iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Falklands Could Be Lost Without Aircraft Carrier Says Major General Julian Thompson

PA/The Huffington Post UK  |  By   |  Posted: 05/03/12 06:29 GMT  |  Updated: 05/03/12 06:40 GMT

Amazing
 Inspiring
 Funny
 Scary
 Hot
 Crazy
 Important
 Weird
Major General Julian Thompson Falklands
Tempers flared after Britain deployed one of its most modern destroyers, HMS Dauntless, to the region, although it insisted the move was merely routine.

The decision to leave Britain without an aircraft carrier to defend the Falklands could allow Argentina to recapture the south Atlantic territory, the commander of land forces in the 1982 conflict has warned.

Former commander of the Royal Marines Major General Julian Thompson said it would be "end of story" if Argentine forces took the British base on East Falkland.

He told The Times: "The Argentines have a marine brigade. They've got a parachute brigade and some good special forces.

"All they've got to do is get those guys on to the islands for long enough to destroy the (RAF) Typhoon jets and that's the end of it."

Maj Gen Thompson added: "You have got to take your own air support with you and you can't without a carrier. End of story."

Last month Downing Street accused Argentina of pursuing a "policy of confrontation" over the islands, after reports suggested the

South American state's government was calling on companies to stop importing goods from the UK.

It marked the latest escalation of the confrontation over the territory as the 30th anniversary of the Falklands War approaches.

Tempers flared after Britain deployed one of its most modern destroyers, HMS Dauntless, to the region, although it insisted the move was merely routine.

The Duke of Cambridge's arrival in the Falklands for a posting as an RAF search and rescue pilot further infuriated Buenos Aires.

Celebrities including Morrissey, Roger Waters, the Pink Floyd lyricist, and Hollywood actor Sean Penn have all claimed the Falklands belong to Argentina.

1  of  5
PLAY
FULLSCREEN
ZOOM
SHARE THIS SLIDE 
MORE SLIDESHOWS NEXT >   |   < PREV
FOLLOW UK

The decision to leave Britain without an aircraft carrier to defend the Falklands could allow Argentina to recapture the south Atlantic territory, the commander of land forces in the 1982 conflict has...
The decision to leave Britain without an aircraft carrier to defend the Falklands could allow Argentina to recapture the south Atlantic territory, the commander of land forces in the 1982 conflict has...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 188
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4  Next ›  Last »  (4 total)
bjvela60
65 Fans
07:44 AM on 03/06/2012
Where is the IRON LADY when you need her. She is worth at least two carriers.
Permalink  |
Fletching
9 Fans
06:33 PM on 03/05/2012
Has Julian Thompson received coaching from Military Intelligence and perhaps at long last an invasion can get rid of at least one of our nuclear wearpons.
Permalink  |
DISGUSTED WITH COST
16 Fans
12:27 AM on 03/06/2012
Exactly.
Park a Nuclear Submarine 65 miles off Buenos Aires and tell them. ( and mean it )
Permalink  |
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mk1cameron
Schizophrenia Survivor
29 Fans
09:10 PM on 03/06/2012
You Brits are the good guys?Well no body said that
Permalink  |
Electrastar
65 Fans
04:45 PM on 03/05/2012
The HMS Ark Royal, although old, still had another 4 years to go before she was actually due to be de-commissioned.
Permalink  |
Electrastar
65 Fans
04:44 PM on 03/05/2012
The issue has changed over the years from protecting valuable resourses and interests to protecting British people.
Permalink  |
trebornetnep
0 Fans
04:41 PM on 03/05/2012
I thought the French would let us use one of their carriers,
Permalink  |
photo
whatapalava39
83 Fans
04:50 PM on 03/05/2012
Ha Ha Ha, thats funny, they may loan one to the Argies, that would be more realistic.
Permalink  |
Electrastar
65 Fans
04:40 PM on 03/05/2012
If there is valuable resorces such as oil on or around the Falklands, why has Britain not yet plugged into those resources as yet after 30 years? Surely they must be the same 'valuable' resources that were there before the 1982 conflict (war) began when, lets not forget, a Conservative government was in power.

As to an aircraft carrier, well we all know the tories prefer to making money for themselves and believe that money is more important than lives. Many of our own troops have bought their own protective equipment out of their wages because this and previous governments (both Con & Lab) have failed to supply them with what is actually needed.

The Ark Royal, although old, still had another 4 years to go before she was actually due to be de-commissioned.
Permalink  |
photo
indlovubill
31 Fans
04:48 PM on 03/05/2012
Ark Royal and Invincible were sitting ducks having been stripped (by Labour) of their anti-missile capability. It wouldn't have been a good idea to send them to the Falklands and it wasn't worth the effort and expense of upgrading them.
Permalink  |
photo
indlovubill
31 Fans
04:37 PM on 03/05/2012
Did we sell one aircraft carrier, or was it two? In all the excitement I don't rightly remember, but Argentina you gotta ask yourself a question..............................well, do you feel lucky?
Permalink  |
photo
alanjk
26 Fans
04:20 PM on 03/05/2012
Has anybody given a thought about patrolling the Arabian Gulf, the Straits of Hormuz, and the Falklands? I hope that we have done a deal with our allies should we need to head South. We have no option than to protect the Falklanders. If attacked it would be an act of war against British citizens. Let us not forget that we are a member of NATO and the European Union. It will be time to see who our allies are. Let's hope that ' Evita ' keeps to her side of the fence.
Permalink  |
photo
fuster
"The fuster we go, the rounder we get"
197 Fans
11:54 PM on 03/05/2012
if Argentina is attacked, you can count on NATO's support in arresting Sean Penn on charges of malicious inanity and aggravated truculence.
Permalink  |
photo
whatapalava39
83 Fans
04:20 PM on 03/05/2012
The Falklands are safe from any attack, Prince William is there, crisis over.
Permalink  |
This comment has been removed.
Permalink  |Show replies(1)
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
fredro
24 Fans
03:34 PM on 03/05/2012
How things change. During WW2, the military deceived the Germans into thinking there would be an invasion from the extreme S.E. of England while preparing D-Day from further west. Nowadays a former military commander tells the world at large of the weaknesses of the British forces. 'Doh!' (is that what they say on the Simpsons?).
Permalink  |
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
WillieBlack
310 Fans
03:59 PM on 03/05/2012
Yet ANOTHER BERK that thinks foreign intelligence services get their intel from the daily papers.

Unbelievable.
Permalink  |
brinberlin
176 Fans
04:52 PM on 03/05/2012
Of course they do! As do ours. Or rather, not the intelligence services but their masters, the politicians. Who, as with Iraq, then let them know what they want to hear and not hear. Do you really think that the Sun and Mail don't have a (totally malignant) effect on what the politicos tell the intelligence services to do? The Tories are (as Labour were) more frightened of the wretched Murdoch than any foreign state.
Permalink  |
Blindstu
132 Fans
03:28 PM on 03/05/2012
Isn't there an airport on the Falkland islands? It's no good weeping about a ship that was well past it's sell by date. By the time a ship reaches 20 years old, it's time to turn it into razor blades because the cost of maintaining it is more than it's worth.
Permalink  |
photo
Joe Bloggs2
0 Fans
04:56 PM on 03/05/2012
It depends on how well the ship was built in the first place. A well built ship should be OK for about fifty years service and here is a good example .simplonpc.co.uk/IOM_Viking1.html (just add the ht** and the ww*) According to my late father The Viking was the fastest ship in Liverpool Harbour apart from the Mauritania. Quite an achievement for a ship built in 1905. The ship worked in all weathers and my late mother told me of a horror voyage that was so rough that the ships piano broke loose and started cannoning around the room. When the ship reached Douglas there were ambulances waiting for all the poorly passengers. They don't build ships like that any more, all the modern ones are "stickphast" ships (welded construction)
Permalink  |
Blindstu
132 Fans
05:38 PM on 03/05/2012
Well Joe...........from my experience and 40 years at sea, over 20 of them as chief engineer, I can assure you that a ship over 20 years old is just about only as good to be taken to the knackers yard. A special survey takes place at 20 and not many pass it because of the cost of the repairs. However, I'm quite sure a ship will run for 50 years but rust usually takes hold and repairs cost more than the ship's worth. A war ship also has to be in tip top condition, both the hull and mechanically, if they are able to defeat an enemy. It's not far from Liverpool to Douglas and you can believe me when I say, I've seen more than pianos flying around in the deep ocean. We don't build ships any more, not in any great numbers anyway.........believe it or not, the Japanese and also the Koreans turn out a far better ship than we ever bult.....even though they are of welded construction.
Permalink  |
Yo2012
2 Fans
03:45 PM on 03/06/2012
The Invincible class carriers were built for a service life of 25-30 years. How long a ship will last depends to a large extent upon the construction specifications. HMS Ocean was built to merchant ship standards and consequently has an intended service life of only 20 years. US carriers are designed to last for 40+ years. The crewing costs are just as important as the maintenance costs, with new ships needing less than 50% of the manpower that was required 25 years ago. This is partly the reason behind the scrapping of the remaining Type 22 frigates.
Permalink  |
Monash
5 Fans
02:29 PM on 03/05/2012
Stick an infantry brigade down there. They will do more good there than guarding rocks with no oil in Afghanistan.
Permalink  |
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Allyb999
50 Fans
02:54 PM on 03/05/2012
Funny how quick people are to send our troops down, it is easy when it is not your life that is being put in danger.
Permalink  |
Monash
5 Fans
03:06 PM on 03/05/2012
It's a lot less dangerous there than Afghanistan and as least we would be putting our people first for a change. Deterrent actually preserves the peace and nothing could be more stupid than putting out the wrong message. That is precisely why the 1982 war happened in the first place - because we withdrew forces and this gave the Agentinians ideas.
Getting rid of carriers was stupid in the extreme. "Those who hammer their guns into ploughs will plough for those who do not" - Thomas Jefferson.
Permalink  |
Piratejoe37
0 Fans
03:11 PM on 03/05/2012
The Falklands have a 100+ infantry defense force but they are part time soilders. A quick solution is for the british to give the Falklands finacial "aid" and make these troops full time soldiers with equipment and a bit more training. Also putting a few tanks down their would not hurt because your main goal would be to not lose the Island in the first place untill more troops arrived if a war broke out.
Permalink  |
This comment has been removed.
Permalink  |Show replies(2)
JuanMa41
4 Fans
02:05 PM on 03/05/2012
No one in Argentina is thinking about a war. There are two simple reasons for that: first, the argentine army has been virtually dismantled, and second and most important, Argentina has learned that neither war nor violence are a valid way to claim for its rights. Diplomacy will prevail and the British will have to stop the military occupation of the islands. The islanders can remain british if they want, there are many thousand british citizens living in the rest of argentine territory, why not in Malvinas? Britain is the only side of this conflict who is evaluating war, maybe aware of the fact that diplomacy is not in their favour this time.
Permalink  |
ggardiner86
27 Fans
02:44 PM on 03/05/2012
Erm, they're called "The Falklands"... The government chooses to keep military personnel there because of the under-handed attack that Argentina carried out last time without warning.

It's only considered a military occupation if the land does not belong to the country in question - in this case, it is British soil and will remain British - you said it yourself - the islanders want to remain British and we have a duty to protect that choice. Why can't you respect that?
Permalink  |
This comment has been removed.
Permalink  |
Blindstu
132 Fans
03:23 PM on 03/05/2012
Did you ever consider that perhaps the islanders don't want to be Argentinian?
Permalink  |
JuanMa41
4 Fans
03:28 PM on 03/05/2012
Yes, of course. Nobody wants to force anyone to change their nationality or citizenship. They are british citizens, aren´t they? There are so many british citizens living in Argentina, why not also in Malvinas?
Permalink  |
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
fredro
24 Fans
03:38 PM on 03/05/2012
By contrast, many Brits would like to be (more) European. Doesn't make a ha'porth of difference to the Government (esp. David C.), though, intent on preserving the image of the British Empire.
Permalink  |
 
Page: 1 2 3 4  Next ›  Last »  (4 total)