WWDD? Certainly remark on Liberation Day
By Mahons On June 14th, 2012The Falklands were liberated (and that is the word) 30 years ago when Argentina’s illegitimate invasion was foiled. Over 200 servicemen from the UK military lost their lives and more than twice that number of the invaders. The Falklands population was and is overwhelmingly in favor of the ties to the UK. Argentina’s government’s attempt then (and now) to deflect domestic problems by fanning the flames should be condemned. It is to the credit of successive British governments that they have maintained the commitment to the Falklands, a strong continuity of principle that deserves praise. This is especially true considering the lukewarm support and even hinderance of other nations who should know better, including the U.S. So here is to those who sacrificed their lives those many years ago.
Similar to NI, the majority of citizens want to remain as they are nationally.
Respect for their wishes would be welcome.
To all our fallen heroes, I salute you.
I wouldn’t say there is lukewarm support or hindrance, especially from the United States. The US is left in a difficult situation where two of their allies are in a dispute. If push came to shove the US (like Reagan did in the 80s) would support the British but until that comes they are going to stay out of it so that they don’t piss off their only major ally in an increasingly important region.
Boy, this sure seems like ancient history.
Would the UK defend those islands today in the same way?
I hope that they would, but I don’t know.
It would be a question mark as to whether they would have the capability. The Royal Navy isn’t what it once was.
The UK and the other Europeans are gradually slipping into a position where they cannot defend themselves at all.
That’s not good.
They can defend themselves. They can’t defend the far reaches of their still present colonies. The UK can defend the UK and France can defend France. But can the UK defend the Falklands and can France defend the French islands in the Pacific?
The Irish Army couldn’t fight its way out of a wet paper bag, and the UK military is rapidly heading in that direction.
The UK and France will be left with nearly no real ships of the line, few aircraft, and a few very good special forces. Which is a lot better than nothing, but it is not nearly enough to defend themselves against real threats. Threats have not ceased to exist in this world.
It is time to beat a few plowshares into swords, boys. Time to read Ecclesiastes. You won’t do it, but you should do it.
One doesn’t require a fleet for defence anymore. A fleet is largely an offensive force now, to deploy troops in other parts of the world outside their home country.
If you take the top 16 countries in terms of military spending the US spends more than the other 15 put together. That isn’t sustainable in the long term.
I disagree.
Read Admiral Mahan.
Sea power remains essential.
While we are still in a position of strength and still have right on our side, it would be wise to consider a few of the fundamentals.
We are some 8,000 miles from the Falklands which are some 300 miles from Argentina while we are running down our armed forces at breakneck speed, and our economy even faster. We have native politicians who with the one exception of Maggie, are morally bankrupt with the judgement of headless chickens, while our real government in Brussels have not the slightest interest in us or the Falklands.
Therefore it might seem rational and sensible to sit down and negotiate a joint internationally backed mandate with Argentina and the Falklanders.
When was the last time we defended the UK from attack by belligerent foreigners? Unless I’m mistaken, that was all of seven decades ago.
Which is why I smile at terms such as “defence spending” when muttered by our political and military leaders.
Phantom,
Alfred Mahan died nearly one hundred years ago and his studies were based on maritime power in the 18th Century. Warfare has moved on a touch. Modern Navies are about power projection and offensive maneuvers, not defence.
Richard,
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Sea power remains essential in a far more interconnected world.
I could give a large number of reasons why, but that’s a long conversation for another day.
But what the hey. Maybe all threat is gone from the world, and a few Special Forces can do it all.
Seven decades ago is the flutter of a gnat’s wing, a nothing.
All the threat isn’t gone but defences don’t require a significant service fleet. Only diplomacy and offensive moves require it. The UK doesn’t, for example, require a huge service fleet to protect Britain. It does need it to exert influence throughout the world and to launch offensive military action throughout the world.
Top hole, Mahons! Except you missed out the ‘u’ in favor.
But that’s just a detail for now.
Using the ” u ” is a sign of cultural subservience to France
“Seven decades ago is the flutter of a gnat’s wing, a nothing.”
Wow, just how old are you, Phantom? For me, WWII is ancient history
Bernard,
I hate to break the news but the USA has led the way in our spelling for a long, long time.
//It is time to beat a few plowshares into swords, boys.//
There are still some dangers, but they are not of the kind you’re referring to, and indeed aircraft carriers etc are about as effective in fighting them as, well, swords.
Intelligence, diplomatic skill and cyber stealth are the new weapons.
Time to learn to use our brains for a change, boys.
“Would the UK defend those islands today in the same way?”
The strategy relies on not having to defend them in the same way. Argentina’s military has been barely upgraded over the years and is well obsolete by today’s standards.
There’s a permanent British Army garrison on the Falklands, the Royal Navy keeps a frigate, a guided missile destroyer and subs nearby, and RAF Mount Pleasant has Typhoons (Eurofighters, as they’re known) stationed.
They strategy now is to defeat any Argentine invasion force before it can reach the islands.
Hear hear Noel.
My thoughts are with those who lost loved ones. Had diplomacy been used then hundreds of lives would not have been needlessly lost BUT Thatcher would have lost the election.
A price worth paying?
“One doesn’t require a fleet for defence anymore.”
Maybe not the Swiss, but for an island nation an effective navy is more important than an army or air force.
Richard
When trading in geopolitics, think like the Chinese and other Asians do, in terms of centuries. A hundred years ago is yesterday.
Phantom,
So you expect Britain to be attacked any decade now? I don’t. Who would dare—or even wish to? The Belgians?
Speaking of aircraft carriers, I heard the following once.
Q. What’s the purpose of those fighter planes and small vessels?
A. To protect the aircraft carrier.
Q. I see. So what’s the purpose of the aircraft carrier?
A. Why, to protect those fighter planes and small vessels of course.
You have interests far from your shores, including in freedom of navigation, and you need to do your share in protecting those interests.
Including protecting unimpeded navigation in the Persian Gulf, the Suez Canal, East Asia in the rise of an aggressive China, and anti piracy in various places. You should protect your interests, as you always have.
Navies don’t just exist to win wars or battles. They exist to prevent wars and battles, too.
dear me, the amount of drivel on here and ignorance is astonsing.
The UK’s Naval Fleet is second to none, not event eh mighty us of a.
http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/The-Fleet/Ships/Destroyers/Type-45-Destroyers/HMS-Dauntless
have a look and wise up.
Well said Phantom/Pete Moore and Dithoops, the Falklands is British, just like N.I. until the citizens of said places decide otherwise.