Military AviationA forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.
Shouldn't we be asking what we bring to this so called 'Special Relationship' as I am thinking we could easily suggest the USA is more than pulling her weight when it comes to all these latest confrontations.
Whilst I am supporting America might I tactfully suggest that without their aid the Falklands Conflict might not have ended the same way as it did?
We are up the creek without very much of a paddle and although I have no idea how the RAF are coping with all our overseas commitments, it has now got to the stage of where the Chief of the Defence Staff has voiced his concerns over the lack of frigates and destroyers. For this person to come out and voice these concerns whilst still in office is not going to win him many friends in the corridors of Eton (Whitehall)
Are we beyond overstretch, the only good news is that Argentina is in the same situation but what about Spain and its stance over Gibraltar??
Harry, a little study into the Potsdam Treaty documents will reveal that the United States was pretty much responsible for the down turn in your empire. That is because your empire, as you/yours then described it, was contrary to U.S. political goals. Note that your colonies and everybody else’s began a serious decline during and after WWII. As fellow capitalists, you cannot really hold taking advantage of an opportunity against the U.S.. You/we have very similar international goalkeeping ideologies. I say that with great reservation.
Last edited by Temp Spike; 30th Dec 2012 at 06:03.
Argentinas military capability - or otherwise - has never been a factor in deciding whether there'd be more fisticuffs, for the Argentine government its a purely political calculation with purely political costs and benefits.
they have no interest in the technical correlation of forces because they aren't interested in the military result, only the political result.
them being skint also has no bearing on the matter - they are only skint in 'big picture' terms, they still have enough ready cash to spend on expendables like munitions, fuel, some spares etc.. and enough assets to use those expendables in a militarily limited, but politically driven, operation.
Temp Spike -I think you misunderstand me - I was getting at Churchills Ghost who posted the usual British anti-European idea that we should get out and then (somehow) revive our contacts with the old Empire
They don't want us was my point
The Old British Empire had reached it sell by date by 1939 anyway - we then vapourised it after the War - though we hung on for far too long in some places and too many of my family served in such pointless fights. After WW2 we couldn't afford it American policy or no
On the military front if we aren't allied with the USA then we are essential useless anyway
there is a lot of difference between a population of 2,500 people (the Falklands) and 100,000+
Most people in the Falklands hold down several jobs and they are still dependent on contract workers for many jobs (shades of the UAE)
From a defence perspective they couldn't hold off a small Company of the Argentinian armed forces without outside help
Now when the oil starts flowing in 2017/18 they may be able to hire Gurkhas (as Brunei does) etc but I doubt they'll ever be able to afford an SSN. In teh long term the best answer would be fro Argentina to back off and take the very long view (say 100 years) when The FI might want to join Argentina as some sort of self -governing teritory
wellllllll... read any book on practical politics etc and you'd be amazed how interwoven the UK & the US are in defence and strategy at a working, day-to-day level
Things like GCHQ and NSA are hand in glove, the Brits normally have at least one senior senior civil servant at RAND working (sorry "assisting") on US military issues such as the Future Bomber
And of course we play games - say the USMC are having problems with the Administration on a piece of kit - they get the Brits to bring it up which escalates the issue and improves their chances of getting their way ("look! it's not just us who think this is a great idea!") and they do the same for the RN or RAF in the future
We have cross posting of personnel, we share new technology (the drive for most modern SSN's is a British invention) and we get missile technology at cut -price in return.
WIKILEAKS listed a whole slew of UK companies that provide top secret kit to the Americans
Location: inside the train looking onto the platform.
What do they give back to the UK Def Ind
The Falkland Island Company are a very rich bunch and the people themselves make alot of money from RnR etc for the Service Pers fortunate enough to be posted down there in comparison to Herrick etc. What do they actually give back to UK PLC, when you consider all the subsidies on education and taxes that they enjoy do they actually pull their financial weight, having spoken to many of them whilst down there I get the disitinct impression that they dont and are content to live their lives the way they do milking UK Def PLC for all they can get whilst escaping the UK.
I say reduce the subsidies and give it back to UK PLC and then see how many actiully remain there hiding from the realities of being british. Bah humbug maybe but per capita there are more millionairs there I believe than there are in the UK. I have no time for them personally and as for the prices they charge for the RnR B&B's they are ripping off a captive audience who are deperate to escapte the Death Star.
Last edited by SaddamsLoveChild; 30th Dec 2012 at 16:43.
You won't find many people in the Falkland Islands who'd prefer to be Argentinean. Similarly in Gibraltar, a place more bedecked with Union flags than anywhere I've ever seen in the British Isles... The Falklands would be similarly plastered in Union flags except they don't last in the bracing breeze
Yes, its all because of the flag isn't it. Much of the rest seems windowdressing. There are even rocky islands, without people, but full of flags, that cause major international tensions. Patriotic dog and pony shows all around.
Internet proved to have a moderating effect on these events. Always unproffesional guys around quickly defusing false aquisations, asking questions publicly that weren't supposed to be asked ("are we the good guys here?"), forwarding the wounded/ killed civillians undeniable in HD, unasked for, unfiltered, faster then any official cameras.. It seems it used to be far easier to start a war 20 years ago..
The Falkland Islands have a GDP of $105 million, and a per capita GDP of $35,400 (2002 estimate) placing the islands on a par with the United Kingdom (GDP per capita of $35,200 – 2009 estimate). The contributors to the GDP by sector (2010 forecast) are:
Fisheries – 52.5%
Government (including health and education) – 14.0%
Communications, Finance and Business services – 11.4%
Hospitality & Transport – 7.7%
Construction – 6.6%
Housing and other services – 3.2%
Mining. Quarrying & Manufacturing – 2.1%
Agriculture – 1.6%
Utilities – 0.9%
In the 2009/10 financial year, the government revenue was £42.4 million of which £14.5 million came from fishery licences and services and £10.5 million from taxes. During the same period the government expenditure was £47.6 million.
they have a very healthy bank balance and they also make a contribution to defence costs
when the oil comes in it could be worth several billion in taxes
While your English is far better than my Dutch will ever be, we don't always fully understand what you are trying to say.
At the end of the day, continued UK retention of the Falkland Island isn't about Colonialism, Flag waving, jingoism, etc - it is about the basic right of self-determination as enshrined in (Article 1 I think) the Charter of the United Nations.
I don't know if you have ever been to the Falkland Islands, I have, as have many UK military personnel posting on PPRuNe. The people there are totally committed to staying British, it is their choice, not one forced upon them. If they wished the Islands to become Argentinian then the British government would have no choice but to agree to their wishes, but quite simply THEY DON'T.
There is a nice comment on a Palestinian website about self determination, part of which I have copied below:
There is a recognised right to self-determination in international law..... It is clearly illegal under international law to deprive a people of their right to self-determination by using forcible actions including use of violence.
I'm pretty sure that George Galloway is a strong avocate of Palestinian rights, it seems ironic that he doesn't support the Falkland Islanders in essentially the same situation. It would appear that they have less rights in his eyes simply because there are fewer on them then there are Palestinians...where is the logic in that argument?
At the end of the day, Argentina is flouting International Law, and the important point, irrespective of Argentine or UK government opinions, is the wishes of the indigenious Islanders! I'm pretty sure that if they couldn't stay British the islanders would opt for independence as their prefered option!
I suggest you consider this the major, indeed only, issue in this situation!