Las Malvinas AKA The Falkland Islands - why the argy-bargy? (page 5)

cedars

Hello George, I guess the Scottish independence issue deserves a thread all of its own!

I agree that the title of this thread is the wrong way round, sorry!

Cedars

Funny thing, I was reading a book this morning about an RAF guy and his experiences in the RAF regiment and became a Top Instructor in Guided Missiles. He satated that he didn't understand why the Army took their missiles and guidance systems which relied upon "MkI eyeball" intial targetting when the RAF had 'blind', bad weather and nightime capability with radar targetting and acquisitioning. He mused as to how many lives were lost through that monumental cock-up.

The only conclusion I could draw was that the Warsaw Pact members were still seen as a greater threat than the Argentinians so they kept the best at home. Who knows? In my opinion sometimes "Military Intelligence" is a bit of an oxymoron!

finallysomepride

Military & Intelligence should never be used in the same sentence

cuckoo in the nest

The single greatest deterrent has to be the four Typhoons stationed at Port Stanley airfield, which would hopefully deal with the initial assault, but they have their vulnerabilities. In terms of infrastructure, the upgraded runway at Stanley is the biggest difference in how the islands would be defended, it allows the use of fast jet aircraft, resupply by C-130 and C-17 transport aircraft, and reinforcements of extra Typhoon & Tornado fighter-bombers could arrive within two or three days. However this depends on the runway remaining operational.

Much as the "Black Buck" raids by a Vulcan bomber in 1982 targeted the runway to deny it's use to the Argentinians, it would seem logical to do the same now. If not by air strike, then by covert ground troops probably as a precursor to the main assault. Recent history has repeatedly shown that denial of airspace to the opposing forces to be essential in successfully conducting a military campaign.

Cedars: I'm not pointing the finger at any one party in particular, Cameron et al just gets it in the neck as they are in charge now, and have shown such dogma-driven short sightedness. You could say the original causal responsibility lies with the Wilson/Callaghan labour governments of the seventies, which mooted the idea of selling the islands to Argentina.

cedars

cuckoo in the nest:

Cedars: I'm not pointing the finger at any one party in particular, Cameron et al just gets it in the neck as they are in charge now, and have shown such dogma-driven short sightedness. You could say the original causal responsibility lies with the Wilson/Callaghan labour governments of the seventies, which mooted the idea of selling the islands to Argentina.

That's fair enough. I'm glad you also understand that there is often more to these issues than meets the eye, particularly when it comes to the perceived failings or inadequacies of whoever happens to hold the reigns of government at the time.

Cedars

hotspur

One of the funniest stories I recall of The Falkland issues is based around witnesses (or so I'm led to believe).

There was a family who had emigrated to Canada from the UK, wanting a quiet life. They moved to, and were living in a big city but were fed up with violence and crime around them (not saying anything against Canada!) They decided to move away ... somewhere away from it all, somewhere remote and quiet. They ended up in The Falklands a few months before the invasion! What tickled me more than anything was they were called the Nutters!

Maybe the story has apocryphal appendages but it's funny all the same.

cuckoo in the nest

Very true Cedars, I've heard it said that it doesn't matter who you vote for, the government always gets in. Modern day politicians all seem interchangable, just variations of each other in a different colour tie. The days of conviction politics are long gone, unless it's a conviction for expenses fraud...

Las Malvinas AKA The Falkland Islands - why the argy-bargy?

Share this