Monday, 13 June 2011

"Put up a bit of a fight, then surrender Stanley"

"So, Minister, the government's strategic position on the Falkland Islands is that we 'Put up a bit of a fight, then surrender'?"

"Yes, General. No need for casualties. Just empty a couple of magazines in the Argies' general direction and get the white flag up. We'll have to blow-up the Typhoons but they can keep the frigate. Save us the scrappage costs. And we'll charter an easyjet A340 to go to Uruguay to pick the lads up. The Argies may even give them new suits and goody bags." 

"And how are we expected to re-take the Islands this time, Minister?"

"Uhm, we won't. Obama won't support us, and the mood has changed in South America. Apart from the fact that we can't muster the men, ships or aircraft any more. Time for the, er, 'Bennies' to learn Italian, eh? Oh, and get a press statement out saying we won't give up the Islands without a fight or something." 

A Ministry of Defence spokesman said: "Claims that the Falkland Islands could be taken without a fight are completely without substance." - Daily Telegraph, 12/6/11


Gallovidian said...

Mr Powell once said that there are traitors in high places in this country. Nothing that has happened in the past few decades has proved him wrong.

Nick Drew said...

A microcosm of the bigger picture that Mr Secretary Gates has painted for us, R

Anonymous said...

Hmm - not sure about this??

Firstly we still have a military airbase there and secondly, we have found some oil. The airbase makes it ours and the oil makes it worth fighting for.

Coney Island

Anonymous said...

Somehow, government has redefined its remit over the last sixty or so years...

It would seem that where once, there was a relatively simple portfolio of protecting the UK's overseas interests and defence of the realm... Both of which require an armed force. Along with a requirement to protect the interests of HM subjects (mainly their property interests), which require a police force...

Neither of these constants seem to be of value anymore...

What now seems to be the purpose of government is to protect the corporate interests of a few international organisations... none of which are loyal to, or recognise the concept of the nation state. Secondly, rather than protect the interests of HM subjects, it is more important to keep people in the dark and make sure that those who can see (despite all that is done) are powerless to intervene.

The problem seems to be, that nobody told the people (most of whom don't seem to know or care), and the few of us that have noticed, don't understand where this new remit came from.

Oh... and nobody told Thatcher either... At least not until the day she collected her P45 anyway.

Anonymous said...

They'd give up Gib' as well, at the drop of a hat.
Never is any mention made of Spanish holdings off and in Morocco [Ceuta etc] when the sabre rattling commences.
It is why they [the Daigos] who always support their indian cousins the Diegos - over the Falklands - hypocrisy... I mean how Spanish are the Canaries?

Macho hispanic posturing and bravado, started many wars.

What a larf, Argentina's islands?

The coalition of the damned, see it just like Bliars lot - as an historical anachronism and an embarrassment.
We only just did it last time, with some help from the gipper - bless his soul.
Now, defending the Falklands... it would be mission impossible.
The Argies just need to bide their time and let recent history fade, they know well from their Spanish informants - it will not be long!
Britain soon enough, will no longer be an independent nation and an effective fighting proposition without amphibious Naval sea/air capability.

Gelded: tradition trashed, no navy and [mostly] not caring either way.

British government? No, Westminster town council, subervient and always obedient to Brussels

Andy said...

I wonder if the US attitude would change if we announced that all our our forces in Afghanistan were being redeployed to defend the Falklands.

greg tingey said...

Actually, the madwoman from Grantham STARTED this rot.

She insisted on defence cuts - which then got us the Falklands' War.
No-one learnt from this, and we have gone on doing the same insanity ever since.
Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown and Cameron desreve to die, since the penalty for treason is death.
And all their defence ministers as well .....

Actually, if something like this happened, and I'm afraid it will, quite soon, then there really will be trouble.

English Pensioner said...

Reading today's newspapers containing the comments of some of our military leaders, your scenario seems just about right.

Anonymous said...

greg tingey said...

Actually, the madwoman from Grantham STARTED this rot.

How right that is, people look back at Maggie and think she was a saviour?

James Higham said...

I wonder if the government feels the slightest amount of shame over the defence forces or whether they employ the old Labour strategy of blaming someone else.

Anonymous said...

Er, the Argentines are way worse off than us; the Typhoons could destroy totally the most up to date aircraft in the Argentine order of battle and thus slaughter any invasion. We couldn't much defend an invasion, but the Argies can't mount one

Anonymous said...

Single acts of tyranny said...

Er, the Argentines are way worse off than us; the Typhoons could destroy totally the most up to date aircraft in the Argentine order.

Of course that is correct, my question is though, are the 4 Typhoons still on the Falklands - Mount Pleasant base, or flying from Gioia del Colle airbase in Italy?

TheRagingTory said...

Argentina couldnt invade its own bloody capital at the moment, never mind The Falklands.

Several places have mapped out possible invasions by Argentina, at best, they take the islands with catastrophic losses.
At worst, they lose 10,000 men and dont even set foot on the islands.

The FI Garrison is over 1000 strong, all trained as static infantry, with an additional company of proper infantry.

Argentina has a single landing ship, that could land 300 men and heavy equipment. Everything else they needed would be landed by dingy.

That assumes an S/T/A class isnt hanging around (the argies have no ASW capability) and sinks the invasion fleet with all hands.

They have a parachute Brigade, but its poorly trained and as far as I'm aware hasnt dropped in Brigade strength, ever.
Even the Americans, who constantly make parachute drops take serious losses to broken ankles and legs.

And of course, even if they do manage to parachute 1,000 men onto the islands, they will be dropped light, with limited ammunition, food and heavy weapons.

Realisticaly, all being even, the aggressor needs 3:1 odds to beat a defender.
They might get 2:1.

But all things arent even, your average argentine has never fired a shot in anger, your average British Infantryman has spent 6 months in Afghanistan.
And Mt P isnt just a hill with a few conveniently scattered rocks, we've had 30 years to big trenches, fire pits, concealed machine gun positions.

But even if they overcome all that, and somehow seize the islands, what then?

Our submarine fleet can continue to strike targets at will with Tomahawk, or sink ships with whatever fish we're on today (Tiger?).
And of course, we can launch a task force.

I know I know, it doesnt have fighter cover, big whoop, it has Daring and Argentina doesnt have fighters, they have ground attack aircraft considerably older than I am.
Skyhawks against SeaViper would be a one way bet.
With the Argentine Navy confined to port by Astute, theres nothing to resist a landing fleet.
Ocean can operate Apaches, at a pinch, probably 16 of them.
Illustrious can helicopter in an 800 strong ground force.
The Two Albions can land another 800 men and large amounts of material, and finaly the bay classes can land another 1000 men and, 90 odd tanks.

Argentina can hold the islands with whatever it can logisticaly support with a few battered old C130s, they cant ship supplies over, due to Astute related sinkings.

Grand logistics had two cracks at it