Should the UK guarantee the Falkland Islander's supply lines by invading and subduing?
the nearest country especially as it is that country that threatens the supply lines?
2012-03-22T09:57:17Z
Conranger1, on no map I can see is Chile closer than Argentina. You should note howver that it was Chile that blocked air traffic to the islands in 1998 forcing the Islanders to negotiate their supply lines with Argentina.
2012-03-22T10:03:59Z
@lana_sands the US has more marines because it needs a lot. Every op' needs someone to read the orders, someone to look up the long words in the orders, and someone to watch the first two's backs while holding the dictionary. Tell us again how many UK soldiers have been killed, post WWll by "friendly fire" from incompetents in USA uniform?
?2012-03-22T09:52:03Z
Favorite Answer
Sure ... with what Navy? The Royal Navy is a shrunken hollow shell of its former self. It is a fraction of the size it once was in 1982. The entire RN has only 6 destroyers and 3 attack submarines remaining, worldwide. The UK got rid of the Nimrod patrol aircraft too which means it no longer has long range aerial surveillance capability.
Considering even Sandy Woodward, former First Sea Lord Lord West, and Julian Thompson admit that the British no longer have the capacity to retake the Falklands if the Argentines were to capture them (which the Args can't do anyway), I'd be curious how you plan to invade an entire other country. Let me know when you come up with an executable plan.
Also, to answer your direct question at the end there...35 British KIA.
For comparison sake, Wikipedia lists 12 Friendly Fire incidents in Op Iraqi Freedom/Teller, 7 of which involve British troops. 5 of them involve British on British troops.
And when left to your own devices in the Falklands, you get HMS Cardiff shooting down a BA Gazelle, two companies of 3 Para gettting into a vicious firefight with each other, and Sergeant Ian Hunt of the SBS getting killed after a firefight with...the SAS.
Also, see this list: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AiDsDlaebGpXNbU6jH_TWwMjzKIX;_ylv=3?qid=20070316060345AAykNGw
But I'm sure your going to say that British are "incompetents" as well, right? Oh wait, that's right, I forgot that on Y!A you're only allowed to say that the British are supermen who have the most incredible training EVER and are well nigh invincible and can stand up to any force (despite the fact that the smallest branch of the US Military-the USMC-is larger than all of HM Armed Forces and that the Brits are highly reliant on US logistical support anymore).
I really do not understand the British persecution complex when it comes to friendly fire. It happens to everyone.
The nearest country to the Falklands is Chile, who are pro British, but in reality, the British could not take Chile by force, do some research before posting asinine "questions".
Civil air traffic blocked through a political dispute with regards paying landing taxes etc..etc.. has no relation to what happens during a conflict, Chile knows which side the bread is buttered on.
And again, like Chile the U.K. has NOT got the means to take Argentina in a full out land war.
Oh yes, we're going to invade Argentina ! because we want the democratic rights of the Falklands Islander...yes that makes sense !!
PS How many aircraft carriers have we got at the moment?
@Amazing, this question has nothing to do with the USA but somehow you septics had to mention the "marines", LOL and how "big" your navy/armed forces are...compensating for something are we?? LOL We didn't use Nimrods in 1982 anyway.
Ha ha aha surely your joking? With what? They don't even have the military power of 1982. There are more US Marines than the whole British Army. The RN has only about 100 ships total. The RAF does not have a single heavy long range bomber. Not happening.....