Turn on thread page Beta

Falklands watch

Announcements
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    No, i was doing my duty aboard a ship 'o the line. :captain:
    I was down when a ship named after a certain city in the west had asked for "less rum in our rum and coke" in the mess book (which was swiftly removed!) and I was asked to get "a dusting of white powder on the hills" into CBFFI's morning brief; yeah, pretty bad jokes but there were worse.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aramiss18)
    Thats what the US generals said last time - except the Armed Forces did win.

    In what sense? The Army still has tens of thousands of professional infantry personnel trained to the best standards (not to mention RAF Reg and RM), the new Astute class submarine is second to none,the new destroyer is technologically superior to anything the argies would have, the Eurofighter is still very good plus theres always the Trident nuclear deterent.

    The only problem I see is that if they attacked soon so many of the MoDs resources are in Afghanistan and the Navy is deployed in Somali waters.
    The Army is running at about 10% light. A lot of experienced NCO's have quit and 20% of the Army is actually unfit for frontline duty. It has been seriously starved of investment under Labour.

    As for the Navy and RAF - the cuts have been so horrendous that people like Sir Jock Stirrrup (I love that name!) are now contemplating a merger of the two services.

    On top of that, the Army in particular is stretched to breaking point with its commitments in Afghanistan and Iraq.

    There's no way Britain could launch a campaign to recover the Falklands at this time.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    Maybe next time they won't force teenagers into doing men's work. Perhaps they'll send little girls or women next time. Thats a problem for the Argentine conscience.
    :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Democracy)
    Except that it was outside our ZOE.
    Every enemy combatant in a war is a legitimate target, no matter where they are. Although random, imprecise attacks would be irrational. This was not the case with Belgrano, it was an armed naval vessel in the relative theatre of war, not a hospital ship.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Liquidus Zeromus)
    Every enemy combatant in a war is a legitimate target, no matter where they are. Although random, imprecise attacks would be irrational. This was not the case with Belgrano, it was an armed naval vessel in the relative theatre of war, not a hospital ship.
    I'd argue that it wasn't a threat, and that the reason the UK decided to sink it was more or less along the same lines as the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stalin)
    I'd argue that it wasn't a threat, and that the reason the UK decided to sink it was more or less along the same lines as the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
    I don't mean to sound crude, but that and another incident did pretty much put their navy out of action.

    That and another instance where an helicopter dropped anti-submarine torpedo's on an Argie sub. It was severely damaged and only just managed to limp back to an Argie Naval port.

    After that they practically ruled out naval warfare.

    Back to your point, I'm not sure anyone can be certain of what the Belgrano's intents were at the time.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thunder_chunky)
    I don't mean to sound crude, but that and another incident did pretty much put their navy out of action.

    That and another instance where an helicopter dropped anti-submarine torpedo's on an Argie sub. It was severely damaged and only just managed to limp back to an Argie Naval port.

    After that they practically ruled out naval warfare.

    Back to your point, I'm not sure anyone can be certain of what the Belgrano's intents were at the time.
    I'm not saying that it shouldn't have been sunk because by sinking it, the Argentinian Navy was more or less finished and it sent their dictator along with the world, a clear message, but for people to say that it was a threat is complete nonsense.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Democracy)
    This time maybe we could not sink a battleship filled with teenage recruits...
    That was sad but British territory had been invaded and the Islanders, against their will placed under a dictatorship. Plus the war accelerated the removel of the junta from power and brought democracy to Argentina.

    OP I doubt the modern Royal Navy could launch a similar assuault as they did in the 1980s. I imagine Brown would turn to the UN. The situation will never arise again thankfully
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Democracy)
    This time maybe we could not sink a battleship filled with teenage recruits...
    :facepalm2: Recruits=soldiers=enemy...
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    The Army is running at about 10% light. A lot of experienced NCO's have quit and 20% of the Army is actually unfit for frontline duty. It has been seriously starved of investment under Labour.

    As for the Navy and RAF - the cuts have been so horrendous that people like Sir Jock Stirrrup (I love that name!) are now contemplating a merger of the two services.

    On top of that, the Army in particular is stretched to breaking point with its commitments in Afghanistan and Iraq.

    There's no way Britain could launch a campaign to recover the Falklands at this time.
    Agreed, all we need however, is some more submarines and they won't even try.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stalin)
    I'd argue that it wasn't a threat, and that the reason the UK decided to sink it was more or less along the same lines as the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
    It was a real threat, it and the 2 cruisers it was moving with were trying to form a pincer movement, the bulk of the Agentine fleet was moving in from the West and they were trying to come in from the South. If it had been allowed to continue our fleet would have had real problems.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    My dad faught in the Falklands the first time round. He always emphasised how greatful the Islanders were for British involvement.

    So in my mind I would say, if the Falklands were invaded again, I would hope we would respond in the same way we did in 82.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    (Original post by Howard)
    The Army is running at about 10% light. A lot of experienced NCO's have quit and 20% of the Army is actually unfit for frontline duty. It has been seriously starved of investment under Labour.

    As for the Navy and RAF - the cuts have been so horrendous that people like Sir Jock Stirrrup (I love that name!) are now contemplating a merger of the two services.

    On top of that, the Army in particular is stretched to breaking point with its commitments in Afghanistan and Iraq.

    There's no way Britain could launch a campaign to recover the Falklands at this time.
    If **** hit the fan we would have enough to be able to take them back providing that it was a force similar in power to last time.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rucklo)
    If **** hit the fan we would have enough to be able to take them back providing that it was a force similar in power to last time.
    Well considering the fact that we have 1000 men over there, 4 eurofighters and a few ships then it's probable that the island could be defended, until reinforcements arrived, which may not even happen considering that the UK is overstretched at the moment.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    (Original post by Stalin)
    Well considering the fact that we have 1000 men over there, 4 eurofighters and a few ships then it's probable that the island could be defended.
    114,000 soldiers.

    Around 40,000 are deployed across the world.

    Say 40,000 are on leave.

    Say 20,000 defending the UK.

    Leaves 14,000 to use, more than was used in the original conflict I believe.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    I don't think we would have the capacity to retake the Falklands if it happenned today. The British forces are a shadow of what they were 30 years ago.
    What a nonsense comment

    At the moment we got one of the most advanced tanks (challenger 2) in the world (joint with the abrams)

    The most advanced nuclear submarine in the world (astute class/ trident)

    One of the most advanced fighter jets (euro typhoon jet)

    And two massive new aircraft carriers on the way..

    So apparently we are a shadow of what we were 30 years ago?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rucklo)
    114,000 soldiers.

    Around 40,000 are deployed across the world.

    Say 40,000 are on leave.

    Say 20,000 defending the UK.

    Leaves 14,000 to use, more than was used in the original conflict I believe.
    Perhaps but realistically if Argentina desperately wanted the Falklands back they would put up more of a fight this time around, and would easily outnumber a force of 15,000.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    (Original post by Stalin)
    Perhaps but realistically if Argentina desperately wanted the Falklands back they would put up more of a fight this time around, and would easily outnumber a force of 15,000.
    Then you call on the TA and reserves, times like that are what there trained to be used for.

    Plus send a couple of hunter subs and a carrier and 2 destroyers and there is no contest.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    :facepalm2:
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Giggsy's Girl)
    My dad faught in the Falklands the first time round. He always emphasised how greatful the Islanders were for British involvement.

    So in my mind I would say, if the Falklands were invaded again, I would hope we would respond in the same way we did in 82.
    Interesting, do you know who he served with?

    The Islanders were very grateful, however the cost was dear.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: June 15, 2010
Poll
Do you think parents should charge rent?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.