hope nothing kicks off too soon as ive got to go down there for work in june for 4 months!!

deep joy!! 🙁

Dust the Vulcan off chaps its got a job to do.

yeah id like to see the american reaction if we started drilling in the carribean!

What you mean like the oil developments that have being going on in Trinidad since the 19th Century?

What tyres for the Falklands ? 😀

imgine if there was a potentially oil rich island off our coast owned by a foreign power that was based in another hemisphere
there cant be that many of these imperial anachronisms left in the world, we will have to give it back one day

Crap. It has nothing to do with Imperialism. You can't hand back something that was never theirs in the first place. The Falklands were recorded by a Spanish ship, but the first landing and possesion was by a British ship. The only country that could possibly lay a claim would be Spain. Argentina, as a former Spanish colony, is really getting ideas above it's station if it thinks it can lay claim to somewhere that had just been marked on a chart by it's former owner. Also, one of the problems that faced our taskforce was a lack of an airborne early warning system to detect the Exocet carrying Skyhawks. That was solved by jury-rigging a radome onto the side of Seaking helicopters and sending them out in advance of the picket line. We did have a superb AEW plane, the Gannet, which could stooge around for fourteen hours with a highly effective radar system, but it had been scrapped.
Oh yes, it was Tony Benn, as Minister of Defense for the previous Labour Party that removed a sophisticated and highly effective carrier-borne system that would have prevented the loss of a number of our ships, like my brother's ship, the Coventry.

We did have a superb AEW plane, the Gannet, which could stooge around for fourteen hours with a highly effective radar system, but it had been scrapped.

Needed a full size carrier anyway, which we didn't have in '82.

Edit to the above re: Falklands ownership.

Although first sighted by an English navigator in 1592, the first landing (English) did not occur until almost a century later in 1690, and the first settlement (French) was not established until 1764. The colony was turned over to Spain two years later and the islands have since been the subject of a territorial dispute, first between Britain and Spain, then between Britain and Argentina. The UK asserted its claim to the islands by establishing a naval garrison there in 1833. Argentina invaded the islands on 2 April 1982. The British responded with an expeditionary force that landed seven weeks later and after fierce fighting forced an Argentine surrender on 14 June 1982.

Noted about the carriers, but Gannets had folding wings, could easily have been carried down by ship, then flown from the airfield. Fantastically tough airplane, I put together a book about it years ago, and there was a photograph of one that had lost both outer folding wing-tips in flight, but still stayed in the air and plane and crew made it safely back to base. I think it was something like a metre of wing missing each side. Lovely plane.

El-bent, if it wasn't so obvious you know bugger all about the RAF and airpower in general, I'd object to you calling me a dick.

But it is and I don't. Go do your homework.

All this 'we'll give them another bloody nose,bring it on ect ect.
Hey people!
Skin of our teeth on the last run if you know anything about it.
Catalogue of disasters beginning to end and pure bloody luck at the end.

Another conflict would be far worse casualty wise,both sides have learned about fighting on the Falklands terrain,so its likely the'd be well dug in at height.Ship bombardment cant be used as the place is full of civvies,
Air cover is difficult too with only one or two carriers,and Argentina have aircraft with flight ranges that include to Falklands from their own bases.
I wont go into the design flaws our carriers have 😆
.
Cos i cant 😉

so its likely the'd be well dug in at height

If they got there this time…

Catalogue of disasters beginning to end and pure bloody luck at the end.

I wouldn't say pure luck at all.

I agree there were numerous mistakes and there were alot of ire aimed firmly at a certain Admiral over his leadership etc (especially from Harrier Pilots).

Don't forget, the majority of the servicemen who went down there had never seen action before.

Yes just like then there were years of budget cuts but the Argies today have no prior battle experience whereeas our lads…

I worked for that admiral a few years later (I think he was CINCNAVHOME at the time) and you also have to bear in mind that his hands were tied to some extent by the politicians. For example the Super Entendards that were eventually used from land (after the Argentinian fleet returned to port post-Belgrano), and their Exocets, were at sea on the carrier but permission wasn't given for one of the subs (for which the Argentinian Navy had no counter) to try and sink it.

Support Grows For Retro Falklands War

epicsteve, read this book 'Forgotten Voices of the Falklands Conflict'. Various officers are scathing of that Admirals conduct.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2007/may/05/featuresreviews.guardianreview5

ocrider – Member

Already have.
You ever been to the Dordogne? English is the first spoken language in some villages.

Which villages are those then?

I didn't find any!

Hora – less than half the argentine bombs that hit british ships exploded IIRC – if they all had the outcome would have been very different. Wrong fuses or something.

No doubt it was a big chunk of luck / circumstances that tipped the balance.

1000 men died for oil and vanity. There was no need for an armed conflict at all. It could have been easily solved but Thatcher wanted to kick some dago arse and made sure that there was no chance of a non military solution.

"Oh ye hypocrites
Are these your pranks
To murder men
And gie god thanks

Desist for same!
proceed no further:
God won't accept your thanks for Murther"

Oh yes, it was Tony Benn, as Minister of Defense for the previous Labour Party that removed a sophisticated and highly effective carrier-borne system that would have prevented the loss of a number of our ships, like my brother's ship, the Coventry.

im sure i learnt from andrew marrs history of britain that maggie was poised to dissmantle the navy and the falklnads conflict saved it

the mash article is right too many people getting nostalgic over a just war and from all the military groupies here spunking over getting to mention exocetts and aew systems it seems that its not just sun readers

its also very depressing to see hague using this as a political issue, whipping it up even further-something that will feedback into the sunreaders and get everyone up for some argie bashing

argentina dont want a war- they want some revenue so IF theres a big field found they can whack a tax on the pipeline that would be needed

The Argentinians are sabre wrattling because they know UK finances are battered and that we are overcommitted elsewhere.

The global sized oil fields is what this conflict is all about.

If it does kick off, I wonder if the Americans will support our cause with the same enthusiasm we have towards theirs? (or was the UK's arm twisted?)

I'm still perplexed as to why our boys are still getting shot up and we are spending mountains of tax payers' cash in Afghanistan. The vast majority of the people there are struggling to feed themselves, so i am lost as to why out people think they may be some sort of threat to our security. Conversely, our presence there will undoubtedly be aggitating groups much closer to home who are sympathetic to the Afghan's plight, those outside Afghanistan who do have the wherewithall to inflict harm upon us.

If Brown does roll over and gives away billions and billions of dollars worth of Falklands oil reserves, I won't be surprized. Afterall, Gordon's quest is clear: Bankrupt the UK!

Spongebob – Member
The Argentinians are sabre wrattling because they know UK finances are battered and that we are overcommitted elsewhere.

Actually, I think there's a bigger parallel to the last time here. Kirchner is facing real troubles at home, both on a political and personal level. A little sabre rattling over the Falklands plays to a very simple popular cause in Argentina.

In the broadest nutshell (the politics were complex). The UK had initial support but there was a planned resolution for joint ownership, there were also elements of the US administration who were pro-Argentina etc etc.

Plus TJ- imagine a country invades your land and you are told to forget it/rollover. We just couldnt ignore what happened. Sad as it may seemed.

Famously Regan pledged 100% support but whilst he was asleep the US Secretary of State went against orders in a UN vote and voted AGAINST the UK. It could have meant Britain would have been FORCED to let Argentina stay on the Falklands.

People talked about 'more negotiations' ..They had already invaded. Britain had said 'leave'. Argentina refused. It would have weakened our position globally.

What would you suggest we had done?

Yes hora, we did the right thing defending our own territory, although I have heard it said many a time that Thatcher allowed the invasion to happen to boost her flagging support at home. Bit like the Argentinian position right now I guess (assuming CaptainFlasheart is correct). I blame women for this! They should never be allowed to have too much power 😆

Hora – go and read up some stuff on this. You are so wrong.

A negotiated solution was clearly possible and there were negotiations still going on when the Belgrano was sunk which ended any chance of a negotiated settlement.

1000 lives for vanity and oil. Its not worth one life

I don't believe Thatcher let the invasion happen deliberately but I am certain she refused to consider anything but a military solution for electoral gain.

TJ – Invasion started on April the 2nd.
Belgrano hit on May the 2nd.

See that month there? That's a month of an enemy force invading British territory. Negotiations can go hang at that point. If France invaded the Isle of Wight, would we spend a month sitting around desks, or would be ship off some chaps from Salisbury Plain to kick some gluteus maximus? I think I know the answer.

The Argentinian special forces blew up the Garrisons barracks expecting to surprise the Marines in their bunks.

You attack someones soil. What do you expect back? 'Oh please leave, pretty-please'.

No way Britain would go to war again to take them back this time…We would ask if they could print road signs in English as well as Spanish.Brown would then try and find "common ground" and "open dialogue" with the Argentinian Government.

On the bright side does this mean Tevez will be put in an Internment camp?

CFH – At that point there had been virtually no deaths. 1000 men died in total. I would go a long way to avoid 1000 deaths.

A negotiated settlement that would have avoided 1000 deaths was still possible ( if not probable) up to the point the belgrano was sunk. I think 1000 dead men is a good reason to try for one. But then I don't do macho posturing.

I'm surprised that Brown hasnt flown down yet to Buenos Aires.

A negotiated peace? TJ, the Argentinians were not leaving. They had set up administration etc etc. So what would you have done if they stayed against your wishes?

Ban their beef imports forever?
Bad mouth them at the UN?
Call them names?

They werent leaving TJ. Nothing would have made them leave.

It was a catch-22 position for any Leader. A painful one too. to be seen as a weak and ineffective leader on the world stage. It wasnt vanity, it was about protecting the prestige of Britain globally.

The deaths on the Belgrano? Two British warships had been attacked by then.

There was no need for an armed conflict at all.

Indeed, unfortunately the Argentinians chose otherwise when they decided to invade crown dependency soil with a military force, from that point on the only possible outcome was military action to retake the islands – the Rubicon was crossed when the Argentinians opened fire.

It could have been easily solved but Thatcher wanted to kick some dago arse and made sure that there was no chance of a non military solution.

If it could have been "easily solved" how come Haig got nowhere? Have you actually read what Haig said about it? It was clear that for there to be a negotiated settlement, Argentina had to remove their military forces first, they refused repeatedly, they refused to consider anything less than complete sovereignty of the islands – this was entirely an Argentinian choice to invade a (pretty much) defenceless series of islands, against the will of the islanders, with a large military force, and to try and keep it – what negotiation was there to be had with a fascist military junta that had no regard for even its own citizens, choosing to 'disappear' anyone who challenged them?

I'm afraid you're fallen back into your old trap of reciting the socialist worker editorial version of events!

What impressed me though was the bravery (and to a degree) skill of the Argentinian pilots.

I'm in Argentina right now, cycling the length of the Andes… it's front page news in all the papers here… pretending to be anything other than English 😉

When thinking about the Falklands I am often left thinking "What would Tam say?"[*]

Tam (Dayell)spent the rest of his political career trying to demand an enquiry into the sinking of the Belgrano.

Nice deep water ports on Argentina's coastline.They get a refinery and much needed oil dollars.We get allowed/ignored while we drill for oil.That is how it will end up

I'm in Argentina right now, cycling the length of the Andes… it's front page news in all the papers here… pretending to be anything other than English 😉

chillipepper – Member

I'm in Argentina right now, cycling the length of the Andes… it's front page news in all the papers here… pretending to be anything other than English

Whats the vibe!?

One of my mates was a sub crewman fresh out of training in 82, his first deployment was to be the South Atlantic when it finished. He is quite ashamed these days that he got hugely drunk and feted as a hero when he never saw any action. Like he says it would be far worse to be out in AFG or Iraq as a ground pounder these when you have no idea who your OpFor is.

As a complete outsider it does seem odd that a large country gets soo excited over a tiny crop of desolute islands.

Is it that dull in Argentina/nothing to look forward to in politics there?!

re the vibe, the younger folk don't care, they're all very friendly, as for the man in the street.. fine really, have only felt a cold shoulder very occasionally, almost without exception the Argentines are a terrific bunch of people 🙂

the government just likes to stir things up every now and then, from chatting with the locals the present government isn't brilliantly popular…. bit like back home, lol

Hora – its all about the oil and patriotism.

I love the military fanboys on here. Of course a negotiated settlement was possible Perhaps not likely but worth pursuing to save those 1000 lives.

You cannot say that the Arentines would not have left without the killings. We simply do not know and any chance of avoiding 1000 deaths is worth it IMO

This is the gist of the peruvian peace proposals which just might have worked if the belgrano had notr been sunk

Draft Interim Agreement on the Falkland / Malvinas Islands:-

(1) An immediate ceasefire, concurrent with:-

(2) Mutual withdrawal and non-reintroduction of forces, according to a schedule to be established by the Contact Group;

(3) The immediate introduction of a Contact Group composed of Brazil, Peru, The Federal Republic of Germany and the United States into the Falkland Islands, on a temporary basis pending agreement on a definitive settlement. The Contact Group will assume responsibility for (A) Verification of the withdrawal; (B) Ensuring that no actions are taken in the Islands, by the local administration, which would contravene this interim agreement; and (C) Ensuring that all other provisions of the agreement are respected

(4) Britain and Argentina acknowledge the existence of differing and conflicting views regarding the status of the Falkland Islands;

(5) The two Governments acknowledge that the aspirations and interests of the Islanders will be included in the definitive settlement of the status of the Islands;

(6) The Contact Group will have responsibility for ensuring that the two Governments reach a definitive agreement prior to 30 April 1983.

You're thirsty. You go into a fine public house and buy a pint of your favorite thirst quenching beverage and sit down.
A bloke wanders over and picks up your pint and announces that it's now his.
Do you;
A) Tell him to put it down sharpish or you'll snot him on the nose?
B) Agree that he now has possession and so it is now his?
C) Offer to go halves as a "compromise"?

BTW, the argies won't try anything. They stir up a fuss about the "malvinas" every other year or so to gain political support. They ain't got it in 'em.

Correct, she'd just cut their budgets like buggery and as a result had to get one aircraft carrier back from the knackers yard and the other from the Australian Navy who she'd just sold it to. Apart from that your point is factually correct Cap'n

Maybe if you're going to complain about factual correctness you should try some yourself. Hermes was due to go to the knackers yard, but wasn't there yet so didn't have to be got back – was replaced by Illustrious which was actually due to come into service before that went, so no gap in service as you imply. Meanwhile Invincible hadn't been sold to Australia, was just due to be. Hence Hermes and Invincible were immediately available wihout the scratching around you suggest.