corbyn – a bloke who is not even a Labour MP anymore never mind being leader (having been kicked out by, er, the actual leader).
It's all rather creepy and sinister, this infatuation.
As creepy and sinister as Labour’s obsession with Thatcher, when she hadn’t been near power for a decade or more?
Yes, rather similar. It wasn't a winning strategy for Labour to keep bringing up Thatcher. And it won't be a winning strategy for the Tories to keep bringing up Corbyn. Even less so, actually, as at least Thatcher held power whereas Corbyn didn't.
I think you are spot on here. It seems to me there are two sets of voters in play for the next election. Red wallers and the give us a better choice than Boris v Corbyn next time brigade.
Boths groups really dislike Corbyn, but all banging on him about does is remind the latter group that Labour have changed and the Tories have not.
The Tories on here are weirdly, dangerously obsessed with Corbyn – a bloke who is not even a Labour MP anymore never mind being leader (having been kicked out by, er, the actual leader).
It's all rather creepy and sinister, this infatuation.
As creepy and sinister as Labour’s obsession with Thatcher, when she hadn’t been near power for a decade or more?
Hardly equivalent! Thatcher was in power for 11 years, Corbyn for not a single day. Also Thatcher held considerable sway over the Tory Party for long after she'd gone. Corbyn and its associated 'ism' has been utterly cancelled by Starmer's Labour.
Your party was led by a literal traitor at the LAST ELECTION. A man who supported Irish terrorists killing british citizens. An anti-Semitic communist with a fondness for jihad
And we’re just supposed to forget this? Yeah, right
The Tories on here are weirdly, dangerously obsessed with Corbyn – a bloke who is not even a Labour MP anymore never mind being leader (having been kicked out by, er, the actual leader).
It's all rather creepy and sinister, this infatuation.
As creepy and sinister as Labour’s obsession with Thatcher, when she hadn’t been near power for a decade or more?
Yes, rather similar. It wasn't a winning strategy for Labour to keep bringing up Thatcher. And it won't be a winning strategy for the Tories to keep bringing up Corbyn. Even less so, actually, as at least Thatcher held power whereas Corbyn didn't.
The Tories on here are weirdly, dangerously obsessed with Corbyn – a bloke who is not even a Labour MP anymore never mind being leader (having been kicked out by, er, the actual leader).
It's all rather creepy and sinister, this infatuation.
As creepy and sinister as Labour’s obsession with Thatcher, when she hadn’t been near power for a decade or more?
People overdo both (and the creepy Tory obsession with Thatcher too, though it may be my imagination but it feels like people are starting to dial both down), but Corbyn was Leader only 2 and a bit years ago - it doesn't mean Tories don't fallback on the 'But Corbyn' line too often as a distraction, they clearly do, but it is more likely to be relevant from time to time at least.
Corbo isn't even a Labour MP FFS.
Right - a highly relevant factor when people seek to imply Starmer and co must be the same as him because they served under him. But that doesn't mean any mention of them backing him is always unreasonable, it was very recent. It just cannot be pretended things have not moved on which counter that point, so it cannot be relied upon as a get of jail free card.
It's not very relevant, but nor is it entirely irrelevant. It's like how Godwin's law doesn't mean you can never bring up Nazis.
Comments
We were never going to use nukes. We didn't even attack Argentina other than sabotage attempts on planes. We also restricted attacks on shipping to the exclusion zone, hence the issues that arise over the Belgrano.
We had one objective to win back the Falklands, nothing else and your comments saying it was easy and not difficult (see above) is ignorant and insulting to the service men involved. The fact you can not bring yourself to apologize for this is appalling. I would like to see you say that to their face.
Should read “they were”. Basically we forced them to act as carriers by the 90s because we didn’t need so much anti sun activity in the North Atlantic, but the size of deck is what limits sortie rates, and it frustrated us, which is why we went bigger on the replacements. And there’s the old maxim that fresh air is free and steel is cheap, so going a bit bigger doesn’t cost as much as you might think.
Putin has inflicted all of that, in one year, on his own country
It is the most stupefyingly colossal blunder. Hard to think of anything similar
We owed the Iranian's a debt from the days of the Shah.
The Iranians unacceptably used dual nationality hostages to recover the debt.
A previous FS did not read his brief and suggested a hostage was working for Reuters. The Iranians cynically used this foolishness to bolster their position.
We need Iranian oil so we repaid the debt.
The hostages were released.
HMG have done the right thing, we have not paid a ransom, we have repaid a debt, A former FS nonetheless dropped a massive ******* back in 2017.
Thankfully, actual British policy on the use of the deterrent is very different.
There's tons of stuff like this in international relations - sums frozen between enemies. I'm pretty sure there is some US/Cuban stuff, for example.
One chap made a mint at the end of the Cold War. He collected the certificates for Imperial Russian Government bonds. After the revolution, the Bolsheviks defaulted on them. People bought them because the looked pretty.
As part of Russia rejoining the international community, they honoured the bonds. Inflation had meant that millions which were awesome in 1910 were trivial in 199X. But for the chap actually owning them....
It was arguably only a few dodgy bomb fuzes that were the margin between vicxtory and defeat - or indeed other elements, such as the sinking of the Atlantic Conveyor in mistake for a through-deck cruiser.
*Gets coat*
'No she wouldn't, Thatcher was a realist about what the UK could do militarily.
She was quite prepared to go to war with Argentina over the Falklands as we could easily beat them. However she never threatened the USSR militarily and she agreed to stick to the Hong Kong handover to China as she knew we could not beat them militarily either'
How do you know we were never going to use nukes? You were not Thatcher, you were a wet SDP Liberal I expect at the time.
We never needed to try as we won the war with conventional forces and without going too far beyond the Falklands and surrounding area.
Had we not won the war with conventional forces anything would have been on the table to defend British territory and that has zero to do with the sacrifices of our forces in the war
https://twitter.com/bbcwillvernon/status/1504057954701561857
NATO was never going to happen whilst occupied, not in the 21st century, but the EU could be managed better. Russia have been very clear they do not want that, but it is one of their most unreasonable demands (and that is saying something) and simply cannot be accepted I'd think - this whole business started over EU aspirations, and there's no pretext which makes it ok to prevent Ukraine from joining political blocs, especially when Russia is already bordered by other members (also applies to NATO, but easier to slip on that one)
https://twitter.com/GeorgeMonbiot/status/1503758826461409287
"We need to talk about #Westplaining.
"It’s a term coined by the Eastern European left to describe a tendency of certain Western leftists to ascribe everything that happens east of Germany to Western policy."
Though the Argentine military is weaker now
By the 90s it was clear that Sea Harrier vs Mig29/Su27 would be a very bad thing.
So you need an aircraft with more payload, more space and power for electronics, more space for weapons....
Hell, the original idea was that the Kestrel would lead to a "proper" aircraft
We could have lost.
And none of it would have been supportive. The US is very touchy about what happens in what it considers it's backyard.
It's all rather creepy and sinister, this infatuation.
If you are bringing up the second points in isolation then absolutely that's OK. If you're bringing up the latter as a justification/reason for Iran taking hostages, then its unmitigated bullshit.
Its like saying in response to someone being raped "but they were wearing a short skirt" "oh and they were drunk".
If we launched, or went around threatening to, then he US and NATO would drop us, and we’d (rightly) be an international pariah.
It does sound like peace is near. Hard to believe given the horrors of these weeks. Please let it be so
If peace arrives - if if if - it’s difficult to see Putin surviving in the medium term
Next election is labours to lose, imo.
The PM has the authority to take the final decision to defend our nation and its territories, if some civil servants are too wet and weak to do that fine, they can be replaced.
Sub captains also have no alternative but to obey the orders of the PM and government of the day or be dismissed and replaced by the next in command.
The US and NATO alliance is ultimately there to defend us, if they are unwilling to support us in defence of our overseas territories then the alliance is ended anyway
On Invincible we could generate another 8-10 sorties per day usually constrained by technical availability of aircraft which was quite poor. Meanwhile a Nimitz could enerate 120 sorties in 12 hours and that stung. In order to be taken seriously by the USN the RN specified an absolutely ludicrous 150/day sortie rate for the QE class. This is the reason they are so fucking big and expensive.
However it quickly became obvious that there would never be enough aircraft bought to hit that sortie rate so we've ended up with ships that are completely over-sized for the available aviation assets.
As always any attempt to evaluate the QE class in terms of military capability is pointless. That's not what they are for; they serve chiefly as a totem of national virility.
Had enough of the public not had the good sense to vote against them, then Corbyn would be Prime Minister today.
Only you could post at 9am that your friends are "preparing" for all-out nuclear apocalypse, then declare "peace is near" by lunchtime.
Liveuamap
@Liveuamap
Confirmed: Russian units from the 4th Guards occupation base in Tskhinvali are leaving the region through the Roki tunnel and heading to fight in Ukraine. https://liveuamap.com/en/2022/16-march-confirmed-russian-units-from-the-4th-guards-occupation via
@visionergeo
#Ukraine #Georgia
https://twitter.com/Liveuamap/status/1504058528188743687
Oh and one more. In 1982 there were WWII veterans in Government and senior military roles. The chances of them supporting delivering a nuclear attack in this way? Zero.
What could possibly go wrong with running a afterburner against both sides of the fuselage of an aircraft made of aluminium?
Do Westplainers really think they know something that the Kremlin doesn’t? That after a couple of hours googling, they've seen into the dark heart of Western strategy, and the Russian government hasn’t? That Putin is being led blindly into a trap they have spotted and he hasn't?
This story suits Putin very well, and he tells a cynical version of it himself: I was provoked, I had no choice, Russia is encircled by NATO and has to strike back. It is used to disguise a highly aggressive, imperialist strategy of his own
It’s notable that some of those who treat him as a mindless victim of Western scheming are also happy to recite blatant Kremlin propaganda, for example grossly overemphasising the influence of Ukrainian fascists, and describing the 2014 revolution as a “US coup”.
Or indeed, that 'neturality' at the point of a gun is a reasonable and essentially harmless demand, rather than, at best, a deeply regrettable and humiliating concession from Ukraine if it must be granted, as it would mean they have been abandoned.
And yes. If someone pays me for something and I don't deliver I repay with interest. Not to do so is fraud or theft.
Even if the original person has died, or the company has been taken over by a completely different owner.
How is the letter of last resort relevant to a Falklands invasion? Have you ever met a bomber crew? Have you read the NATO treaty? First clue is in the “NA” bit.
In my defence I’m 36 hours into a hard fast. I need a new idea for a basalt sex toy and I find that fasting speeds the creative brain
Unfortunately that same speeding means my moods cycle even more rapidly than usual
Tune in again at teatime when I’ll be predicting Totes Armageddon
(As an aside, if there were to be an election tomorrow, I'd probably vote Labour, depending on the local candidate though.)
It's not very relevant, but nor is it entirely irrelevant. It's like how Godwin's law doesn't mean you can never bring up Nazis.
Not a small localised conventional war.
Are we not missing the lesson to be learnt, just shrugging and excusing reactionary policy as realpolitik?
But your post actually sums up beautifully why Boris could be being reactionary and stupid and making mistakes - if Putin is replaced by a better government, the one who opposed this war, our buying Russian gas and oil is the win win win win scenario you errantly mentioned. Are we at war with the Russian people after Putin is gone, at war with those who opposed him, or supporting them and making their government a success?
Yes. Yes of course we will remain at war with them, friends with our new Iranian allies and at war with the post Putin Russia is exactly the ideological position of Boris’ government as of today.
The lesson for today is, If you are so happy to support the bad guys in this world doing bad things, you have to be happy being the bastard doing bad things too.
Could you ask the PM what first attracted him to the billionaire xxxx? (I didn't catch the name of the specific Russian oligarch cited).
No of course we will not remain the same thing indefinitely. Churchill and Stalin is a good example, as he said If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons.
Hitler was the greater evil in World War II, but once the War ended Churchill and the West didn't simply remain good friends and allies with Stalin. Even before he returned as PM, Churchill was immediately warning the West about the threats of the Soviet Union. Once the 'greater evil' was dealt with, our erstwhile allies became our greater evil themselves.
Realpolitik means dealing with the Iranians today because Putin is the greater evil, but once Putin is gone, we will have to deal with the world as it is then, not the world as it is today.
Iran has an opportunity at the moment to come in from the cold. If they behave nicely they can stay in and reintegrate ultimately into the civilised world. If they don't, they will be ostracised again before long.
I think there has been a lot of silly comment on Russia and also 'crying wolf' with regard to Syria and 'Russiagate' which hasn't been helpful to the overall discourse and understanding of Russia's military ambitions as well as smearing the left on any issues to with NATO even though the vast majority of the left has recognised Putin as the aggressor in this conflict overall.
Boths groups really dislike Corbyn, but all banging on him about does is remind the latter group that Labour have changed and the Tories have not.
And we’re just supposed to forget this? Yeah, right