I know it's from the Guardian but we'll just have to deal with it I'm afraid.
For those like myself who probably wouldn't read a full article just to comment, the TL,DR version is as follows:-
. High profile military leaders want increase in defense spending from 2% GDP to 3%
. They claim that not doing so puts the UK's capability to defend it's interests around the globe at risk, due to under-funding.
. One area they claim is at risk is (you guessed it) The Falkland Islands, which could be easy pickings to aggresive Argentine intrests, especially if it's backed by it's ally China. They cite other potential future threats also, including N Korea, Afghanistan, Pakistan and China
What do we think of this?
If the worst came to the worst and the Falklands were invaded again, and this time, we lost the war, it would probably spell the end (in popularity terms anyway) for the current government. I mean, we undertake military operations in Libya or Afghanistan, but at the expense of defending territories we have previously fought to protect - that and correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't a large oil field recently discovered in the Falkland Islands area? So this place has economic value rather than just national pride at stake...
that's my two cents, what's yours?
EDIT: Woops, I'm a retard who can't spell defence... Corrected.
Sorry, you needed a defence expert to tell you that?
No. I didn't.
The point is that despite the fact these particular experts have a personal interest in government spending cuts to the defence budget, they are still experts, and so are more knowledgeable in the area than you or I, therefore, their opinion should hold more sway amongst people making decisions.
Of course it doesn't mean that their prediction of doom & disaster will come true, but one can argue that in the unlikely event the Falklands were invaded again (which in itself is made more likely by the fact that Britain may look weak on the world stage), we would be less able to defend our interests.
Aside from that, I believe we should stand up to aggression, but only to an extent, I mean, if we're faced with an over-whelming force, then we should capitulate, but this should be the last, not the first, resort. Giving in to aggression only ensures further aggression.
I re-iterate the argument that the Falklands are not just a bunch of islands with no economic value
Although to be fair, you're probably right, none of our lives would change, but what do you think public opinion would be if we actually lost the islands?
EDIT: And just to add, through no response from the government either?