UK reviews Falklands defence as Russia offers Su-24s to Argentina

[Schutz]

still got imperial mentality???? wake up man this is not british empire and we are not your slaves anymore. and dont do chest thumping cause you are on the mercy of USA and NATO.

Why is it Argentinas Island? based on what? they existed because of Empire and by the time they were a nation the Falklands were in British hands and Argentina exist now because THEY KILLED ALL THE NATIVES. Argentina is a majority WHITE NATION, how the **** do you think a nation in South America can be WHITE in majority without some serious shit, you do know how racist Argentina is, every person in power is of European blood and always has been?

This is the usual bullshit people from bitter countries speak of, they support ANYONE who is against the west just because they are still hung up on British empire, the people who currently reside in Argentina did exactly the same or to be honest, they did worse than the British empire did to India because they now reside their where as we left and left the majority of the population alive whereas their ancestors killed every native.

As usual completely stupid Indians with no grasp of history, you support someones actions because they go against the people you hate because of their actions even though both of the actions are the same. You do realise the complete and utter genocide that occurred in South America thanks to in part to the ancestors of Argentina and other majority white nations.

I know that Indians have practically destroyed some of the last tribes of the world on the Andamans. by treating the place like a fucking zoo so your one to talk.

And you do realise NOBODY IN REAL LIFE GIVES A SHIT about the Falklands or any of the news stories posted on here, the only people who discuss them in the whole world are people on this forum, Brazil does not fucking back Argentina, have you ever been to South America, that is rivalry like Pak/India and not just in sport. Nobody backs Falklands over this for the simple reason the precedent it sets for every country bigger than my foot, every country including India has claims in land that can be contented by other nations, and the whole of South America military speaking is and will be for many many decades way behind the UK/USA, at best it may equal us in some aspects but will never overtake.

 

[flamer84]

If push comes to shove and the South Americans really want a showdown for some islands that were never theirs in the first place and whose inhabitants want to be British,the UK should really,really ram a Trident up the Argentine behind and see how it evolves from there.I gather it would quickly end the Falkland debate,at least for a generation or two, until nuclear waste cleares from Buenos Aires.

 

[ravi kiran]

If push comes to shove and the South Americans really want a showdown for some islands that were never theirs in the first place and whose inhabitants want to be British,the UK should really,really ram a Trident up the Argentine behind and see how it evolves from there.I gather it would quickly end the Falkland debate,at least for a generation or two, until nuclear waste cleares from Buenos Aires.

UK needs permission from USA to fire nukes.

 

[flamer84]

UK needs permission from USA to fire nukes.

That's to bad for them than.It would have come in handy.

 

[ravi kiran]

That's to bad for them than.It would have come in handy.

yup UK is no longer world power. they still got descent and powerful navy but i doubt how long they can maintain it.

 

[flamer84]

yup UK is no longer world power. they still got descent and powerful navy but i doubt how long they can maintain it.

Altough,i can't find anything on it.From what i'm reading the entire Trident launching process is in hands of the British.Do you have links for "US permission"? I think it's just a myth.

They can maintain it allright,they're just in the process of adding 2 new AC's.

 

[Abingdonboy]

If push comes to shove and the South Americans really want a showdown for some islands that were never theirs in the first place and whose inhabitants want to be British,the UK should really,really ram a Trident up the Argentine behind and see how it evolves from there.I gather it would quickly end the Falkland debate,at least for a generation or two, until nuclear waste cleares from Buenos Aires.

Nuke a non-nuclear state? Well that's not going to happen.

Anyway, as has been pointed out, this isn't even an option as the UK requires US permission for any such launch and no way will such permission be granted.

 

[flamer84]

Nuke a non-nuclear state? Well that's not going to happen.

Anyway, as has been pointed out, this isn't even an option as the UK requires US permission for any such launch and no way will such permission be granted.

Link for this pls,can't find anything.

 

[Abingdonboy]

They can maintain it allright,they're just in the process of adding 2 new AC's.

One of which will be mothballed immediately on completion.

Have a read of this, quite chilling really:

If George Osborne is to be taken at his word - and if the Conservatives are returned to power in May – the public spending cuts he is planning will trigger the biggest downturn in Britain’s defence capability we have seen in modern times, and therefore this country’s position in the world.
In short, the British Army could be reduced to around 63,000 personnel – so small it would be classified by Nato as a gendarmerie.
Responsible commentators, including two leading BBC programmes, Newsnight and The World at One, are forecasting between 30 and 40 per cent cuts in the budgets of the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. That means reducing the current military defence budget of £36 billion to somewhere between £20 - £25 billion.
The cuts have to be this severe because the budgets for health, education and overseas aid are to be ‘ring-fenced’. (The aid budget, managed by the Department for Foreign Investment and Development, will run at £12bn, and will rise as the economy grows.)
In a worst-case scenario, sketched by several leading commentators, the MoD will be asked to lose a total of at least 50,000 military and civilian posts. The Army, already reduced under present policies to 82,000, is likely to lose a further 19,000 soldiers.
Osborne’s pledge to have Britain in the black by the end of the decade makes the undertaking given by David Cameron at September’s Nato summit in Cardiff - to spend two per cent of GDP on defence - sound like sheer whimsy or a cynical deception plan.
Estimates suggest that Osborne’s cuts would require the UK to spend only 1.2 per cent of GDP on defence - below that of France (1.4 per cent) and roughly equal with Italy.
And yet the government has just announced that the Royal Navy is to open a new £15 million base in Bahrain, the first east of Suez since 1971. And, of course, Cameron promised at Cardiff that the second aircraft carrier, the Prince of Wales, is to be commissioned after all.
Further commitments are to be made to the training of friendly forces and the air campaign against Islamic State militants in Iraq. (This despite a letter appearing in the press from a disgruntled officer saying that the RAF’s force of Tornados operating over Iraq out of Cyprus are dangerously low on maintenance and spares.)
Also this past weekend, a leak to the Sunday Times suggested that RAF planes and UK ground forces may have to return to Afghanistan to help the newly installed president, Ashraf Ghani, thwart the Taliban offensive on Kabul and in the south of the country.
But if Osborne is to have his way on public spending cuts, Britain will be in no position to offer sustained help in Afghanistan, Iraq, the Middle East, eastern Europe or anywhere much else for that matter.
This is mainly due to the government’s insistence that it will stick to current equipment plans, as laid down in the Strategic Security and Defence Review of autumn 2010.

Working from figures and projections by the Resolution Foundation, Francis Tusa, who runs his own independent think tank and journal Defence Analysis, suggests that within a few years the UK will be spending 70 per cent of its defence budget on equipment, meaning a huge reduction in manpower.
As well as cutting the Army by a further 19,000 to a force of around 63,000, the Navy would have to be reduced by 8,000 down to around 20,000 and the RAF by 5,000 to around 27,500. The Royal Marines would be unviable.
In short, the three services will have a lot of swanky equipment, including two new aircraft carriers, but too few personnel to maintain or run that equipment properly. Already the RAF has something in the range of 140 Eurofighters on its books, of which it can man and use about 40.
Now we get to the elephant in the room – Trident. If the projections of 30 to 40 per cent cuts are accurate, the replacement for the current Trident system of ballistic missiles, Britain’s nuclear deterrent, surely has to be written off for good.

Osborne’s cuts could reduce Army to virtually useless | News | The Week UK



Things are a lot worse than I had realised and they are only getting worse.

 

[IceCold]

Pardon my ignorance but why does UK needs permission from the US over its nuclear weapons? Are the missiles US or the warheads?

 

[Steve781]

Altough,i can't find anything on it.From what i'm reading the entire Trident launching process is in hands of the British.Do you have links for "US permission"? I think it's just a myth.

They can maintain it allright,they're just in the process of adding 2 new AC's.

The nukes are ours but the missiles are American.

 

[flamer84]

Pardon my ignorance but why does UK needs permission from the US over its nuclear weapons? Are the missiles US or the warheads?

They do not need it.It's just an urban myth,like alligators in the sewers.

Under the terms of the missile lease arrangement, the United States does not have any veto on the use of British nuclear weapons, which the UK may launch independently.[11]

The nukes are ours but the missiles are American.

But without strings attached.You can correct me with a link.All i found is saying that it's up to the British chain of command on how to use them.

 

[ravi kiran]

Altough,i can't find anything on it.From what i'm reading the entire Trident launching process is in hands of the British.Do you have links for "US permission"? I think it's just a myth.

They can maintain it allright,they're just in the process of adding 2 new AC's.

no its fact although i dont have any source but its true. see post 38 british poster is stating the same.
i am not saying they cant maintain it in near future but in long run i doubt it.

 

[IceCold]

The nukes are ours but the missiles are American.

What about typhoons? Are they not nuclear capable?

By the way why does the UK not have a missile program of its own?

 

[flamer84]

no its fact although i dont have any source but its true. see post 38 british poster is stating the same.
i am not saying they cant maintain it in near future but in long run i doubt it.

No it's not and unlike you i can sustain it with proofs.Word of mouth doesn't cut it and falls in the Bigfoot sightings league.