StarGateWars Forums

[KMA]Avenger wrote:

Mordack wrote:Bring. It. On.

I take it you will go and fight if the Argies invade again, or are you just like our cowardly politicians who sit at home talk crap on the box and send others to die doing their dirty work??

If your not going to go out there and fight-then you have absolutely no leg to stand on in calling "bring it on".

I have a leg to stand on because I am a British Citizen, and I believe that British sovereign territory should be defended. As it happens both my father and my brother are in the armed forces, and I did a year with the TA, but that's frankly immaterial. This isn't some foreign war in the middle of the desert, it's British people under attack. It is the right of every citizen to call for their defence, and I won't let Ken Livingstone or any other bleeding heart lefty tell me differently.

The Iron Lady said it best:

Margaret Thatcher wrote:The people of the Falkland Islands, like the people of the United Kingdom, are an island race. Their way of life is British; their allegiance is to the Crown. They are few in number, but they have the right to live in peace, to choose their own way of life and to determine their own allegiance. It is the wish of the British people and the duty of Her Majesty’s Government to do everything that we can to uphold that right. That will be our hope and our Endeavour and, I believe, the resolve of every Member of the House.

And as for the British defence budget being cut. Well, I suspect this latest round of bluster from a corrupt tinpot President might convince a few people to look at that situation differently.

Fair enough, you do have a leg to stand on...

Just to clarify in case i have not been 100% understood, i am NOT (and i take GREAT offence at...not saying that is what you said, i am simply stating for the record) some bleeding heart lefty-tree hugger, i am simply anti-war after reading General Smedley Butlers book "War is a Racket", and after having researched the British Empire more thoroughly....to say nothing of the disgusting acts of aggression against Afghan, Iraq and other nations now facing obliteration at the hands of the US/UK/NATO.

[KMA]Avenger wrote:Fair enough, you do have a leg to stand on...

Just to clarify in case i have not been 100% understood, i am NOT (and i take GREAT offence at...not saying that is what you said, i am simply stating for the record) some bleeding heart lefty-tree hugger, i am simply anti-war after reading General Smedley Butlers book "War is a Racket", and after having researched the British Empire more thoroughly....to say nothing of the disgusting acts of aggression against Afghan, Iraq and other nations now facing obliteration at the hands of the US/UK/NATO.

I wasn't referring to you specifically, but perhaps more generally to people who are willing to cede the Falklands.

I would like to clarify that, for the record, I am not some gung-ho Neo-Con who wants to spread diplomacy with bombs or colonize great swathes of the developing world. I have grave doubts about what we're doing in Libya, but I respect the right of the people of the Falklands to self-determination, and their right to remain British citizens.

Don't worry, in both respects were are on the same page

Removed

That is of course, hoping it doesn't come to war again

Kit-Fox wrote:It is unlikely that we would have to ask the UN for much, considering what we did to the islands after '82, which was make them into fortresses.

This time the incoming conscripts wouldnt find a small force of 50 bored soldiers, but a well trained and prepared force of several hundred marines who are armed to the teeth. Not to mention the sort of defences & bases we have there now, arent the run down buildings they used to be but reinforced bunkers capable of withstanding anything the Argies are capable of throwing at them.

“Fixed fortifications are monuments to man's stupidity,” George S. Patton, Jr.

Ever since the invention of gunpowder defenses have been losing the arms race with mobile weapons.

Mordack wrote:I wasn't referring to you specifically, but perhaps more generally to people who are willing to cede the Falklands

Well I hope you weren't referring to my comments either, I agree our territory and interests around the world need to be protected by force if necessary. My point wasnt that we shouldn't, just that right now we are not capable, our fleet diminished, our army already overspread poorly equipped, nukes useless since we could never use them, and the final nail in the coffin, the loss of Arkroyal & her Harriers means we simply no longer have the ability to engage in warfare alone or take any form of unilateral action.

IMO the Arkroyal & her Harriers should be refitted and recommissioned, all other def cuts should be reversed, shipyards refitted & ships commissioned ( in the UK ), all forces expanded. If we're going to rely on the UN/US for anything let it be the Nuclear deterrent that will never be used, not the conventional forces that are frequently needed.

Removed

Kit-Fox wrote:Point I was making Mez is iit will be a lot harder to take the islands today than it was in '82 and it might not even be possible given the changes we made after '82.

I'd fully expect the garrison there to be able to hold out till help can arrive. Recall that in '82 we didnt have purpose built bases or defences or equipment in the region and we only had a token foce of a few men there, which is why our forces folded so quickly back then.

Now It would be a totally different fight & one that I doubt Argentina would be willing to fully commit to given how fast the body count on their side would rise.

Anywho we wouldnt need the UN, we just have to ask the Argentinian neighbours, who arent on the best of terms with them to help us out Lets face it folks like Chile dont really need much of an excuse to want to kick the Argies arse now do they

The Falklands are 7500 Miles from the UK, by sea is the only viable method of deployment at such range and its a several day voyage when the fleet is ready to depart, it also takes days to assemble men & equipment before departure when the men & equipment are available on the UK mainland which they are not. If the Argies invade any fixed defs will be bombed within hours, our forces on the islands will have to disperse and will not be able to resist the overwhelming numbers the Argies can deploy under Argentine air support. Our troops may still be alive when help arrives, but they wont be able to stop any invasion.

Last time this happened we had just retired the Endurance, the only Royal Navy vessel that patrolled the area, this time we have retired the Ark Royal, our last Carrier and the only way of delivering air support in any unilateral action. Last time we lost 6 ships & 11 more damaged by air attack even with 2 carriers protecting them, Also the only reason we won last time was UK/US intel agencies prevented Argentina from buying more air to ship missiles, since the cold war ended our intel agencies budgets have been slashed and refocused from hostile states to internation terrorists. With no carriers, far fewer ships, our army and fleet already spread around the middle east and no idea what weapons the Argies have this time it would take far longer the get there and we would not stand a chance doing it alone.

As for Argentine neighbours, they will not intervene directly and make themselves targets, at best they may allow UN forces to use them as a staging area if/when the UN finally stops talking and decides to do something.

Options that would remain

1) Use subs to attack the Argentine mainland with cruse missiles until they withdraw
2) Beg the UN ( US forces ) to intervene on our behalf. Last time the UN did nothing but talk, only the US openly supported our military action but even they did not participate.

Removed

Kit-Fox wrote:You are underestimating the kind of engineering we have put into the defences on the islands. only so called '1st world' armed forces would be able to overwhelm them in the manner you describe

Hell one of them is even *supposed* to be 'nuclear proof' (or so its rumoured)

I doubt Argentina has anything that could do more that put a few scratches in the paint of that

Hiding in a bunker is not repelling an invasion, and even with weapons 10 or 15 years behind ours they could overwhelm us if they have to will to fight and accept heavy losses.

Well, this is the news again. Any thoughts?

Torch Argentina. Their economic and political aggression needs to be handled with the stick of diplomacy's best asset.

don't the terms of the Entente Frugale (or whatever it's called) agreement with france include carrier support for the defence of the falklands?

France has something to do with this England/Argentina conflict over Falklands?