Falklands War The Second?

Fratton Fred · 25-02-2012 12:58pm

thecommietommy wrote: »

As for yer man with the Spanish surname, sure haven't we all a skeleton in the family closet !!!

Geopolitics, instead of taking sides against just one country in south America, they'd might be reluctant to take sides against a bloc of them. Then of course Venezuela - oil, Brazil - a developing superpower etc. Britain’s best friends may suddenly be the ones to start calling for restraint and dialogue.

Brazil a developing super power? Their economy is growing enormously, but I wouldn't put them in the US/China/Russia league just yet.

thecommietommy · 25-02-2012 1:13pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Brazil a developing super power? Their economy is growing enormously, but I wouldn't put them in the US/China/Russia league just yet.

Maybe, maybe not. Regardless, without the support of France and of course big brother America ( who has a lot on his mind today with Iran, Afghanistan, Al Queda etc besides two tiny craggy islands in the South Atlantic ) UK couldn't have engaged in Falklands1 never mind Falklands2 ?

secondopinion · 25-02-2012 2:49pm

thecommietommy wrote: »

Maybe, maybe not. Regardless, without the support of France and of course big brother America ( who has a lot on his mind today with Iran, Afghanistan, Al Queda etc besides two tiny craggy islands in the South Atlantic ) UK couldn't have engaged in Falklands1 never mind Falklands2 ?

You seem to be positively drooling over the thought of a second conflict Tommy, resulting in The UK's humiliating defeat. Any particular reason why?

Fratton Fred · 25-02-2012 3:49pm

thecommietommy wrote: »

Maybe, maybe not. Regardless, without the support of France and of course big brother America ( who has a lot on his mind today with Iran, Afghanistan, Al Queda etc besides two tiny craggy islands in the South Atlantic ) UK couldn't have engaged in Falklands1 never mind Falklands2 ?

It could have and it would again.

By people with bigger balls than you will ever have.

Dogwatch · 25-02-2012 4:26pm

Brazil is the largest country in South America (with a substansial sized military) and is very buddy buddy with the UK and the US, exercising with them on an annual basis. Exercises involve all the three arms.
Mr Chavez is all bluster and has enough to keep him occupied at home. He has delusions of a Soviet type organisation in South America with him as head honcho. Like all communist and socialist idealists he is behind the times and very deluded as to his own importance.

Buffman · 25-02-2012 6:56pm

goldie fish wrote: »

In 1982, yes, informally, providing much needed vehicles to carry heavy stores accross the island during the famous yomp from San Carlos. They did not provide anything in the way of military assistance though. However there is now a Falklands Islands Defence Force, of locally recruited part time soldiers. Their local knowledge would provide invaluable in the event of a second conflict.

The local FIDF was mobilised during the initial invasion, and surrendered with the Marines.

On 1 April 1982, alongside the Royal Marines party, the FIDF was mobilised to defend the Islands from the Argentine invasion. The following day, Sir Rex Hunt ordered them to surrender. The Argentines confiscated all of the FIDF's equipment and declared them to be an illegal organisation. For the duration of the war, some members of the FIDF were kept under house arrest at Fox Bay until the Argentine Surrender. The FIDF was reformed in 1983.
Terry Peck, a former member of the Defence Force, spied on Argentine forces in Stanley, then escaped to become a scout for the 3rd Battalion, Parachute Regiment, with which he fought at the Battle of Mount Longdon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_invasion_of_the_Falkland_Islands

Their numbers were reinforced by at least 25 Falkland Islands Defence Force (FIDF) members.[10] Graham Bound, an islander who lived through the Argentine occupation, reports in his book Falkland Islanders At War that the higher figure of approximately 40 (both serving and past) members of the FIDF reported for duty at their Drill Hall. Their commanding officer, Major Phil Summers, tasked the volunteer militiamen with guarding such key points as the telephone exchange, the radio station and the power station. Skipper Jack Sollis, on board the civilian coastal ship Forrest operated his boat as an improvised radar screen station off Stanley. Two other civilians, former Marine Jim Alister and a Canadian citizen, Bill Curtiss, also offered their services to the Governor

Anyway, back on topic, I don't think either country wants a 2nd war. If it does happen, I think the UK would miss their Nimrods, carriers and Sea Harriers.

Lemming · 25-02-2012 9:54pm

Buffman wrote: »

Anyway, back on topic, I don't think either country wants a 2nd war. If it does happen, I think the UK would miss their Nimrods, carriers and Sea Harriers.

I think the carrier thing is over-played. Not to mention that the British still have a carrier; just being used as a helo carrier currently.

But the whole lack-of-carrier argument only comes into play if they lose the ability to land planes on the islands. The likelihood of the Argentinians getting either a second unexpected air sortie or amphibious invasion to within striking distance of landing strips is unlikely. Not to mention there is now a considerable defence presence on the islands compared to what existed in 1982 that would slow up any Argentine efforts considerably; at least enough to slow the pace long enough to get reinforcements landed by air or sea.

The other thing to consider is that the British can cause considerable misery to Argentina's military installations (specifically air force & naval) with tomahawks; no need to risk Vulcan bombers, crew, and lengthy flight times when a sub's captain can just press a button and off flies a tomahawk from just outside Argentine waters.

Buffman · 25-02-2012 10:44pm

Lemming wrote: »

I think the carrier thing is over-played. Not to mention that the British still have a carrier; just being used as a helo carrier currently.

Are there any planes left that can use it though since the Harriers got the chop?

Lemming wrote: »

But the whole lack-of-carrier argument only comes into play if they lose the ability to land planes on the islands.

Yep, that goes without saying. Saying that, I don't think all the eggs should be in the same basket like at RAF Mount Pleasant. I'm thinking along the lines of a SF strike taking out the 4 Typhoons and the Rapiers.

Lemming wrote: »

The other thing to consider is that the British can cause considerable misery to Argentina's military installations (specifically air force & naval) with tomahawks; no need to risk Vulcan bombers, crew, and lengthy flight times when a sub's captain can just press a button and off flies a tomahawk from just outside Argentine waters.

Well, the Vulcan's didn't achieve much the first time. The already stretched Sea Harriers were even pulled from combat to escort them. I'm not saying a long range bomber wouldn't come in handy, I'll add that to my list of things the UK might miss in a war.:D

Regarding the Tomahawk, that amongst other things is why I don't think it'll come to war. The possibility of it ending up as unrestricted warfare, with other countries being drawn in, should hopefully be a good deterrent to a war.

OS119 · 26-02-2012 10:52am

Buffman wrote: »

...The possibility of it ending up as unrestricted warfare, with other countries being drawn in, should hopefully be a good deterrent to a war.

i'm not so sure - i have a nasty feeling that the 'solidarity' statements by other LA countries could allow Mrs Kirchner to believe she has more support than she actually does, and it could prove to be an unwanted spur for action in that she/her government may wish to turn down the rhetoric, but the popular clamour - which she started - added to by the other LA leaders, may force her in a direction that she doesn't want to go.

my concern is that her increasingly hostile rhetoric - and those of the supporting LA countries - have put her in a corner from which there is only one escape. given the things she's said, and the tone she's said them in, she is, imv, going to have a very hard time selling anything other than the Argentine flag flying over Stanley as anything but a failure - but much worse, a national humiliation.

personally i see the FI as being fulcrum point - i think that the repeated failure of the US to say that it supports the rights of British citizens to self determination, coupled with the (internationally, much more important and widespread) inevitable blame game over Afghanistan, will break NATO. i just don't see how an British PM will be able to continue to undertake NATO responsibilities to US security - and the conflicts with AQ and its affiliates/franchises are primarily about US security - when the UK electorate sees that the security guarentees of NATO are a one way street.

i'm not convinved there will be a war, i'm just not convinced there won't be - and one of the reasons for that is that for very understandable reasons the civilian government in Argentina holds the military in contempt - sadly a by-product of that is that they will also treat what the Argentine military say about the risks and practicalities of any attempt to take the FI with contempt. combined with the rod Mrs Kirchner has made for her own back, that may be a problem.

bwatson · 26-02-2012 12:49pm

OS119 wrote: »

. i just don't see how an British PM will be able to continue to undertake NATO responsibilities to US security - and the conflicts with AQ and its affiliates/franchises are primarily about US security - when the UK electorate sees that the security guarentees of NATO are a one way street.

I completely agree. The US has betrayed and humiliated its apparent closes ally with its stance on the Falklands. Britain doesn't have a potential leader with the strength to break the closest ties it has with America now that they have shown their true colours and motivations (as if they weren't all but on public display already). Get British soldiers away from Afghanistan or any other US led deployment. Let the US do its thing in Iran completely on its own and convince other European nations that they should not offer even moral support, let alone troops and equipment.

johngalway · 26-02-2012 1:42pm

OS119 wrote: »

i'm not so sure - i have a nasty feeling that the 'solidarity' statements by other LA countries could allow Mrs Kirchner to believe she has more support than she actually does, and it could prove to be an unwanted spur for action in that she/her government may wish to turn down the rhetoric, but the popular clamour - which she started - added to by the other LA leaders, may force her in a direction that she doesn't want to go.

my concern is that her increasingly hostile rhetoric - and those of the supporting LA countries - have put her in a corner from which there is only one escape. given the things she's said, and the tone she's said them in, she is, imv, going to have a very hard time selling anything other than the Argentine flag flying over Stanley as anything but a failure - but much worse, a national humiliation.

personally i see the FI as being fulcrum point - i think that the repeated failure of the US to say that it supports the rights of British citizens to self determination, coupled with the (internationally, much more important and widespread) inevitable blame game over Afghanistan, will break NATO. i just don't see how an British PM will be able to continue to undertake NATO responsibilities to US security - and the conflicts with AQ and its affiliates/franchises are primarily about US security - when the UK electorate sees that the security guarentees of NATO are a one way street.

i'm not convinved there will be a war, i'm just not convinced there won't be - and one of the reasons for that is that for very understandable reasons the civilian government in Argentina holds the military in contempt - sadly a by-product of that is that they will also treat what the Argentine military say about the risks and practicalities of any attempt to take the FI with contempt. combined with the rod Mrs Kirchner has made for her own back, that may be a problem.

Support from LA countries in what capacity in the event of hostilities?

In the cold light of day I'm not sure, shall we say, the more important countries especially Brazil will want to damage relations with the UK and other countries by adding their lot to armed action.

I cannot see Argentina winning or even drawing any conflict. Even if it were to take some time, the UK can harass, pummel and degrade Argentine military capacity from a distance, then move in to finish off the job.

I do agree Kirchner has stupidly put herself in a corner though. Fair enough if you can start and finish the job, but I don't believe that they can.

OS119 · 26-02-2012 4:22pm

johngalway wrote: »

Support from LA countries in what capacity in the event of hostilities?...

well, indeed.

there's lots rhetorical support, and the MERCOSUR trade sanctions as well promises of military support from the Clown of Venezuela - though caveated in the event that the UK invades Argentina, which i'm not really sure is on the cards - but the problem is not what will actually happen in terms of solidarity, which is bog all, but what Mrs Kirchner thinks will happen (or allows herself to think will happen), and what the Argentine people are told will happen.

politicians will convince themselves of anything if they try hard enough - Gordon Brown thought he could convince people he was a functioning human being, Bertie that he wasn't hopelessly corrupt, and most pertanately, George Bush convinced himself that 'good luck' was a serious war plan - and look how that turned out...

johngalway · 27-02-2012 12:02am

OS119 wrote: »

well, indeed.

there's lots rhetorical support, and the MERCOSUR trade sanctions as well promises of military support from the Clown of Venezuela - though caveated in the event that the UK invades Argentina, which i'm not really sure is on the cards - but the problem is not what will actually happen in terms of solidarity, which is bog all, but what Mrs Kirchner thinks will happen (or allows herself to think will happen), and what the Argentine people are told will happen.

politicians will convince themselves of anything if they try hard enough - Gordon Brown thought he could convince people he was a functioning human being, Bertie that he wasn't hopelessly corrupt, and most pertanately, George Bush convinced himself that 'good luck' was a serious war plan - and look how that turned out...

Try to suppress the laughter for this one, but...

Perhaps "the plan" is to negotiate after all. That's the only thing I can think of besides starting a shooting war or an embarrassing about turn. Maybe all the rhetoric is a scare tactic.

Still don't think they can win a shooting war mind you.

As for Bertie, hang him after a fair trial :cool:

The Master of Disaster · 27-02-2012 12:46am

Buffman wrote: »

Saying that, I don't think all the eggs should be in the same basket like at RAF Mount Pleasant. I'm thinking along the lines of a SF strike taking out the 4 Typhoons and the Rapiers.

Interestingly there was a short opinion piece in Prospect magazine by Rear Admiral Chris Parry where he basically said the same thing viz. in a another battle or war everything would depend on the ability to hold Mt. Pleasant long enough to bring in reinforcements. He speculated that a covert SF strike against the airstrip could disable the 4 Tornadoes and capture the runway. With no British ability to resupply all the Argentinians would have to do is overrun the infantry company there!

Then the problem of having no aircraft carrier is a problem and the US or anybody else for that matter won't help. Essentially if the British lost them they couldn't take them back.

The Master of Disaster · 27-02-2012 12:47am

Buffman wrote: »

Saying that, I don't think all the eggs should be in the same basket like at RAF Mount Pleasant. I'm thinking along the lines of a SF strike taking out the 4 Typhoons and the Rapiers.

Interestingly there was a short opinion piece in Prospect magazine by Rear Admiral Chris Parry where he basically said the same thing viz. in a another battle or war everything would depend on the ability to hold Mt. Pleasant long enough to bring in reinforcements. He speculated that a covert SF strike against the airstrip could disable the 4 Tornadoes and capture the runway. With no British ability to resupply all the Argentinians would have to do is overrun the infantry company there!

Then the problem of having no aircraft carrier is a problem and the US or anybody else for that matter won't help. Essentially if the British lost them they couldn't take them back.

OS119 · 27-02-2012 10:32am

The Master of Disaster wrote: »

Interestingly there was a short opinion piece in Prospect magazine by Rear Admiral Chris Parry where he basically said the same thing viz. in a another battle or war everything would depend on the ability to hold Mt. Pleasant long enough to bring in reinforcements. He speculated that a covert SF strike against the airstrip could disable the 4 Tornadoes and capture the runway. With no British ability to resupply all the Argentinians would have to do is overrun the infantry company there!

Then the problem of having no aircraft carrier is a problem and the US or anybody else for that matter won't help. Essentially if the British lost them they couldn't take them back.

while this is a possible threat the UK is not unware of this type of threat and built MPA with it, and other threats in mind. personally, i'll leave it that.

the issue with retaking the islands if they are lost is serious, and while their are options, none of them are attractive and all would run the risk of heavy losses as well as complete failure.

hence why deterance is so important.

muppet01 · 28-02-2012 11:44pm

First of all the Tornados are long gone, replaced by Typhoons. The argentinians could barely muster a SF force to get near that island.A previous post stated that the soldiers were better equipped. They were conscripts with no battle expierence.
Also the Argentinian airforce are still using the skyhawk, which is as much use as a fouga against a raptor...

bwatson · 29-02-2012 1:18am

muppet01 wrote: »

A previous post stated that the soldiers were better equipped. They were conscripts with no battle expierence.

The Argentines had, amongst other things, better personal weapons, better boots, and for the most part better clothing.

Additionally, there were indeed conscripts in the Argentine invasion force however the invasion force was in no way made up entirely of conscripts. There were Argentine Special Forces and Marines on the islands. A famous engagement between the Royal Marines Mountain and Arctic Warfare Cadre and the Argentine Special Forces took place at a place called Top Malo House.

To dismiss the Argentine force as a bunch of conscripts who didn't want to be there actually does a massive disservice to the British soldiers who retook the islands. There were experienced, well trained Argentine forces present. Moreover, many conscripts fought with great bravery and ferocity.

Your point about battle experience is an interesting one though - how much fighting do you think the average marine/para/guardsman/gurkha had done before they set foot onto the Islands?

Jawgap · 29-02-2012 8:25am

From the Beeb....

Could Britain still defend the Falklands?

Mt Pleasant is identified as the critical element, as are the Argentine Special / Specialised Forces.......

"Most military thinkers agree they offer the only credible threat through a surprise attack on Mt Pleasant. One scenario might be a civilian airliner packed with special forces to divert to Mt Pleasant, says Colonel Southby-Tailyour. "It would take a very brave politician to shoot down a civilian airliner in cold blood. The Argentine forces are good. They could jump out and shoot everything up."

While such an operation would lack subtlety - it would certainly not lack effect:)

tac foley · 29-02-2012 11:40am

bwatson wrote: »

Your point about battle experience is an interesting one though - how much fighting do you think the average marine/para/guardsman/gurkha had done before they set foot onto the Islands?

Apart from the Gurkhas, the ground units taking part in the Falklands Campaign had only served in Northern Ireland.

However, all were full-time professional soldiers with years of long hard training behind them, especially the RM, who habitually train in Norway under very harsh conditions.

tac

invalid · 29-02-2012 1:11pm

tac foley wrote: »

Apart from the Gurkhas, the ground units taking part in the Falklands Campaign had only served in Northern Ireland.

tac

That could not be said of the UK Armed Forces now. It is truly an army of battle hardened veterans now.

Lemming · 29-02-2012 1:58pm

Jawgap wrote: »

From the Beeb....

Could Britain still defend the Falklands?

Mt Pleasant is identified as the critical element, as are the Argentine Special / Specialised Forces.......

"Most military thinkers agree they offer the only credible threat through a surprise attack on Mt Pleasant. One scenario might be a civilian airliner packed with special forces to divert to Mt Pleasant, says Colonel Southby-Tailyour. "It would take a very brave politician to shoot down a civilian airliner in cold blood. The Argentine forces are good. They could jump out and shoot everything up."

While such an operation would lack subtlety - it would certainly not lack effect:)

Shooting down a civilian airliner in cold blood would certainly be a "brave" political decision. Blowing the sh1te out of an airplane on the tarmac with armed enemy soldiers piling out of it most certainly wouldn't be difficult to square away, not to mention literally puts all of Argentina's eggs in one basket. If they fail in spectacular fashion, they've well and truly given the game away and landed themselves in a very serious political position globally, having shown themselves (again) to be the aggressor and not worth the lies they spew, twice in thirty years.

All it needs is a garrison force stationed at the airfield with a couple of gympies to turn any airliner assault into a slaughter. There'd be no cover on the plane, little cover around the plane save the landing gear, and lots of open ground all around.

Much like the aforementioned raid that was tabled as a possibility during 1982 and was considered by the SAS to be a very undesirable option, the same could be said of the idea of landing an airliner on an enemy apron. Unless the garrison are asleep at their posts, the attackers would face unacceptable loses, even if they did achieve any level of success at all.

bwatson · 29-02-2012 7:28pm

tac foley wrote: »

Apart from the Gurkhas, the ground units taking part in the Falklands Campaign had only served in Northern Ireland.

However, all were full-time professional soldiers with years of long hard training behind them, especially the RM, who habitually train in Norway under very harsh conditions.

tac

Can counterinsurgency operations in Northern Ireland, often in urban areas, be regarded as an advantage to British soldiers fighting at company and battalion level against a regular enemy on the featureless plains and rocky hillsides of the Falklands? Not being a soldier I don't know of course, but I would not have thought that it proved to be that decisive a factor as was suggested above.

bwatson · 29-02-2012 7:29pm

Lemming wrote: »

Shooting down a civilian airliner in cold blood would certainly be a "brave" political decision. Blowing the sh1te out of an airplane on the tarmac with armed enemy soldiers piling out of it most certainly wouldn't be difficult to square away, not to mention literally puts all of Argentina's eggs in one basket. If they fail in spectacular fashion, they've well and truly given the game away and landed themselves in a very serious political position globally, having shown themselves (again) to be the aggressor and not worth the lies they spew, twice in thirty years.

All it needs is a garrison force stationed at the airfield with a couple of gympies to turn any airliner assault into a slaughter. There'd be no cover on the plane, little cover around the plane save the landing gear, and lots of open ground all around.

Much like the aforementioned raid that was tabled as a possibility during 1982 and was considered by the SAS to be a very undesirable option, the same could be said of the idea of landing an airliner on an enemy apron. Unless the garrison are asleep at their posts, the attackers would face unacceptable loses, even if they did achieve any level of success at all.

Argentina's version of "Operation Sudden Death".

OS119 · 29-02-2012 7:49pm

bwatson wrote: »

Can counterinsurgency operations in Northern Ireland, often in urban areas, be regarded as an advantage to British soldiers fighting at company and battalion level against a regular enemy on the featureless plains and rocky hillsides of the Falklands? Not being a soldier I don't know of course, but I would not have thought that it proved to be that decisive a factor as was suggested above.

its not the environment, its the 'waking up in the morning knowing that its quite possible someones going to take a shot at you' factor - once you've done it, the next time isn't much of a shock and you're able to get on with the job.

on a training level it was very important - every private knew that the guy who had trained him, and the guy who was leading him, had been to NI and had faced, and dealt with, the dangers inherant in serving there. you just can't know what that does for unit cohesion and morale until you go to a unit/arm/service where no one has combat experience, and where no one who trained any of them - even the CO - had ever done the job 'for real'.

at the organisational level its really understanding that no plan survives contact with the enemy, and that anything that can go wrong, will - everyone says they know that, but until 'the plan' turns to ratsh1t while you're being shot at, you never really grasp how all-pervasive it is.

that said, Sennybridge, Sailsbury Plain and Otterburn all look like the Falklands....

tac foley · 29-02-2012 7:54pm

bwatson wrote: »

Can counterinsurgency operations in Northern Ireland, often in urban areas, be regarded as an advantage to British soldiers fighting at company and battalion level against a regular enemy on the featureless plains and rocky hillsides of the Falklands? Not being a soldier I don't know of course, but I would not have thought that it proved to be that decisive a factor as was suggested above.

Mr Watson - you have missed the point here - the counter-insurgency operations in Northern Ireland were NOT the main task of the teeth arms of the United Kingdom's Armed Forces.

Their main task was, and is being soldiers in a military combat situation, not patrolling the streets of other cities, towns, villages and by-ways of part of the United Kingdom.

In any event, the troops who went to Ireland went there as infantry, regardless of their correct MOS - you can hardly imagine the appearance of squadrons of REAL tanks, and regiments of self-propelled guns and anti-aircraft missile units, troops of combat engineers and all the real paraphernalia of a real combat zone of operations taking place in Northern Ireland.

The British Army and the Royal Marines train constantly for all forms of warfare in a variety of operational possibilities, from the Arctic to the jungle, and, as the recent rescue operation in Sierra Leone proved, they are rather good at it. Counter-insurgency is only one facet of war-work.

tac

Lemming · 29-02-2012 8:20pm

bwatson wrote: »

Argentina's version of "Operation Sudden Death".

If you are referring to Operation Barras, I'm not following the connection since it has been a while since I read about it in detail and am fuzzy on details.

If you are referring to the sci-fi tv show "Babylon 5" (I did a google), well then you've lost me on the reference completely.

secondopinion · 29-02-2012 8:24pm

bwatson wrote: »

Can counterinsurgency operations in Northern Ireland, often in urban areas, be regarded as an advantage to British soldiers fighting at company and battalion level against a regular enemy on the featureless plains and rocky hillsides of the Falklands? Not being a soldier I don't know of course, but I would not have thought that it proved to be that decisive a factor as was suggested above.

The UK Army was only fighting an insurgency in NI in the early seventies, then PIRA switched to a terrorist campaign. In fact, given it's policing role, even in the early seventies, it could hardly have claimed to be carrying out a counter-insurgency campaign at any point in NI.

Of course, the threat of being killed or maimed at any point undoubtedly kept soldiers sharp and strengthened their morale when facing death in another type of campaign. Not to be under-estimated.

Argentina had it's own 'insurgency'/'terrorism' problems prior to The Falklands - problems their military coped with pretty well.

OS119 · 29-02-2012 8:47pm

Lemming wrote: »

If you are referring to Operation Barras, I'm not following the connection since it has been a while since I read about it in detail and am fuzzy on details.

If you are referring to the sci-fi tv show "Babylon 5" (I did a google), well then you've lost me on the reference completely.

'Operation Sudden Death' is the generic name given to any ill-considered operation who's main motive appears to be medals at tea-time and 50% fatalities in the first 10 minutes.

if someone writes 'Op Sudden Death' at the top of their notes as you give an 'O Group, its a subtle hint that you need a new plan, or should retire to the ante room and spend a moment with the Mess Webley doing 'the decent thing'.

it is not a compliment.

Lemming · 29-02-2012 9:42pm

Cheers for that OS119; I had made the self-confusing connection with the title of the book (called Op. Certain Death) detailing Op.Barras hence my confusion. Not helped by mixing the words 'certain' & 'sudden' of course.

thecommietommy · 01-03-2012 6:25pm

bwatson wrote: »

I completely agree. The US has betrayed and humiliated its apparent closes ally with its stance on the Falklands. Britain doesn't have a potential leader with the strength to break the closest ties it has with America now that they have shown their true colours and motivations (as if they weren't all but on public display already). Get British soldiers away from Afghanistan or any other US led deployment.

If you asked an American who was the US's closest ally they would probably say Canada or maybe Israel. It wouldn't occur to many that the UK considers itself America's closest ally, they would regard the UK as just another European country on good relations with the US.

Let the US do its thing in Iran completely on its own and convince other European nations that they should not offer even moral support, let alone troops and equipment.

Your joking right ? What next, Britain declare war on America

OS119 · 01-03-2012 9:43pm

thecommietommy wrote: »

...If you asked an American who was the US's closest ally they would probably say Canada or maybe Israel. It wouldn't occur to many that the UK considers itself America's closest ally, they would regard the UK as just another European country on good relations with the US....

Not my fault if the average American - according to you - is uninformed.

if you can name any other country the US co-operates with on the design of Ballistic Missiles, and Ballistic Missile Submarines?

if you can name any other country that has such such a close inteeligence relationship with the US?

if you can name another country that the US with which has such a close relationship over the design and construction over its most advanced strike Fighter?

if you can name another country whose personnel the US allows to fly - in combat - its F-117, F-22 and B-2 stealth combat aircraft, as well as its TR-1 and RC-135 RIVET JOINT intelligence gathering aircraft?

westdub · 01-03-2012 10:38pm

OS119 wrote: »

if you can name another country that the US with which has such a close relationship over the design and construction over its most advanced strike Fighter?

if you can name another country whose personnel the US allows to fly - in combat - its F-117, F-22 and B-2 stealth combat aircraft, as well as its TR-1 and RC-135 RIVET JOINT intelligence gathering aircraft?

Well the F35 is being partly funded by the British and other country's so its only right that they will be involved with its development , The reason that their are RAF crews on RC-135s is because they have bought some and need to fill the gap until they arrive , and the Australian's have had a F22 pilot too.. http://www.f-22raptor.com/news_view.php?nid=417

secondopinion · 02-03-2012 12:12am

thecommietommy wrote: »

If you asked an American who was the US's closest ally they would probably say Canada or maybe Israel. It wouldn't occur to many that the UK considers itself America's closest ally, they would regard the UK as just another European country on good relations with the US.

Prove it.

gbee · 02-03-2012 9:31am

secondopinion wrote: »

Prove it.

Go over to any Wallmart and spend ten minutes interviewing shoppers in the car park and post your own results. It still would not be definitive, the post about allies to the average American has come up a few times, Canada, Israel, Europe.

During Tony's period of office, how many American TV stations called him the European President?

Dogwatch · 02-03-2012 10:00am

gbee wrote: »

Go over to any Wallmart and spend ten minutes interviewing shoppers in the car park and post your own results. It still would not be definitive, the post about allies to the average American has come up a few times, Canada, Israel, Europe.

During Tony's period of office, how many American TV stations called him the European President?

Using your research method, most of the respondents probably would not be able to name any country at all excluding Afganistan and Iraq.
American education does not deal with the wider world as most of their citizens will never need to know about it. If it is outside their home state, it does not exist. Not the fault of the citizen, it is the system.

American media does not cover the wider world unless it affects them directly.

Lemming · 02-03-2012 10:12am

iirc, less than 30% of American citizens will ever hold a passport. That includes naturalised citizens who are statistically the most likely group to want to travel for obvious reasons

Jawgap · 02-03-2012 10:51am

Militarily, i think you'd have to say the Canadians are the US's closest ally. I base this statement on Canada's role in NORAD and the number of joint exercises they run. To quote Kennedy when he was speaking about Canada:-

"Geography has made us neighbors. History has made us friends. Economics has made us partners. And necessity has made us allies. Those whom nature hath so joined together, let no man put asunder.”

Politically, the issue probably dictates who the closer ally is and who is in power probably influences it significantly too - Republican administrations certainly seem to have a greater affinity for Conservative governments than the Democrats.

It also tends to be quite one sided - look at what happens when there is a friendly fire incident involving US military personnel.

In the context of the Falklands, the Brits may think they have a special relationship with the US, but Argentina is the second largest country in Latin America, the US back yard - add to that their somewhat duplicitous attitude towards empire, and the vestiges of it, and it leads to the conclusion that they would be very reluctant to support the British in any future conflict involving the islands. I think they'd want to stay firmly on the fence.

OS119 · 02-03-2012 12:19pm

Jawgap wrote: »

... I think they'd want to stay firmly on the fence.

oh i agree with you there, the problem however if that for both sides (and, imv, for the freinds of both sides) sitting on the fence isn't enough - sitting on the fence is now viewed as sitting with the other guy.

for the LA countries the US's neutrality is a rebuff to them and their growing status, for the UK - and, imv, the other NATO allies - the US's neutrality says 'we're quite happy for you guys to bleed for us in the deserts of Afghanistan, but if you've got a problem you're on your own'.

its not sustainable - even by trying to do the clever thing and sitting on the fence they will be seen (and in the UK media at least are already being seen) to take sides.

Fratton Fred · 02-03-2012 1:04pm

If only we had a member of the US military on here......

getz · 02-03-2012 1:41pm

Jawgap wrote: »

Militarily, i think you'd have to say the Canadians are the US's closest ally. I base this statement on Canada's role in NORAD and the number of joint exercises they run. To quote Kennedy when he was speaking about Canada:-

"Geography has made us neighbors. History has made us friends. Economics has made us partners. And necessity has made us allies. Those whom nature hath so joined together, let no man put asunder.”

Politically, the issue probably dictates who the closer ally is and who is in power probably influences it significantly too - Republican administrations certainly seem to have a greater affinity for Conservative governments than the Democrats.

It also tends to be quite one sided - look at what happens when there is a friendly fire incident involving US military personnel.

In the context of the Falklands, the Brits may think they have a special relationship with the US, but Argentina is the second largest country in Latin America, the US back yard - add to that their somewhat duplicitous attitude towards empire, and the vestiges of it, and it leads to the conclusion that they would be very reluctant to support the British in any future conflict involving the islands. I think they'd want to stay firmly on the fence.

you think so or is that the republican wish list. argentina is five times further away from the US than britain is,5212.8 miles,britain is only 100,000 miles away, also the UK attracts by far the largest US foreign direct investment in the EU,[25 may 2011] and britain has the largest US direct investment holding since the 1990s,that reminds me my wife has asked me to sell off a few of her walmart[ ASDA] shares.

tac foley · 02-03-2012 2:32pm

Opposite my house here in yUK, next door to me and just down the street, there are about ten or twelve US servicemen and their families. In the local area there are about 800 - 1000 more living on the economy. Within three miles is a base with another 3500 Americans on it, and slightly to the west, one of THE major units in NATO's intelligence and assessment organisation - another 1500 or so US personnel and their families. About half an hour's drive from here - TWO air bases - total on-site of around 15,000 US military personnel, plus many more living out in the economy.

Total US military population of the UK is around 30,000 or so.

And the UK and US are not seriously friends?

Get real, folks.

tac

getz · 02-03-2012 3:04pm

tac foley wrote: »

Opposite my house here in yUK, next door to me and just down the street, there are about ten or twelve US servicemen and their families. In the local area there are about 800 - 1000 more living on the economy. Within three miles is a base with another 3500 Americans on it, and slightly to the west, one of THE major units in NATO's intelligence and assessment organisation - another 1500 or so US personnel and their families. About half an hour's drive from here - TWO air bases - total on-site of around 15,000 US military personnel, plus many more living out in the economy.

Total US military population of the UK is around 30,000 or so.

And the UK and US are not seriously friends?

Get real, folks.

tac

doing a bit of web searching and the numbers have come up,210,000 americans live in the UK, i do not know if that includes service men and families,and over halve a million 678,0000 britains live in the USA

getz · 02-03-2012 3:28pm

quote from american president Obama on 25 may 2011,as we approach the 10th anniversary of 9/11 im paticular grateful for the solidarity that the UK has shown to america over the passed decade,from that day to this you have been our closest partner,

OS119 · 02-03-2012 3:46pm

getz wrote: »

quote from american president Obama on 25 may 2011,as we approach the 10th anniversary of 9/11 im paticular grateful for the solidarity that the UK has shown to america over the passed decade,from that day to this you have been our closest partner,

the man makes a good speech - but his Secretary of State, and the senior people under her talk of 'negotiations', and 'the Malvinas'.

i'm not saying we aren't incredibly tight on most issues - and truth be told, i reckon they'd eventually come down on ours in the event of it going 'kinetic' - but everytime they fail to make that clear to the Argentines the Argentines get a little message that maybe they won't, which then feeds into the pro's/cons analysis and makes the political consequences of military action a little more palatable from their point of view.

so, again we have a situation where, had the US been a little clearer about its policy, conflict might have been avoided - it is almost a carbon copy of what happened last time, the US 'ummed and ahhhed', a dodgy state took that as a 'yes', and then the US government went to the position it always held and either went to war against that government or supported other people in going to war against that government.

freddiek · 02-03-2012 4:01pm

is this a big issue for the UK public?? I would doubt it to be honest..

time to bury grubby little outdated colonialist wars with Thatcher

here's a solution, move the Falklands settlers to Gibraltar, where they would surely have a lot in common with the population of that territory

Sunnyisland · 02-03-2012 4:10pm

While both the United States and the United Kingdom maintain close relationships with many other nations around the world, the level of cooperation in military planning, execution of military operations, nuclear weapons technology, and intelligence sharing with each other has been described as "unparalleled" among major powers throughout the 20th and early 21st century.Argentina wont Invade the falklands/malvinas they wouldn't have a chance especially now after telling everyone what they might do,Its all a propaganda war from the argentinian president.A morale boosting exercise for her country.

tfitzgerald · 02-03-2012 4:17pm

I don't think the British army would stand a chance to retake the falkands this time around . The cutbacks and other commitments would prevent that . I was told that when the British discovered the falkands they were uninhabited and the Brits settled them . If that's the case the islands belong to Britain

Fratton Fred · 02-03-2012 4:18pm

freddiek wrote: »

is this a big issue for the UK public?? I would doubt it to be honest..

time to bury grubby little outdated colonialist wars with Thatcher

here's a solution, move the Falklands settlers to Gibraltar, where they would surely have a lot in common with the population of that territory

Or move the population of Argentina back to Spain, which is just as likely.

Jawgap · 02-03-2012 5:13pm

realies wrote: »

While both the United States and the United Kingdom maintain close relationships with many other nations around the world, the level of cooperation in military planning, execution of military operations, nuclear weapons technology, and intelligence sharing with each other has been described as "unparalleled" among major powers throughout the 20th and early 21st century.........

If you are going to quote wikipedia at least use inverted commas.....

Falklands War The Second?

Comments