Should Maggie Thatcher get a State funeral.

[gangman]

I did read that they only had a 5 exocets and were desperately trying to get hold of more. Another thing I heard was French engineers were based in Argentina during the war because the Argies were having trouble with the plane based launch system.

 

[Shytalkz]

If they claimed the islands today we'd let them have them.[/qote]Of course we would, as we've turned into a version of the surrender-monkeys across the water, due to the current leadership - the only difference is that we don't eat as much cheese.

Ships are no match for missiles.

Of course, just as missile technology has developed, ship defence systems have stood stock still for the past 26 years

 

[joe-90]

Yes. I'm afraid so. You're gonna go on about that Phalanx system aren't you? The one that's never shot down anything in anger apart from 'one of it's own planes'.

 

[Shytalkz]

Whatever. Joe's planes and ships wins the day.

 

[mark vincent]

She is given credit for the defeat of the Argentinians, that's mainly why the Tories won the next election. She didn't defeat them, the military did. The Government were advised by the military, they done the strategic planning, all the War Cabinet done was ok things.

I think the only thing that was really down to the Government was the decision to send the Task Force. Though they had to do something because they had announced the cutbacks in the military in that area. That was one of the reasons for the invasion, they thought the British wouldn't fight for the Falklands.

As for the sinking of the Belgrano, that was a military decision, and I think the right one. Their naval forces were out to sink our carriers, they knew, correctly, that if they sank one or both of our carriers we would have turned the Task Force around. By the time we could have prepared a second force the Falklands would have been heavily fortified and the military cost then would have been much worse. I remember all the b******s about it being outside the exclusion zone, so what. Do you remember that woman castigating Thatcher on a tv interview, I bet she never had any close relatives in the South Atlantic.
They were a threat to our ships, if they had attacked we could of been defeated, as it was the sinking of the Belgrano meant that their naval forces backed out probably saving lots of British lives.
Some say that there was no threat when the ship was sunk, it was sailing away from the exclusion zone. But it had been sailing towards towards the zone, getting into position to attack our forces from the south. That attack never happened because their carrier force didn't have the weather conditions to launch an attack. They would have attacked if possible so something had to be done to stop them. Sinking the Belgrano worked.

That is probably the correct analysis, however it was the Tories who gave the Argies the impression that Britain wouldn't defend the islands by their policy running down the armed services.

 

[Trazor]

That is probably the correct analysis, however it was the Tories who gave the Argies the impression that Britain wouldn't defend the islands by their policy running down the armed services.

And as we are still running down our Armed Forces, does that give carte blanche to anyone else who wishes to attack/invade us....?

 

[mark vincent]

That is probably the correct analysis, however it was the Tories who gave the Argies the impression that Britain wouldn't defend the islands by their policy running down the armed services.

And as we are still running down our Armed Forces, does that give carte blanche to anyone else who wishes to attack/invade us....?

Yes, because dictators usually attack countries which they believe are weaker than themselves or don't have the backbone to put up a fight.
Hitler attacked Russia in the mistaken belief that because of Stalins purges of his armed forces Russia was to weak to put up a fight.

 

[JohnD]

UK forces are today smaller than they have been in the past.

That's because we are not (a) at war with Germany or France (b) not having to garrison a vast empire (c) not expecting to have to slow down a Soviet invasion of western Europe.

How big our forces "ought" to be I don't know, but that's why they are currently relatively small.

 

[Shytalkz]

You forgot:
d) because we are not willing to pay for the full complement of pax; and
e) peeps are leaving in droves due to poor pay, conditions and back to back tours in Iraqistan.

 

[JohnD]

(a) (b) and (c) are "Demand" reductions
(d) and (e) are "Supply" reductions.

When demand was much higher, conditions were far worse, but different approaches were taken to keep supply up

 

[Shytalkz]

Think you might find c) is starting to rear its head again

 

[2scoops0406]

Rather than read 8 pages of no doubt wildly differing opinions, I'll put it simply, No.