UK writes to UN chief over Falklands

HAVE YOUR SAY

06 February 2012

Quite. Argentina's nonsensical position is the equivalent of Spain seaking to annexe Portugal: because it's close. Proximity has no bearing on ownership and, in this case, it's only the size of Argentina which makes the Falklands look remotely close (not forgetting that Chile is much closer to Argentina so perhaps they should turn their attentions there...).

You can guarantee that if Argentina suddenly began to have Anti-American foreign policies, the US would suddenly start to support the UK position. As it appears to do in Ascension and, more controversially, in Diego Garcia... Realpolitik is hard to live with at times and that's why the UK must to its own self be true and make sure it has independent military capability of consequence.
Michael - Hertfordshire

06 February 2012

How nice. We are getting an other war. This time we may burn stockpile of ammunition creating jobs for UK citizen.
Andi - North London

06 February 2012

Time to re-commission the Ark Royal and the GR9's (if they have not been shipped to the US already - the Yanks will understand) and also get some FRS2's out of the museum's and the deck handling school and get them operational. Anything is better than nothing!

Sack a few MOD civil servants for gross ineptitude and endangering the interests of the UK.
Martin Bayliss - Stroud

06 February 2012

@ Martin. You keep banging on and need a reality check.

It's like listening to a stuck record...give it a rest.
HamishUK - GB

06 February 2012

@ Martin. You keep banging on and need a reality check.

It's like listening to a stuck record...give it a rest.
HamishUK - GB


Because there is still a chance to do something about it!

A few frigates, destroyers and subs would not stop a combined South American attack (not just Argentina). A carrier WITH AIRCRAFT would!
Martin Bayliss - Stroud

06 February 2012

It looks like the US will not support the UK stance on the Falklands.the UK has stood shoulder to shoulder with the US in past years.This shows the UK must have its own Foreign Policy, with a suitable sized armed forces to support the policy.
If we can't trust the US to support us, who can you trust- the french?
The UK is begging India to take our aid, they don't want it, spend it on defence.In fact stop the £10 billion a year aid right now( goes up to 11.2 billion next year)
royal - UK

06 February 2012

The following is taken from the Feb edition of 'Desider' the magazine for Defence Equipment and Support.

"Transfer of the harrier fleet for use as spare parts to the USA has begun with the arrival of 40 US Marine Corps containers at RAF Cottesmore.

Peter Luff,Minister for Defence Equipment,Support and Technology,has announced that all Harrier assets are to be removed from the UK collection points by 31 March"

So let's hope we have now heard the last of these cries to bring back the Harrier,It's gone,finished and never to return.
RIP.
michael - notts

06 February 2012

Because there is still a chance to do something about it!

A few frigates, destroyers and subs would not stop a combined South American attack (not just Argentina). A carrier WITH AIRCRAFT would!
Martin Bayliss - Stroud

What drivel, No.1 Ark Royal IS GONE, No.2 the HARRIERS ARE GONE, accept it, the SDSR discarded these assets in 2010 it is now 2012. The 'few frigates, destroyers and subs' we now possess are considerably more capable than the majority of those deployed in the Falklands War. Importantly today the islands are garrisoned and have far superior air defence assets in situ, capable of reinforcement should tensions increase. Ark Royal with less than a dozen GR9's would not make all the difference, the UK is poised to defend the islands, not to recover them as was the case in 1982, I'm sure Argentina (and their potential 'allies') know the difference!
Hereman - Wirral, England

06 February 2012

Hereman - Wirral, England

The Ark is not gone, it is maintained in running order at Portsmouth for now, and Illustrious just finished a refit. So we still have two carriers that could be sent to the Falklands if the political will was there.

Harrier assets removed by the end of March, it's the beginning of February. Plus the FRS2's scattered around the place in storage would be useful.

Yes its all desperate but there again so was 1982.

Reinforcing the Falklands from Ascension given a hostile South America would not be easy. Three Typhoons cannot cover all that airspace and the RAF is not what is was in 1982.

Besides, the aim is to deter - having the carrier option would hopefully deter. With the Navy tied up in Iran in the Straights of Hormuz the Falklands could be less well defended. The Type 45 is new and no doubt will have teething problems and are notoriously under armed given previous cut backs.

No one could argue the Falklands would be less well defended with the two Invincible class carriers kept operational with aircraft until 2020. We still have the potential to reverse the worst of the SDR cuts for a few more months - the agitation in the South Atlantic is a reminder we have one last chance.
Martin Bayliss - Stroud

06 February 2012

To negotiate the "question of the Falkland-Malvinas" they (the UK and Argentina) must concentrate on the issues: sovereignty may not be the first … it may be the last. Think in terms of 100 years … or less.

The question must be: what are the essential practical steps that both parties may want to start with?

The UK must be interested in more than just the respect for the right of the islanders; and Argentina in more than an immediate sovereignty.

The painful surprise for the "emotional gun-loving crowd" would be when they find out that both the UK and Argentina may in their hearts and "pockets" need each other more than they might openly admit. Argentina is not alone this time.

So I say to you "Lawrences of the Falklands Islands":Argentina is not alone this time, but if you insist on your bravado attitude and in wrongly quoting history … you will eventually find out that "this was not your finest hour."
nyaria - Buenos Aires, Argentina

07 February 2012

Hereman.

The argument that the (very) few frigates, destroyers and submarines are much more capable than previous classes is the biggest cop-out excuse in the book.

The current 'fleet' is smaller than that which was deployed to retake the Falklands in 1982; let alone the other global commitments the RN has in the service of the UK.

Martin.

Right or wrongly. The VSTOL carriers are no more. The Ark would take a significant some of money to reactivate, and probably have a shorter commission due its recent inactivity. The fact is ships decay quickly without maintenance, more so than aircraft due.

WrT deterrence value in the South Atlantic, deployments of Hunter Killers has proven very effective, more so than carriers. Prior to '82 the deployment of HMS Dreadnought and a minor surface action group reduced tensions from the Argies (especially with the around about 'leaks' letting the Argies know what was deployed but not when).

On the article: The UK first exercised sovereignty over The Falklands over the other countries claims. It was common for competing powers to lay claim to the same land masses back in the Age of Discovery. The fact remains the other other countries claims were never taken seriously, and when they pushed the sovereignty issue, Britain always reasserted its claim. Argentina on the other hand has never had even one second of control over the islands. Period.

The islanders have asserted their right to self determination; and they have chosen to maintain their links to the UK.

Ironically Argentina and other South American nations with other dependencies in the region.
Shaun - Ex-RNZN

07 February 2012

Martin Bayliss,

I imagine this has been a traumatic week for you.

First you see your obsession with Seaphoon shot down in flames by the Indian Government,now your futile ideas of bringing back harrier is sailing into the sunset bound for the good ole USA.

What I wonder will be the next lost cause that you will champion for out delight and delectation.
michael - notts

07 February 2012

michael - notts

I guess its bonus time for you as your Lockheed Martin minder hands you a brown envelope stuffed with green backs.
Martin Bayliss - Stroud

07 February 2012

Martin Bayliss - Stroud

HMS Illustrious has been converted to an LPH to cover for HMS Ocean while she goes through her refit, she cannot handle any fixed wing aircraft even if they were available.
Rob - Telford

07 February 2012

nyaria - Buenos Aires, Argentina

What history are we wrongly quoting?

I thought Argentina was a democracy now and not a dictatorship, why can't the population of the Falkland Islands have the right to self determination?

It is not bravado, it is not war mongering, the Falkland Islanders have chosen to remain British it is as simple as that!
Rob - Telford

07 February 2012

Let's be frank gentlemen, if it wasn't for the prospect of oil & gas, they probably wouldn't give a...
Laskovar - UK

07 February 2012

From what I read of the state of the Argentinian armed forces, they are none too healthy either.

I cannot see how the Argentinians could take the airfield by surprise, for that in my mind is the key. They would need to use SF to mount a surprise attack first.

There are 3 seperate radar sites I'm aware of they would have to similtaneously take out to prevent our seeing them coming as well. Thats not counting our T45 either, or the resident FSC battery, or the Typhoons.

Thats some ask for their special forces in my opinion.

CSOS on Ascension and the JSSU on the Falklands will be listening for any sigint, plus any satellite coverage which we decide to devote there. SIS will have its ear to the ground within Argentina as well. The warnings would be there, as they were in 82, but we did nothing then. This time we have asets already waiting. Limited I grant you.

I agree with another post that the most important assets of the RN are our SSN's. The argies can do nothing about them.

In 82 their navy went and hid in port after what we did to the Belgrano, I doubt they would stick it this time either.

If they did disregard the SSN and land anyway, we would not be able to prevent their landing, if they had any ships left, but given warning of the operation and the resistance our assets there it would give time for the idiots in Whitehall to respond.

Failing a seaborne attack they would have to fly into the airfield, suicide with the FSC units sitting there.

I myself would park a troop of CHII and a few Apache on the airfield for good measure as well.

I also believe HMG need to embark on an international campaign in showing the world just why the Argentinian claim is groundless.
Daniele Mandelli - Guildford

08 February 2012

Shaun - Ex-RNZN

I can't argue that the number of ships available in 1982 was considerably greater than today, indeed as you say the Task Force alone outnumbered what is currently available to the fleet and yes I accept I may be 'influenced' by the 'hype' as to the alleged capability of today's vessels, that said it is true that the Trafalgar Class (and now Astute) provide a substantial threat to a would-be aggressor both at sea and with 'Tomahawk' on shore also.
If the Type 45 really is as capable as it's claimed, then it too represents a substantial improvement against airborne threats, so too the Typhoon. In all respects the numbers are too small, though were tensions to increase it would be fair to assume at least the Typhoon numbers could be augmented.

As for Martin, back in 1982 the principle carrier was the venerable 'Hermes' supported, (some say, from a distance) by 'Invincible' both of which were undoubtedly the prime targets for the Argentine Forces. Had either suffered the fate of 'Atlantic Conveyor' the outcome may well have been different. While I accept a fixed runway is vulnerable, damage can be repaired, a damaged carrier might not.

Aside from the USMC delivering the first forty shipping containers for what are now technically their Harriers, I think you're mistaken as to 'Ark Royal' being maintained 'in running order' Unlike 'Invincible' which it was claimed to have been in 'extended readiness' (in reality extremely extended) 'Ark Royal' was never placed 'in reserve' nor in any state of readiness, the Government had made up their minds from the outset there was never a chance of reprieve. A good deal of reusable equipment was removed from the ship by this time last year and I cannot imagine her condition will have improved since.
Hereman - Wirral, England

08 February 2012

Thank god we have submarine launched ballistic missiles (which can carry multiple plutonium nuclear warheads) to protect OUR oil from these thieving socialist slobs.

Harrier? GR9? What is this? These are the tools of old men.

How does the old harrier squadron compare with 16 D5's each armed with no fewer than 8 x W88 class warhead's?

Or... if it's deemed "unacceptable" to destroy the 30 or 40 largest cities in South America, why not just sanction the SBS boys on a mischief and sabotage campaign to wreak havoc on key infrastructure (power stations, water pumps, communications, dams, mines, etc)?

Or... if it's deemed "unacceptable" to destroy the critical infrastructure in night raids, why not just sanction the MI6 boys at Cheltenham to conduct a campaign of cyber sabotage to disable all the critical infrastructure (transmission lines, communication hubs, financial institutions, etc)

Or... if it's deemed "unacceptable" to disable the critical infrastructure with cyber warfare, why not just sanction the city boys to conduct financial warfare and freeze Argentina out of the worlds capital markets. Use the BOE and the discount window to fund a government run black box program with the intention of selling off the Argentine asset base, corrupt their relatively small bond market with naked selling and turn the nation over to the dogs (too late for that).


The fact remains our illustrious friends Argentine friends tore up their only legitimate claim to this oil a few years back and their backward technology and unsophisticated political leaders are little more than an entertaining side show.


Just follow the levels of escalation.

1). financial tightening
2). cyber warfare
3). covert ops
4). conventional warfare
5). nuclear obliteration

6). recover the oil.
Dick Shivers - Knightsbridge / UK of GB and NI / unemployed

08 February 2012

Crazy -

1) The Argentines want to claim sovereignty over the islands which have a small population of 3,200....the islanders want to remain as a British Overseas Territory. The reason? there has been a sudden discovery of oil which was known about 30 years ago but only confirmed recently. OH! Now we want some of this say the Argies, let talk about sovereignty.....Do they forget about the destruction they caused by their invasion 30 years ago. Like it or not leave the decision to the islanders.

2) The Argentinians feel threatened by the increased presence of warships and prince William etc.
The islanders feel threatened by the constant threat that they face from the Argentinians.
Who invaded who in 1982?

3) To be honest it seems irrational that they want to seek talks on the sovereignty of the islands purely on the basis of oil finds in the region and expect the British government to comply after many live were lost during the invasion.
Gary - Jersey

08 February 2012

nyaria.

Argentina lost any chance of respect with their unlawful invasion in 1982.

As Laskovar mentioned; with natural resources at stake, it would be logical the islanders side with the UK - a stable democracy with a much larger economy which would benefit the islanders than anything Argentina could ever provide.

As others have said too, if Argentina hates colonialism that much why do they speak Spanish?? ...And then lay a claim to islands which Spain claimed but never exercised complete sovereignty over??

The backing Argentina is getting from other South American nations at present is due to economic clout Argentina is exercising (ironically off the same fields which The Falklands will pull from :)
-Perhaps....Compensation for the invasion and mines left littered across the countryside!
Shaun - Ex-RNZN

08 February 2012

nyaria - Buenos Aires, Argentina

"Wrongly quoting history"... How dare you say that! The Argentine version of history regarding the Falkland Islands is littered with fabrictions from start to finish.

The UK has a historical and de facto claim to the Falklands and the islanders are sovereign, they will decide their own future which will NEVER include being part of Argentina.

What is now the province of Tierra del fuego did not become part of Argentina until the late 19th century and only after the genocidal conquests of Roca against the indiginous population.

The Falkland Islanders displaced nobody and are now nine generations, some can trace themselves back to Vernet's original settlers that arrived with British permission. Argentina has no rights to the Falklands and will never have control of them. It lost any right to talk to Britain about sovereignty on 2 April 1982.
Graham - High Wycombe