Crackclaw Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 I agree they should have the right to become independent, but I'm not sure how practical it is at the moment. The population of the Falkland Islands is slightly over 3000 which would make them the smallest country in the world (ignoring the Vatican, which isn't really comparable) by a considerable margin - according to Wikipedia the smallest independent countries at the moment are Tuvalu and Nauru with a population of about 10000. Even if it was economically practical, if they became independent they'd be powerless to resist any future Argentine invasion, given their recent history I imagine the Falkland Islanders would be worried about that.Not to mention they barely scrape through on financial viability, and much of the input commodities are only viable because the cost of transporting it down there is picked up in the defence arrangements (ie. you stick a pallet of Weet-Bix in that Herc that's flying down there anyway.)But as others have said, the RN aint what it was http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8905432/Navy-frigate-sent-to-Libya-with-four-missiles.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 Verboten,If the residents of the Falklands want to remain part of the UK why do Argentina's claims even matter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paddington Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 But as others have said, the RN aint what it was http://www.telegraph...r-missiles.htmlConsidering we are never likely to use Trident, maybe we should cut that and not the Services we do need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hereward Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 Communist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liffguard Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 Considering we are never likely to use Trident, maybe we should cut that and not the Services we do need.This is broadly my view as well. I'm not inherently opposed to holding on to nuclear weapons, but I think the money spent on Trident could be much better spent on other areas within the armed forces. Without Trident we could easily have held on to the Harrier fleet for example. Nor would giving up Trident mean giving up all nuclear weapons. Tomahawk cruise missiles with nuclear weapons can be launched from Trafalgar and Astute SSNs and have a range of about 1500 miles. Giving up the ICBMs and SSBNs isn't the same as being a completely nuclear-disarmed state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hereward Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 Tomahawk cruise missiles with nuclear weapons can be launched from Trafalgar and Astute SSNs and have a range of about 1500 miles. Giving up the ICBMs and SSBNs isn't the same as being a completely nuclear-disarmed state.That does rather limit the number of countries we could retaliate against, though, unless you increased the size of the submarine fleet considerably, which would rather defeat the object of the exercise.OTOH, we'd still be prepared against France, so... :unsure: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LuisDantas Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 It's not that hard to understand the sentiment behind getting the foreign imperialists out of your country. I don't think anyone is saying it's not okay for the Falklands to desire to remain British, but that quite a few South Americans rightfully resent European intrusion and meddling, even when it is not really as clean cut as 'foreigners are bad'. Of course only Argentina seems to be trying to tell the rest of South America how wonderful they'll be when they're Argentine too they are free from the shackles of Europe, don't mind the blood it's all for the greater good.Having lived through that sentiment for over forty years, I still find it puzzling. It looks like a sort of badly-handled envy, in all honesty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liffguard Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 That does rather limit the number of countries we could retaliate against, though, unless you increased the size of the submarine fleet considerably, which would rather defeat the object of the exercise.It's certainly not a perfect solution. I just think that the odds of us actually needing a nuclear deterrent any time soon are low enough that it would be justified to spend the money on the rest of the forces. Of course, I tend to vacillate on this opinion and I've changed my mind about three or four times in the past year. I'm certainly open to persuasion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeanF Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 Fortunately for us in the UK, Argentina's armed forces have been cut back even more heavily than our own since 1982. They have very little with which they could launch an attack on the Falklands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paddington Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 That does rather limit the number of countries we could retaliate against, though, unless you increased the size of the submarine fleet considerably, which would rather defeat the object of the exercise.OTOH, we'd still be prepared against France, so... :unsure: Yeah I feel a lot like Liff on this. I can understand there are some reasons to keep ballastic missiles, however I also feel it is unlikely that we would be in a conflict of that scale without the US. The retaliation reason I've never felt overly comfortable with. I can understand the counter-force, pre-emptive strike reasons better.I would perfer to bolster conventianal forces than have expensive missiles we can't use, and would be frowned upon for using first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pebble thats Stubby Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 Yeah I am not sure how much the threat that we could use nukes is really worth when it comes with the cuts to the rest of the millertary which we do use.It seems like we either have to depend on the US to provide the nuclear threat on our behalf, or we may need to hope Nato will come to our aid if we are threatened conventionally.Although I suppose we could remind Argentina that as we don't have the resorces to fight a convetional war with them anymore, if they try to invade then they will force us to use the weapons we do have. - If we are gonna keep the neacular threat we might as well threaten with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liffguard Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 Although I suppose we could remind Argentina that as we don't have the resorces to fight a convetional war with them anymore, if they try to invade then they will force us to use the weapons we do have. - If we are gonna keep the neacular threat we might as well threaten with it.That would be an empty threat and everyone would know it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pebble thats Stubby Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 So what is the point of maitining the necular threat then? What is it actually protecting against?I do agree however that actually nuking Argintina in the event of any falkland invasion is out of proportion at the very least and not something I would support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paddington Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 I am not sure if this is an urban myth. That during the first conflict the threat was very much implied in regards to the Argentinas using chemical weapons.Reakon we could still use Nuclear tipped tomahawks for that sort of threat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horza Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 So what is the point of maitining the necular threat then? What is it actually protecting against?France, duh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pebble thats Stubby Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 Do correct me if I am wrong but I'm under the impression that we don't need Subs to be able to Nuke the Frogs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ljkeane Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 I think it's best to be prepared for all eventualities with the French menace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 The french must be opposed. Their language is based upon "mumble".,) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paddington Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 Careful, the French may not let us play with their Aircraft carrier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lummel Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 All this talk of colonialism reminds me that that we're long overdue on returning Gascony to it's rightful place as part of the Crown of England. It would make for a better present for HM Liz II's jubilee than a boat. Plus cheap wine is just what the nation needs for that elusive 'feel good' factor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.