Thread: UK can do nothing to prevent Argentina retaking Falklands

When Your Broke Your Broke

Britain can do 'nothing' to prevent Argentina retaking Falkland Islands

The head of the Naval task force in the Falklands War has warned that defence cuts mean Britain can now do "precisely nothing" to prevent Argentina retaking the islands.


25,000 servicemen were sent to retake the Falklands in 1982 Photo: REX

By Thomas Harding, Defence Correspondent

9:00PM BST 12 Jun 2011

Admiral Sir John "Sandy" Woodward also said that America now had little interest in supporting Britain in any conflict as a stable Argentina was more important to the State Department.

In a letter to The Daily Telegraph, Adml Woodward said Washington was pushing for negotiations over sovereignty and "significantly the islands are already being called the Malvinas by the US".

With the end of the Cold War and emergence of Asian powers Nato and Britain were not as important to Washington which in 1982 played a significant part in providing satellite intelligence and missiles to British forces.

"We can no longer rely on the Pentagon to support us in helping the islanders in their wish to remain essentially British sovereign territory," he wrote.

If as is likely significant oil reserves are found around the islands then pressure from Argentina will be immense to share in the riches.
Related Articles

* Navy rents ship to protect Falklands 31 May 2011 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... lands.html

* Argentina to see biggest anti-British protests for years 01 Apr 2010 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... ntina.html

* Argentina's president stokes up claim to the Falklands 04 Apr 2011 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... lands.html

The US would support an Argentine "accommodation" as its national interest supports stability in the area. "This tells us all too clearly which way the wind is blowing." The Organization of American States, a talking shop for north and south American countries, last week adopted a declaration calling for negotiations between Britain and Argentina over the "sovereignty" of the Falkland Islands.

President Barack Obama's administration also made clear in early 2010 that it would endorse calls for talks over the islands when it adopted the Organisation of American States useage of Malvinas instead of Falklands.

Adml Woodward said with the Armed Forces already "over-committed" in Afghanistan and Libya and the Navy drastically weakened following last year's defence review "the answer appears to be that we can do precisely nothing other than accede to US pressure".

The 79-year-old admiral led a substantial task force of two aircraft carriers, a dozen frigates and destroyers, four submarines and a total of 100 surface ships along with 25,000 servicemen were to retake the Falklands in 1982.

But the Royal Navy no longer has aircraft carriers, has lost its force of Harrier jump jets and seen its warship fleet cut in half over the last decade.

The islands are currently protected by a force of more than 1,000 troops with a reinforced company of infantry and four Typhoon fighters and a single frigate. However the Typhoons have no anti-ship or anti-submarine capability.

In a letter obtained by The Daily Telegraph last year Liam Fox, the Defence Secretary, warned the Prime Minister that the island's defences would become fragile in light of the looming cuts in the Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR).

He said axing the Nimrod MRA4 maritime reconnaissance aircraft would "limit our ability to deploy maritime forces rapidly into high-threat areas, and delete one element of our Falklands reinforcement plan".

The last of the £3.6 billion Nimrods was destroyed in March following the defence review.

A Ministry of Defence spokesman said: "Claims that the Falkland Islands could be taken without a fight are completely without substance. The current garrison in the Falkland Islands is much larger in scale and has a greater capability than in 1982 and this together with our ability to reinforce rapidly by air has been maintained. "

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... lands.html

Navy chief: Britain cannot keep up its role in Libya air war due to cuts

The British military intervention in Libya is unsustainable, the head of the Navy has said.


Harriers would have been used for 'ground support' operations, attacking Col Gaddafi's land forces, Adml Sir Mark Stanhope said Photo: EPA

Adml Sir Mark Stanhope said the campaign would have been more effective without the Government's defence cuts.

The aircraft carrier and the Harrier jump-jets scrapped under last year's strategic defence review would have made the mission more effective, faster and cheaper, he said.

Sir Mark warned that the Navy would not be able to sustain its operations in Libya for another three months without making cuts elsewhere.

The First Sea Lord's comments will stir the debate over defence cuts that have left Britain without a working aircraft carrier and forced the Royal Navy's Harrier jump jets to be mothballed.

Highlighting military anger over the shrinking Armed Forces, another admiral warned that "comical" defence cuts would leave the Navy without enough ships to be effective.
Related Articles

* Navy pilots forced to learn French 12 Jun 2011 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... rench.html

* Strategic Defence Review: HMS Ark Royal to be scrapped 19 Oct 2010 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/news ... apped.html


Ministers have repeatedly argued that Britain has had no need of either HMS Ark Royal or the Harriers in the Libyan mission because planes can fly from bases in Italy, such as Gioia del Colle.

But Sir Mark said the carrier and its planes would have been useful in Libya. "If we had Ark Royal and the Harriers, I feel relatively reassured that we would have deployed that capability off Libya," he said.

Harriers would have been used for "ground support" operations, attacking Col Gaddafi's land forces, he said.

Sir Mark appeared to contradict ministers' assurances on the Italian bases. He said operating Harriers from an aircraft carrier would have allowed British forces to respond more quickly to events on the ground in Libya.

"The pros would have been a much more reactive force," he said. "Rather than deploying from Gioia del Colle, we would deploy within 20 minutes as opposed to an hour and a half, so obviously there are some advantages. It's cheaper to fly an aircraft from an aircraft carrier than from the shore." Scrapping Ark Royal and its Harriers was perhaps the most controversial decision made in last year's Strategic Defence and Security Review. The Coalition has said it could not afford to maintain the ship or the planes. Military analysts and retired defence chiefs have said the cuts have limited Britain's military capabilities.

Despite his remarks, Sir Mark said there could be no going back on the cuts. "We have got to look forward."

British forces have been in action in Libya since March, yet Col Gaddafi remains in power. On June 1, Nato extended the military mission by another 90 days.

Sir Mark said British forces would be "comfortable" with another three months of operations.

"Beyond that, we might have to request the Government to make some challenging decisions about priorities," he said. "There are different ways of doing this. It's not simply about giving up standing commitments, we will have to rebalance."

Robert Gates, the US defence secretary, said last week that Britain and France were struggling to maintain the Libyan operation without significant American support and supplies.

Sir Mark confirmed that the Navy had been forced to ask the US to resupply Tomahawk cruise missiles used by submarines targeting Libya.

"We are not running out, but we certainly have to take action to replace those weapons to bring stockpiles back up to where they were," he said.

As well as Ark Royal and the Harriers, the Navy is losing 5,000 posts under the defence review.

Rear-Adml David Steel, the head of Navy personnel, said the defence cuts would be a major challenge for the Senior Service.

"Our ships are hugely capable but we just don't have enough of them," he told a veterans' conference in Plymouth at the weekend.

"Having to make so many people redundant would be almost comical if it were not so serious."

Dr Liam Fox, the Defence Secretary, defended the defence review last night. He said: "We continue to have the resources necessary to carry out the operations we are undertaking."

An MoD source said: "Unfortunately Harriers wouldn't have been able to carry the precision weapons needed for these operations."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... -cuts.html