Prince Andrew - Falklands:We couldnt do it now

#1
Now, this is either an extraordinary gaff or a well-timed one in the eye to military planners, but Prince Andrew in an interview with the BBC has just stated that we couldn't achieve anything like the victory in the Falklands with today's armed forces.

a) Am I the only one who noticed and b), am I the only one who has picked up on the extraordinary nature of this seemingly off-hand comment?

Linky
 
#3
Not only could we not do it, but some spinless cretin in the government would probably apologise for us being there in the first place...
 

Nehustan

On ROPS
On ROPs
#6
Perhaps a good time to bolster the Garrison just in case the Argentine is monitoring the BBC...can't give up those those rights just as the BAS is developing a bleeding edge base.
 
#7
Hes just sent an "Open Invitation " to the Argentinian Government.
"Please Argentinian government, please come and lay false claim to the Falklands, there is Feck all we can do to stop you "

The truth Hurts.

SK
 
#8
SKJOLD said:
Hes just sent an "Open Invitation " to the Argentinian Government.
"Please Argentinian government, please come and lay false claim to the Falklands, there is Feck all we can do to stop you "

The truth Hurts.

SK
Er no, what he said was we couldnt retake them in the way we did in 82, not that we couldnt defend them successfully, subtle difference methinks
 
#9
Cabana said:
theoriginalphantom said:
Not only could we not do it, but some spinless cretin in the government would probably apologise for us being there in the first place...
You are so right there
Much as I despise Bliar, I've got to disagree with you there. To be fair to him, he has ordered military action in Kosovo, Macedonia, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan and Iraq - none of which were operations he couldn't have avoided if he'd wanted to. The man may be a knob but you can't very well berate him for sending British troops to Iraq and then say he wouldn't have defended the Falklands.
 
#10
wedge35 said:
Cabana said:
theoriginalphantom said:
Not only could we not do it, but some spinless cretin in the government would probably apologise for us being there in the first place...
You are so right there
Much as I despise Bliar, I've got to disagree with you there. To be fair to him, he has ordered military action in Kosovo, Macedonia, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan and Iraq - none of which were operations he couldn't have avoided if he'd wanted to. The man may be a knob but you can't very well berate him for sending British troops to Iraq and then say he wouldn't have defended the Falklands.
He could have avoided Afghanistan and Iraq in a major way. These are US wars that Blair was willing to risk British soldiers for his own gain (I believe a green card), but that is another thread.
Its not a case of him not sending troops to the Falklands, its a case of the fact that he has decimated the forces so much with cut backs and increasing the commitment that the response wmuted. If an invasion of the Falklands occured he would have to take troops from Afghanistan and Iraq, and send them to the Falklands. That would cause its own problems.
 
#11
Yeah, Cabana, that's what I said - he could have avoided every conflict he's committed troops to but chose not to. The criticism I was responding to was attacking the Govt on the basis of being too spineless to do anything, not saying that we couldn't do it due to other commitments, crap kit etc. All things being equal, of course Blair would do what Maggie did. He's the most interventionist PM we've had since bloody Disraeli!
 
#12
Cabana said:
If an invasion of the Falklands occured he (PM) would have to take troops from Afghanistan and Iraq, and send them to the Falklands. That would cause its own problems.
Do you really think if the crazy Argies kicked off now and landed a boat or two in FI, that the PM would act straight away?
I reckon nothing would move from its own theatre of ops.
 
#13
Prevention is better than cure. There's no way we could take the islands back were we to ever lose them again, but for that situation to occur, the Argentinians would first have to figure out a way to get them back.
 
#14
jakeblues68 said:
Cabana said:
If an invasion of the Falklands occured he (PM) would have to take troops from Afghanistan and Iraq, and send them to the Falklands. That would cause its own problems.
Do you really think if the crazy Argies kicked off now and landed a boat or two in FI, that the PM would act straight away?
I reckon nothing would move from its own theatre of ops.
I don't think anything would move for a while as Blair has got his head so far up Bush's arsehis head is poking out of Bush's mouth. I think that eventually he would bow down to public pressure and possibly send a token force or something that would not affect his special relationship with Bush.
 
#15
wedge35 said:
Yeah, Cabana, that's what I said - he could have avoided every conflict he's committed troops to but chose not to. The criticism I was responding to was attacking the Govt on the basis of being too spineless to do anything, not saying that we couldn't do it due to other commitments, crap kit etc. All things being equal, of course Blair would do what Maggie did. He's the most interventionist PM we've had since bloody Disraeli!
Sorry fella, misread your post. Roll on the 27th when we get rid of this traitorous rat.
 
#16
He's a 'straight-up' bloke. Doesn't shoot without thinking, as a rule. I'd be inclined to believe him.
 
#17
Really Falklands crisis could be resolved without even one killed. How? Suppose that British government says to the Americans:

Are you with us or with the Argentinians? If with Argies then the UK quits NATO, American bases must be closed in the UK and in Diego Garcia.

But mrs.Thatcher badly needed 'small victorius war' to boost her image as skilled ruler. In facts dozens of Brits died on these remote islands were a payment in dirty political games. Bloodless, silent reestablishment of British control over Falklands would look as semi-defeat and was politically unacceptable for mrs.Thatcher.
 
#18
He was probably referring to the Bliars decision to scrap the Sea Harrier (Europe's best fighter until Typhoon eventually goes front line). The fleet now has now air defence as the GR7/9 Harriers have no radar or AMRAMM missiles. In terms of Air Defence the RN is worse off than in 1982, and this will be the case until the new aircraft carriers and JSF arrive sometime in the middle of the next decade.

At the same time the Type 45 destroyers (designed to shoot down enemy aircraft and missiles) will be the best int he world... but the first won't be front line for another couple of years. And Bliar is busy scraping the old Type 42s. Are they up to the job? Not ideally, but they are better than nothing.

Basically if the Argentinians want to invade it will have to be within the next couple of years. By the way, this is hardly news in navy circles and the Argies are well aware of this...

The decision to scrap the Sea Harrier was criminal, especially the decision to literally scrap them rather than mothball them "just in case..."
 
F

fozzy

Guest
#19
crabtastic said:
Prevention is better than cure. There's no way we could take the islands back were we to ever lose them again, but for that situation to occur, the Argentinians would first have to figure out a way to get them back.
Given the current state of the Argentine Armed forces (and I thought we were starved of cash!) they'd be hard pressed to actually get a ship to sea at the moment, let alone mount an invasion of the Falklands.

As someone said on another thread, one of our existing cruise missile armed SSNs could effectively neutralise any threat they could mount.
 
#20
fozzy said:
crabtastic said:
Prevention is better than cure. There's no way we could take the islands back were we to ever lose them again, but for that situation to occur, the Argentinians would first have to figure out a way to get them back.
Given the current state of the Argentine Armed forces (and I thought we were starved of cash!) they'd be hard pressed to actually get a ship to sea at the moment, let alone mount an invasion of the Falklands.

As someone said on another thread, one of our existing cruise missile armed SSNs could effectively neutralise any threat they could mount.
If one of our few remaining ones is down there at the time...
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top