Will the UK lose the Falklands?

[davidbfpo]

Fuchs:

..the RN faces budget challenges, and fights for its carrier and naval aviation which are in peril..

Yes, the RN faces budget challenges. The RN currently has no carriers, two are being built, there are no aircraft envisaged as being in place to fly from them and currently has only helicopters (many in Afg.), with no fixed wing combat aircraft.

Given the investment in the airbase on the Falklands, with SAMs, hardened aircraft shelters and air defence radar - it is the RAF to the fore. Reinforcing the RAF presence, with fighters, AWACS etc maybe a nuisance to them, but can be done.

[Fuchs]

david, I meant this in a bigger context.

It's a boogeyman. The largely irrelevant Falklands and their mythical 30-years old "we will soon produce oil there, but don't yet" symptom are being used to keep the militaryspending up.

It's a ridiculous Warsaw Pact surrogate now that the Arabs aren't the boogeyman of the day any more.


I have no respect for people who fall for such primitive scaremongering.

[TDB]

It does seem good timing as far as the RN are concerned, they've been hit hardest by SDSR. I can't see this rumbling on long enough for spending to be upped or the speed with which the two new carriers are finished.

I can't see it coming to a military conflict though, not in this day and age. If it did reckon we'd see Article 5 being invoked? We can but hope.

[Fuchs]

It does seem good timing as far as the RN are concerned, they've been hit hardest by SDSR. I can't see this rumbling on long enough for spending to be upped or the speed with which the two new carriers are finished.

I can't see it coming to a military conflict though, not in this day and age. If it did reckon we'd see Article 5 being invoked? We can but hope.

Article 5 does not cover that place of Earth. It's about Europe and NA.

The Lisbon treaty might apply, though; that depends on definitions (see comments here).

[Bullmoose Bailey]

Article 5 does not cover that place of Earth. It's about Europe and NA.

The Lisbon treaty might apply, though; that depends on definitions (see comments here).

n.b. Article 5 was invoked for Afghanistan. Ref: above discussion.

In an "Empire Strikes Back" turnabout The Commonwealth sits not only on the vast oil reserves discussed but the geostrategic key terrain of lands & seas dominating both the Drake Passage & The Northwest Passage, yes that long sought secret high speed route to Asia, its only existed since 2007 to regular shipping, unintended consequence of "global warming".

Although their ability to project Air-Sea dominance is presently minimal, for a moment which will not last, The UK remains capable of projecting power vis-a-vis amphibious forces. They also have access to Airfields in Canada, New Zealand & elsewhere, in support and old island "coaling" ports in between. Most importantly they have one of the best levels of access to Troopship Service which is an economic and more reliable, if slower, way of moving an Army than airpower and doesn't require an airhead but a beachhead, with tenders or landing crafts. As such the Argentines should do well to fear the BA as well as the RN. So this small war question isn't merely a littoral issue.

It could also be argued that they, The British, presently control a degree of access to the Panama canal via the B.W.I. Overall the Atlantic is still the domain of the Scepter'd Isle and little has changed since the Battle of the Spanish Armada, especially with their present serene alliance, our special friendship. This is in spite of a present Communist Bulge in The Western Hemisphere, about the Panama Canal Zone, our own Hong Kong, expansion of which may yet cause consternation and civil engineering crises in Bayonne and elsewhere due to increased shipping tonnage.

From a Small Wars perspective, the threat is globalist communist incursion in South America. Enslavement of the populations & thievery of their resources of gas, oil, precious metals, woods, minerals, gems and water will be sought by the enemies of the American way of life.

To what degree are China and Cuba influencing action in the region?

Have North Korean and Iranian agents spread their influence there also?

Do circumstances indicate future obligation and investment on our part?

[Bullmoose Bailey]

http://www.nato.int/terrorism/five.htm

Respectfully submitted

[Dayuhan]

Although their ability to project Air-Sea dominance is presently minimal, for a moment which will not last, The UK remains capable of projecting power vis-a-vis amphibious forces.

Do you really expect the UK to regain the capacity to project Air-Sea dominance? Hardly seems likely, given he state of their economy.

From a Small Wars perspective, the threat is globalist communist incursion in South America.

Probably a matter for another thread, but I'd be curious about how that conclusion was reached.

Enslavement of the populations & thievery of their resources of gas, oil, precious metals, woods, minerals, gems and water will be sought by the enemies of the American way of life.

Yes, they lack our altruism.

[Bullmoose Bailey]

Do you really expect the UK to regain the capacity to project Air-Sea dominance? Hardly seems likely, given he state of their economy.

Dear Dayuhan:

In reference to your above query, I do so expect.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...updated-01630/

The HMS Queen Elizabeth and the HMS Prince of Wales will be the largest warships ever built for the RN & basically complement the Nimitz class better than the Invincible class ever could.

[J Wolfsberger]

It's a boogeyman. The largely irrelevant Falklands and their mythical 30-years old "we will soon produce oil there, but don't yet" symptom are being used to keep the militaryspending up.

It's a ridiculous Warsaw Pact surrogate now that the Arabs aren't the boogeyman of the day any more.


I have no respect for people who fall for such primitive scaremongering.

In that case, you have to admit this is quite an accomplishment for British diplomats, getting Kirchner to blow this up so their colleagues in the military could press for budget increases.

Actually, I think Red Rat has it mostly right. Kirchner has manufactured a crisis partly because the domestic situation in Argentina is almost Grecian. But I also think her government's major purpose is using this as a lever to pry some concessions out of the UK regarding exploitation of the oil.

Regardless, as a Bolivaran in good standing she was guaranteed the diplomatic support of Columbia, Brazil and Cuba. I doubt they'd back her to the point of armed conflict.

[ganulv]

Regardless, as a Bolivaran in good standing she was guaranteed the diplomatic support of Columbia, Brazil and Cuba. I doubt they'd back her to the point of armed conflict.

Since the Columbian government is tied up dealing with a decades–long insurgency and the Cuban government is tied up dealing with a neighbor whose stated policy is regime change and who also happens to be the most powerful nation in the history of the world I think we can be pretty sure that those two aren’t going to go to blows for Argentina. And I believe that the Brazilians would rather not have their carrier destroyed by the Brits. But you know who Kirchner can count on? Sean Penn.

[carl]

ganulv:

That was an almost perfectly constructed paragraph and I laughed like hell at the end.

[davidbfpo]

Ganulv:

But you know who Kirchner can count on? Sean Penn.

Ah, we still have 'The Handbag' in reserve and SSN(s).

[J Wolfsberger]

Since the Columbian government is tied up dealing with a decades–long insurgency and the Cuban government is tied up dealing with a neighbor whose stated policy is regime change and who also happens to be the most powerful nation in the history of the world I think we can be pretty sure that those two aren’t going to go to blows for Argentina. And I believe that the Brazilians would rather not have their carrier destroyed by the Brits. But you know who Kirchner can count on? Sean Penn.

I got a laugh as well.

Unfortunately, I suffered a brain f--- when I wrote the post. I meant "Venezuela, Brazil and Cuba."

Next thing you know, I'll start to get crotchety.

[Stan]

But you know who Kirchner can count on? Sean Penn.

Matt, That's a keeper

I got a laugh as well.
Unfortunately, I suffered a brain f--- when I wrote the post. I meant "Venezuela, Brazil and Cuba."

Hey John, You old buzzard - we hate all of those dudes (well, at least until we get another president with another agenda).

Where have you been anyway ? On some sort of sabbatical

Next thing you know, I'll start to get crotchety.

As I needed to check the definition of that word, I ran across far too many definitions at the Urban Dictionary and decided on the following

1. Of or pertaining to the crotchular region.

2. Of a sexually promiscuous nature.

1. Ray-Ray was experiencing a crotchety itch, so he jiggied on down to the clinic on the corner.

This, BTW, has jack to do with this thread !

[J Wolfsberger]

Matt, That's a keeper



Hey John, You old buzzard - we hate all of those dudes (well, at least until we get another president with another agenda).

Where have you been anyway ? On some sort of sabbatical



As I needed to check the definition of that word, I ran across far too many definitions at the Urban Dictionary and decided on the following



This, BTW, has jack to do with this thread !

I got tied up in a series of other activities.

As for "crotchety," more along the lines of:

1.irritable: irritable and difficult to please

The proper emoticon is: