Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 djones520 wrote:
In America, it seems our defense budget is the #1 target.

You're very wrong.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Why would you flash a donkey?

Why wouldn't you!

dogma wrote:

 Albatross wrote:

Well, the point is that as long as they wish to remain British we will maintain the capability to defend them. Not to do so would be political suicide. It really is that important, I feel.

Does the issue of defending your territories abroad often come up with regard to military spending?

The issue of defending territories is not the main rationale behind British military spending. Our military priorities are such however, that our capabilities are modelled in the same way as if that was the case.

To extrapolate, the goal of our forces is primarily (i) to defend the British homeland by making sure that no enemy fleet would be able to land an invading army, and (ii) to make sure that Britain is capable of transporting and landing a fast, efficient, and well trained army anywhere on the globe. Or in other words, force projection. This has been the case for roughly the last hundred years or so.

This can be seen in the current makeup of the British fleet. Whilst our last carrier is due to be decomissioned in 2014 (HMS Illustrious), our three other capital ships (loosely speaking) are the HMS Ocean, HMS Albion, and HMS Bulwark and are all designed for amphibious assaults. Combined, these three ships can carry the better part of two thousand soldiers, just over a hundred trucks, seventy odd tanks and twenty five helicopters.


Albion Class Landing Ship Dock

Whilst this might not sound like a huge amount, the Royal Fleet Auxiliary is designed to operate as a carrying fleet for a large part, with the capacity to move around another 37 helicopters, 780 armoured vehicles, 360 trucks, seventy tanks and two thousand more men. This is all of course, on top of the Merchant Navy which can be requisitioned at need to carry troops. Not to mention the ships will be carrying enough ammunition and supplies to fight an extensive action.


Bay Class Landing Ship

With that kind of carrying capacity, combined with the accompanying submarines, frigates and destroyers, we currently have the ability to launch effective and sustainable hostile action anywhere in the world that adjoins the sea. Conveniently enough, maintaining the capability to do this also maintains our ability to defend farflung places like the Falklands, although that is more of an offshoot of our naval strategy than a driving part of it.

You get a lot of people moaning that our fleet is nothing compared to the 'good old days', and they're right. But then again, that fails to take into account that the good old days included a desire to have as many ships as any two other powers in the world combined (impractical today looking at the US), and a much cheaper cost per ship than we have now (a destroyer costs about ten times now as much as one used to, taking currency change into effect). The fact remains that bar getting into a war with the US, if Britain wants to invade somewhere, we still have the capability to do so with relative impunity.

The only current issue is the lack of capacity for aerial defence. Whilst the new Type 45's are meant to be the be all and end all of local aerial defence, they're somewhat untested, and have no way of providing cover to anything past a certain distance overland. The HMS Ocean can support VTOL aircraft, but we unfortunately just sold off all our Harriers to the US.

I daresay we could retake the Falklands airfield without much issue though. Park a couple of type 45's outside it (the joy of small islands), and just wait for the troop carriers to get there. We might lose a ship or two, but even if the Argie's retook the entire Falklands and stationed troops and artillery there, we still have the capacity to take it back.

Prevention is the better option.

The UK is mothballing Challenger II's a portion of those should be mothballed on this islands. You cant get Challengers ashore in an opposed operation, so they need to be there now.

The light forces Argentina could muster would have limited capability against them. Argentina wont be able to airlift over armour, and Challengers are near immune to most man portable AT weapons so they would have to resort entirely to airpower. Have enough missiles to stop that and you give President Fernandez a serious problem.

I dont think they would need many Challengers there, a company might be enough.

The problem is the Falklands is a horrible place for Tanks, its all soft peaty soil and jagged rocks. The Scorpion and Scimitar light tanks used in the war had trouble getting about, and there designed to have very low ground pressure.

A Challenger 2 with all the extra gubbinz weighs up to 80tons, they’d all just end up getting stuck in peat bogs. Argentina only has light tanks anyway and I dont think they have any way of landing them other than unloading at a port.

Though it would be fun to see Challengers there just to Troll Argentina

Just put a nuke on the island. Make it public policy that if Argentina attacks the UK with anything...woosh.

 Frazzled wrote:
Just put a nuke on the island. Make it public policy that if Argentina attacks the UK with anything...woosh.

But that contaminates all the lovely oil there

 Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Just put a nuke on the island. Make it public policy that if Argentina attacks the UK with anything...woosh.

But that contaminates all the lovely oil there

No no no. Sorry let me be clear. The warhead is on a rocket...

 Ketara wrote:

The issue of defending territories is not the main rationale behind British military spending. Our military priorities are such however, that our capabilities are modelled in the same way as if that was the case.

To extrapolate, the goal of our forces is primarily (i) to defend the British homeland by making sure that no enemy fleet would be able to land an invading army, and (ii) to make sure that Britain is capable of transporting and landing a fast, efficient, and well trained army anywhere on the globe. Or in other words, force projection. This has been the case for roughly the last hundred years or so.

First, thanks for the detailed response.

Second, it sound like you're discussing the goals of the British military, but I was referring to the British political situation. Would you say that your response reflects the beliefs of the average British voter?

 Frazzled wrote:
Just put a nuke on the island. Make it public policy that if Argentina attacks the UK with anything...woosh.

I think that might be viewed as something of an over-reaction by.. well... the rest of the world.

Might be one or two security issues too perhaps yes ?

Its not the nuke you know is there thats a threat, its the one where you have no idea where it is that is a threat.

 reds8n wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Just put a nuke on the island. Make it public policy that if Argentina attacks the UK with anything...woosh.

I think that might be viewed as something of an over-reaction by.. well... the rest of the world.

Might be one or two security issues too perhaps yes ?

1. No reaction to stop behavior than over reaction. Its the Chicago way.
2. security issues: thats what the challengers and sharks with frigging laser beams are for.

Alternatively just say if Argentina attacks the nuke bombers fly. Call it the Frazzled FPOR policy.*

*freaking psychotic over reaction

Once again I am relieved shocked and amazed that your career in the diplomatic corp failed to take off !

"Argentina's Kirchner raises Falklands with Pope Francis
Argentine President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner says she has asked for the Pope's intervention in the Falklands dispute between her country and the UK."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-21835363

That didnt take long

The best response he could have would be this.

"Sorry madame, but ever since a guy called Henry VIII was king of England the Vatican hasn't had as much political sway with that little island"

 cpt_fishcakes wrote:
"Argentina's Kirchner raises Falklands with Pope Francis
Argentine President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner says she has asked for the Pope's intervention in the Falklands dispute between her country and the UK."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-21835363

That didnt take long

Idiot bitch. 'Las Malvinas' is the only issue that the two agree on, yet now he is Pope he has to take a more neutral position. This puts the Vatican in a tight spot, at least its not a kid this time.

Catholicism is declining in the uk anyway.

Don't think the Vatican is really in any position at the moment to be lecturing anyone about anything...

 reds8n wrote:
Once again I am relieved shocked and amazed that your career in the diplomatic corp failed to take off !

Peace through superior atoms!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Eggs wrote:
Catholicism is declining in the uk anyway.

Don't think the Vatican is really in any position at the moment to be lecturing anyone about anything...

Oh they can lecture about agreat many things. They don't typically lecture about territorial disputes however, other than maybe a nice monograph on beating swords into plowshares.

Its the same old smoke screen. The UN clearly states any negotiations on the islands must be in the best interests of the islanders. As Argentina refuses to recognize let alone talk to islanders, no form of negotiation can ever take place. That how Argentina likes it, they know the UN charter invalidates there position. They are desperate to keep hold of the propaganda ace for domestic politics.

 cpt_fishcakes wrote:
Its the same old smoke screen. The UN clearly states any negotiations on the islands must be in the best interests of the islanders. As Argentina refuses to recognize let alone talk to islanders, no form of negotiation can ever take place. That how Argentina likes it, they know the UN charter invalidates there position. They are desperate to keep hold of the propaganda ace for domestic politics.

Actually that is not the case.

The UN resolution from 1965 called for talks with the islanders concerns to be considered. The Uk complied with the resolution.

The 1983 UN resolution and those since quietly removed this stipulation, the Foreign Office, useless morons that they are, were caught napping and let the amended wording pass.

 Orlanth wrote:

Idiot bitch

 Orlanth wrote:

useless morons that they are.

What a pleasant man you are, despite your ninja editing.

Well seeing as President Fernandez has trainwrecked her own economy, scarred away foreign investment by nationalising foreign owned energy industries from within her borders; and vows to seize the Falklands in 20 years from a population that doesnt want her or her country yet claims to want to do so peacefully.

I am spot on with my assessment.

Yea but she's cute for a politician.

 Orlanth wrote:

I am spot on with my assessment.

Idiot bitch? Really?

It was your original remarks about the foreign office that I was really referring to.

 Frazzled wrote:
Yea but she's cute for a politician.

Frazzie, get your eyes tested. That Argentine Botox monster, attractive? For a hot (ex)president look in a Ukrainian prison:

 Orlanth wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Yea but she's cute for a politician.

Frazzie, get your eyes tested. That Argentine Botox monster, attractive? For a hot (ex)president look in a Ukrainian prison:

A. I do need to get my eyes tested but thats another story.
B. Oh yea, I forgot about her. Problably doesn't look like that now.

From the amalgamated thread:

chaos0xomega wrote:Personally, I don't see why y'all can't just split the Falklands, East Falkland to the UK, West Falkland to Argentina. Thats basically the way the original split between Spain/UK was way back when (and was also the split at the time the UPRP settled the islands in the early 19th century), as I understand it, and from what I understand West Falkland Island is barely inhabited, if at all, correct?

Argentina doesn't want to share, they even edited their constitutional to demand total sovereignty over the Falklands. If they had half the islands they would be ten miles away rather than 300 and would have right to place troops there. War would be a certainty.

Also the people on both West and East Falklands dont want them.
Also they invaded before and have vowed to have the islands within 20 years, so they can sit and sulk in Buenos Aires.

There is nothing to discuss, and nothing that ought to be shared. It might should like common sense to give a wolf your hand, but it wont stop the wolf, only now you only have one hand.

 dogma wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

The issue of defending territories is not the main rationale behind British military spending. Our military priorities are such however, that our capabilities are modelled in the same way as if that was the case.

To extrapolate, the goal of our forces is primarily (i) to defend the British homeland by making sure that no enemy fleet would be able to land an invading army, and (ii) to make sure that Britain is capable of transporting and landing a fast, efficient, and well trained army anywhere on the globe. Or in other words, force projection. This has been the case for roughly the last hundred years or so.

First, thanks for the detailed response.

Second, it sound like you're discussing the goals of the British military, but I was referring to the British political situation. Would you say that your response reflects the beliefs of the average British voter?

The average British voter would take to the streets with a pitchfork if the Falklands were invaded and our government either did nothing, or could not take them back. Nationalism is very big, and getting bigger, at the minute.

It's worse in Argentina, clearly.


As for the Pope? Meh. How many divisions does he have?

 Orlanth wrote:
Well seeing as President Fernandez has trainwrecked her own economy, scarred away foreign investment by nationalising foreign owned energy industries from within her borders; and vows to seize the Falklands in 20 years from a population that doesnt want her or her country yet claims to want to do so peacefully.

I am spot on with my assessment.

That sounds more like nationalist posturing than objective commentary.

Not very fair-minded of you.

 Orlanth wrote:

The 1983 UN resolution and those since quietly removed this stipulation, the Foreign Office, useless morons that they are, were caught napping and let the amended wording pass.

It was a GA resolution, there was nothing your foreign office could do.