The Falklands - Who should own these godforsaken islands?

Well, if you had moved into an area originally nested only by penguins and chasing them away by such an act, then why would this be shameful in the days before PETA?

 

If a nation of 60 million does not have the moral courage to protect and defend 3000 of their own, then they lack the moral right to do anything at all.

 

You find the Con/lib dem government "wimpy"

How exactly could they be stronger?

 

Those 3,000 people on their rocks are also sitting above a large oilfield, first tentatively explored by Britain before the war in 1982. It's very much in the interests of the 60 million to support them.

 

The current government simply lacks the ability to defend their citizens out of sight of the British Isles. They could be stronger by funding an adequate military..Instead they use the money to buy votes and that will result in selling out their citizens in the South Atlantic...

Long term socialism has its effect. The rot is too deep to be reversed in time.

 

As I understand it most of the decisions relating to carriers and aircraft were taken by the last government. The current government is in the unfortunate position of having inherited a forces sans aircraft carrier while waiting for the completion of the replacement.

Ten years of continuous engagement in war hasn't helped either.

 

Do you know what BP stands for?

Byebye Penguins.

 

But they have not made any move to rebuild the military...There is not even a serious discussion to do anything so, when the crunch comes, the government will be unable. At the least htey should move a few brigades of combat troops to the Islands with enough supplies to fight un-supplied for a LONG time as they will be alone.

They should also park at least one sub on station and a few score aircraft scattered about the Island.

 

ATM BP stands for nothing it just means BP, I think.

 

At the moment BP still stands for trial relative to their substantial oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, I think.

 

This is the argument .
" If you don't fick off , we will take you to pieces"
Last time the Argies took one look at our advancing squaddies , stood up and started waving the white flag .
We have a few over here playing football . The moment they come under pressure they sulk like kids .
Having said that some of their wines are brilliant .

 

Do you believe that Argentina would hesitate to exploit the oil reserves around the Falklands if they had control of the islands?

Do you contend that their regulations would be tighter or better enforced?

 

I trust Argentinians to be more concerned with the quality of their surrounding waters.

 

A hugely experienced military in constant action for years now.

...

 

The us was less concerned with the quality of it's surrounding waters?

The falkland islanders will be unconcerned with the quality of their surrounding waters ?

 

You can imagine how Falklands might be conquered. The Argentine airforce will paradrop some troops who will quickly subdue the islands. The British will refrain from sending over surface ships without air cover out of fear of watching them getting sunk by the Argentinian exocets. Then in the aftermath, the British will comission some subs to the area that will circle the islands like pissed off sharks, while the Argentinian forces on the island beaches will engage in casual fishing activities while occasionally dropping some depth charges.

 

The Americans affected by the oil spill were a lot more concerned than BP's CEO, I seem to remember.

Don't worry about that pesky oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, BP CEO Tony Hayward says: It's "relatively tiny" compared to the "very big ocean."*

As to the falkland islanders, as British citizens their only need for water is to make beer.

 

A far smaller number of far more capable ships is not the answer. One ship can only be in one place at a time and the ability to put a half dozen ships on station with out air support is not a winning option...

The Royal Navy is only 79 ships of all sorts and under 200 aircraft. Of those 79 ships, none are aircraft carriers. The two being built are 4-6 years from completion.

The Argentine have 42 ships but has 243 aircraft in the air force...I am not sure the Brits could stop an invasion and am pretty sure they could not retake the Islands if lost this time. The British would win any land engagement.

 

BP was reckless, indeed. But so was the U.S. government given its initial total lack of concern about the situation. The BP struggled with pressure instabilities and small leaks at that well for two months prior to the big rapture. They appealed to the U.S. gov't several times begging for assistance. The U.S. gov't which collects commissions off BP's revenues from drilling in the Caribbean, simply told the corporates to **** off since this is their problem. Further, there was a lot of murkiness concerning violations on the part of government inspectors of these wells. So the accident had to do both with corporate greed and government's disconcern for doing its part to ensure safety, rather than just cashing in.

 

Of course. But the Indignados in Louisiana were clearly outweighing their Sussex cousins.

 

Yes..........its true that a lack of an aircraft carrier, would hinder to some degree any retake of the Falklands island, if invaded by Argentina...but not impossible.

People need to remember for a starter it would be harder for the Argies to land troops there, as there is a much larger garrison of British troops there, i believe somewhere around a 1000 men.
Plus there are 4 Typhoon jets stationed there, with a Victor refuelling tanker, and some helicopters, plus surface-to-air missile defences.
Out at sea, there will soon be a Type 45 Destroyer....and with its Sea Viper missile system, which can take on many aircraft simultaneously, long before any aircraft was anywhere near the Falklands.
A Trafalgar class sub is also on its way, and armed with Tomahawk land attack missiles.

Anyway...we do have a carrier.....but its a helicopter carrier. It wouldnt be much help against an aerial attack, that would be left to the few Typhoons, but mainly the land and warship based air defence systems, which are way ahead technologically than the missile systems of the 1982 conflict.

Mind you the Apache helicopters of HMS Ocean would decimate any Argie land force, if somehow they did overcome the British garrison there.

We dont have a feeble goverment now....it was the Labour goverment from 1997-2010 which ran our defences into the ground, and delayed the carrier project by years. Never mind, we only have to wait a few more years before the Queen Elizabeth carrier is commisioned.

 

British had a lot of bad luck with their helicopters around Falklands. There was a solid reason why they did not use choppers at Falklands back in 1982, and had to do with exocets penetrating hulls.

 

Well you said that the islanders should have self determination..... and the fact is that they do. They want to be part of Britain and they are.

 

When you say the vast majority of Brits... do you mean the vast majority if mentally retarded Brits? I do not know anyone who thought as you did.

 

It is the natural resources.. particularly in the disputed seas surrounding the area.