Falkland Islanders still feel "under threat"

#1
Falkland Islanders still feel "under threat" 25 years after the Argentine invasion, the British territory's governor said.

Governor Alan Huckle said UK forces remained on the islands to deter "any thought of future aggression" against them.

Speaking ahead of the 25th anniversary commemorations of the British victory over Argentina in June 1982, Mr Huckle said the islands remained an "operational theatre".

"There is fear among islanders that it could happen again, there is a potential
threat at all times," he said. "The Argentine government is now a very different government to the Galtieri government back in 1982 but nevertheless it is still a government that is pressing its sovereignty claim and reducing the level of its co-operation with us.

"It has introduced fishing legislation which could affect us for example. People here are in a vulnerable position. There are 3,000 islanders and they feel under threat, however their confidence in the protection the British offer us allows us to thrive economically."

Relations between the islands' government and that of Argentina have cooled markedly since the current president Nestor Kirchner came to power in 2003.

Kirchner has repeatedly reasserted Argentina's claim to the islands but promised he would do so through peaceful means.

But Britain's top military man in the islands said he did not believe there was a greater threat to the islands this year.

Brigadier Nick Davies, Commander of British Forces in the South Atlantic, said he was confident he still had the resources to repel any invasion despite heavy commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The 47-year-old ex-para commander who took on the post in November said: "I am here to deter any aggression. In simple terms my job is to make sure that any interference at any level - whether it is a small incursion right up to someone seeking to take control of the islands - that that is an extremely costly venture and also to make sure that I can prevent it."

Yahoo news
via Press association.
 
#3
they can try peaceful means all they want, we wont give up the islands, so they will have to use force, and we will just go down there and sort them out again... the question is, if it happens while we are still in iraq and afganistan will we be able to do it?
 
#4
I'm sure the islands could be retaken, if there were any RN vessels to get a task force down there.
 
#5
I don't think we could re take it to be honest.

Do you think Bliar would make the decision to divert assets from Iraqistan to the FI?

That is the only way it could be achived and it would be a closer run thing than it was 25 years ago.

It would again have to be a Naval run affair but this time without boats. Do we have assets that could miss Stanleys runway? No Vulcans, fewer Air Tankers, no SHARs plus it would take procurment another 10 years to get enough cold weather kit and non desert CS95 to fit whatever blokes haven't PVR'd.

Bliars decsion would be along the lines of 'Do I pull out of Iraqistan and annoy the shaved chimp just for the sake of a few Stills who hold zero punch in the polls or with the USA?'

As for the RN. The rate we are going, we'll have barely enough boats to carry a few blokes across the Solent. And even then it would have to be a shuttle run.


Today is a very different world and country from 1982 and Maggie. Some of it better, most of it worse.



We should take the pre-emptive strike now and lob all of our knackered Tridents at Buenos Aires. I'm sure no one will notice whilst we distract them with the Iraqistan issue.
 
#6
Even Dear Tony/Gordon the moron's egos could not face the eternal comparison that they failed where Maggie succeeded ?

They would surely call in some favours from GW?

Loss of face would be on the scale of Suez with the same consequences for foreign policy and their political standing, hence GW could not allow it either. leaving him even more isolated?

There would be no fence sitting this time from USA?

Are the powers in Argentina really still as extreme as the Junta was?

Hope I'm right as another cluster fcuk we don't need, especially considering the blokes lost doing this once before
 
#7
If the Argies 'could' take it and I suppose they must have that capability then We have no navy capable of doing the biz. Oh Jack will do his best, always has done, but he's been slashed even more then Poor old Tom.
Getting Tom ashore was and still is the problem.
john
Oh yeah King George will be begging to help Tone dear Tone, my F-ing Poor Assre he will.
The Yanks still not forgiven us for burning what was the Black house after we finished in 1814 ?
 
#8
Have a go on Friday and Saturday Nights, around about the end of the month when the money goes into the bank..."Weekend Millionaires"
Anyone who's served down here, will tell you it's a either a get "FIZZED UP" TOUR, or a "P1SSUP Tour...I choose the LATER... :headbang:
 
#9
The Lord Flasheart said:
I don't think we could re take it to be honest.

We should take the pre-emptive strike now and lob all of our knackered Tridents at Buenos Aires. I'm sure no one will notice whilst we distract them with the Iraqistan issue.
That and the fact we can park several Subs off their coast within cruise missile range and pull the plug on their Country is what will keep them out.

Either that or we get all friendly with Uruguay, and hope we can ship an RTR down there to look menacing on their northern border.
 
#10
A good book about the possible outcome of a future falklands war. Scarey reading to be honest clicky
 
#11
We have the personnel available for a short term, high intensity operation. We just don't have the means of transporting them to the islands. Listy is right in that we could effectively isolate the Argentinian command from their task force with cruise missiles alone. But to retake the island takes boots on the ground (preferably with men in them).
 
#13
how exactly are the argies going to take mpa ?
they did'nt do to well against a reinforced platoon of marines
theres a company of inf a sqd of sappers load of rapier bods who presumably now how to use a rifle (apologies to any rapier types now zero about your skill base)
theres even some light guns in storage down there. a sqd of fast jets and a sub.
a sub sort of make any type of amphib landing impossible.
para drop poss if the tornados are all shot down but that would be a pretty hard task to achieve crab air having fcuk off radars and radar guided missiles
 
#14
We only need a ground force bigger than RIC if Johny G gets ashore. It will be much simpler reinforcing the Islands with mud movers and additional interceptors via 8500 ft of black top at MPA than it would have been in '82 via 3500 ft at Stanley. Reinforce with Tornado 4s and, probably, 3s. Repulsing an air supported amphibious assault with the resident 3s (4 EA max and more likely 3 EA) isn't going to work.

FI is one of the few places on the planet where we don't need a carrier; unless we're daft enough to lose it again. The fact we can reinforce the air component faster than they could marshall and launch an assault is all the deterrent we need. The problems may start if "we" decide to rob BFFI to cover the sandpit.
 
#15
Interesting to cross reference this with the ethical war thread. If we wanted to retake the islands and weren't too ethical how we went about it... we have a lot of submarines and not much for them to do. Not a great deal Argentina could do about it if we decided to sink their shipping indiscriminately until they agreed that the FI aren't worth the bother and withdrew.

Of course, this would be viewed as unethical so we wouldn't do it. The annoying bit is, we wouldn't even threaten to do it.
 
#16
Bert_Preast said:
Interesting to cross reference this with the ethical war thread. If we wanted to retake the islands and weren't too ethical how we went about it... we have a lot of submarines and not much for them to do. Not a great deal Argentina could do about it if we decided to sink their shipping indiscriminately until they agreed that the FI aren't worth the bother and withdrew.

Of course, this would be viewed as unethical so we wouldn't do it. The annoying bit is, we wouldn't even threaten to do it.
I'm not serving, so I know little enough about the nitty gritty of the army, and less about the technology of torpedos, but would it not be possible to construct a munition which 'punches' a dirty big hole on the hull, or peppers it shotgun style, without actually blowing the ship up?

This'd sink the bugger well enough, sending all the hardware to the bottom, but wouldn't get you all the bad press that scorched bodies and dismembered torsos would.
 
#17
Best you can do is tell them to abandon before firing, but that's not an option if they're escorted. I suppose the punching holes might work but you'd need something like that Iranian torpedo that does 220 knots, ours would just be deflected downwards I suspect.

We could start trading arms with Iran?

Nah.
 

Latest Threads

Top