Turn on thread page Beta

Military experts call for increase in defence spending, claiming UK is vulnerable. watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/se...lose-falklands

    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Let them have the Falkland Islands. If Argentina is backed by China then **** that.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    It's defence. *sigh*
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by S.J.Shiro)
    Let them have the Falkland Islands. If Argentina is backed by China then **** that.
    Sure, let's just hand it over Hong Kong-style shall we?

    WEAK CHINNED LIBERAL.

    The US may not outright support Britain's claim to the Falkland islands, but they would have to back us if China threatened us with military action.

    It's a disgrace how Shameron and co have dismantled our armed forces. Increase the spending so we can defend the British people to a HIGH STANDARD.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Sorry, you needed a defence expert to tell you that?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Studentrepreneur)
    Sure, let's just hand it over Hong Kong-style shall we?

    WEAK CHINNED LIBERAL.

    The US may not outright support Britain's claim to the Falkland islands, but they would have to back us if China threatened us with military action.

    It's a disgrace how Shameron and co have dismantled our armed forces. Increase the spending so we can defend the British people to a HIGH STANDARD.
    Er...we leased Hong Kong from China. We gave it back because we're a civilised nation.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Studentrepreneur)
    Sure, let's just hand it over Hong Kong-style shall we?

    WEAK CHINNED LIBERAL.

    The US may not outright support Britain's claim to the Falkland islands, but they would have to back us if China threatened us with military action.

    It's a disgrace how Shameron and co have dismantled our armed forces. Increase the spending so we can defend the British people to a HIGH STANDARD.
    The Falklands are irrelevant.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Clip)
    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.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Clip)
    Er...we leased Hong Kong from China. We gave it back because we're a civilised nation.
    mmm you may want to revise history slightly

    The only reason we gave it back is because the Chinese threatened Thatcher and the Iron Lady melted.

    (Original post by S.J.Shiro)
    The Falklands are irrelevant.
    So are you. Does that mean we should allow an Argie to take control of your house?

    No surrender to the Argie scum.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I may be missing something here, but does anybody really care if Britain lost the Falklands? I mean, nothing would change... in any of our lives.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Studentrepreneur)
    mmm you may want to revise history slightly

    The only reason we gave it back is because the Chinese threatened Thatcher and the Iron Lady melted.



    So are you. Does that mean we should allow an Argie to take control of your house?

    No surrender to the Argie scum.
    Blair signed Hong Kong back, not Thatcher... and we did lease Hong Kong from China. In 1997 that lease ended.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Dark Lord)
    I may be missing something here, but does anybody really care if Britain lost the Falklands? I mean, nothing would change... in any of our lives.
    Yes because they are British citizens and are entitled to protection from this nation for as long as they wish to remain a part of it.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Dark Lord)
    Blair signed Hong Kong back, not Thatcher.
    Wrong.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Oops we have no airbases.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Dark Lord)
    I may be missing something here, but does anybody really care if Britain lost the Falklands? I mean, nothing would change... in any of our lives.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/ma...ery-rockhopper

    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?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Studentrepreneur)
    mmm you may want to revise history slightly

    The only reason we gave it back is because the Chinese threatened Thatcher and the Iron Lady melted.
    You don't recognise that there was in fact a 99 year lease?



    No surrender to the Argie scum.
    That.....I cannot argue with.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Studentrepreneur)
    Yes because they are British citizens and are entitled to protection from this nation for as long as they wish to remain a part of it.
    If the Falklanders like Britain so much why don't they go live there? I'm sick of this liberal wibbling.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Studentrepreneur)
    Wrong.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Ko...dover_ceremony

    See for yourself.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    A defence expert calls for increase in defence spending? no **** sherlock :holmes:
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    Fail, fail, fail. So much fail.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/d...00/2538857.stm
 
 
 
Poll
Have you ever experienced bullying?
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.