Should Britain leave the EU?

[Simon Darkshade]

Originally posted by Hamlet
Something called 'The Falklands war' would seem to put paid to the idea that The UK can act either more swiftly or more effectively in comparison to all other powers in the world save The US.

I don't want to upset anyone, but I think the days of The UK being number two in terms of military capacity may now have ended. Perhaps some time ago.

Quite the contrary in the view of many experts on the subject. The Falklands was an endeavour that few if any other non-US military forces could have carried out - dispatching an amphibious force with naval airpower and successfully beating a foe thousands of miles away, in what was their backyard, effectively. It was the Falklands that ended the compulsive focusing of the UK military forces on NATO operations against the Soviet Union in the European theatre to the exclusion of all others. The fact that the UK military was able to achieve what it did without any fleet carriers, or heavy surface warships such as HMS Tiger (retired in 1978 rather prematurely) is even more of a testament to their success. Indeed, if they had kept one of their old fleet carriers or kept HMS Vanguard in reserve for modernization in the manner of the Iowas, then the Argies may not have even made their play for the Falklands.

The policy of the replacements for the current Invincible class carriers with larger fleet carriers for power projection, as well as the recent commissioning of HMS Ocean and other amphibious craft, has the result of putting Britain right up behind the US in terms of power projection capability.

Thus, your initial statement on the Falklands seems to be quite the opposite of its actual result and effect. It virtually has the effect of painting the Falklands as a military failure, when it was the reverse -= a triumph against the odds.

The UK may not be outright #1 or #2, but certainly possesses the second best power projection capability in the world still, which is testament to the quality of the men and equipment after years of deprivations and withdrawal (the 1966 Defence white paper comes to mind; the retreat from East of Suez, etc, etc)

 

[Hamlet]

Originally posted by Switch625
My point is, that Britain is the only nation other than the United States with the ability to project their military power to all parts of the world. The US and the UK are the only two true global powers in the world. The UK certainly is not the #2 military in terms of raw numbers or money spent, but it is #2 in the ability to project that power. All other nations are mainly regional powers. France is the possible exception, but their ability to project their military doesn't extend much beyond Africa.

I have a problem with this. It seems, to me, to rely upon the notion that because The UK and The US are often the most heavily interventionist countries in the world - certainly the most heavily interventionist democracies- that somehow classifies them as being the only countries that have 'global reach.'

It also seems to rely upon the idea that nevermind how much power the UK can project, it can project it to some degree - in fact almost all states can project some degree of force globally. Look at the different nationalities that are currently in Afghanistan, and took part in the action there. The UK, in fact, doesn't have a sufficently increased capacity over France or, indeed, Germany - Germany actually has a large armed service - in this regard. It simply is 'there' when the action takes place, and gets noticed as a result.

Originally posted by Switch625
If France were in the position Britain was in during the Falklands War, France couldn't have done fought back like Britain did.

Why, exactly? Leaving aside the fact that Britain very narrowly lost that war thanks to the minor inconvience of exocet missiles.

 

[Hamlet]

Originally posted by Simon Darkshade
Thus, your initial statement on the Falklands seems to be quite the opposite of its actual result and effect. It virtually has the effect of painting the Falklands as a military failure, when it was the reverse -= a triumph against the odds.

It was a very close thing. It wasn't an overwhelming victory by any means. Diplomatically and militarily, it very nearly was a failure - you point this out yourself by saying it was against expectations - and therefore canot be said to be an huge endorsement of British military power. It did it, but it just did it - therefore it would seem to be premature to say that it is the only non-US power that can effectively do it.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

Originally posted by Switch625
You misunderstood me. My point is, that Britain is the only nation other than the United States with the ability to project their military power to all parts of the world. The US and the UK are the only two true global powers in the world. The UK certainly is not the #2 military in terms of raw numbers or money spent, but it is #2 in the ability to project that power. All other nations are mainly regional powers. France is the possible exception, but their ability to project their military doesn't extend much beyond Africa. If France were in the position Britain was in during the Falklands War, France couldn't have done fought back like Britain did. No other nation even comes close.

Quite right. No other powers have the reach that the UK and the US do. The French are a borderline case; one fleet carrier, the Charles De Gaulle; two are needed to operate with each other for optimum operations. The Legion is often active, dropping into Africa, but even this is somewhat limited to being in range of Corsica by air transport, or the other colonies.

Why, exactly? Leaving aside the fact that Britain very narrowly lost that war thanks to the minor inconvience of exocet missiles.

Well, this is rather a novel view, to put it mildly, given that British forces did force the Argentinians to surrender, and defeated them hands down. They lost some ships, but nothing major, and the Exocet was not a decisive factor, in large part due to the skill of the Royal Navy and Air Force Harrier pilots, who took on and defeated a much larger air force.
Very narrowly lost? No other historian or military commentator that I have read or encountered has espoused such a bizarre take on matters.

 

[Hamlet]

Originally posted by Simon Darkshade
Well, this is rather a novel view, to put it mildly, given that British forces did force the Argentinians to surrender, and defeated them hands down. They lost some ships, but nothing major, and the Exocet was not a decisive factor, in large part due to the skill of the Royal Navy and Air Force Harrier pilots, who took on and defeated a much larger air force.
Very narrowly lost? No other historian or military commentator that I have read or encountered has espoused such a bizarre take on matters.

Sorry, a typo there. It was supposed to be 'very narrowly won'.

 

[Switch625]

Hamlet, any nation can put troops on a plane and send them anywhere in the world. The crunch comes when they have to support those troops in combat. Without the logicstics supplied by the US primarily, and the UK secondarily, they couldn't sustain any sort of combat operations in Afghanistan. Not one of those nations you are mentioning would be able to operate independently in Afghanistan. Prove me wrong, please.

 

[ainwood]

Originally posted by EdwardTking
Oh No - our north sea gas is going south

Yeah - but only for a year or so until the UK becomes a net importer of gas

 

[Simon Darkshade]

Originally posted by Hamlet
It was a very close thing.
It wasn't an overwhelming victory by any means.

Diplomatically and militarily, it very nearly was a failure - you point this out yourself by saying it was against expectations - and therefore canot be said to be an huge endorsement of British military power. It did it, but it just did it - therefore it would seem to be premature to say that it is the only non-US power that can effectively do it.

Not when it came down to it.

It was quite overwhelming in the overall.

In neither case was it nearly a failure; it did it despite the geographical and logistical challenge of such an exercise. These were conquered, and the strategy and operational art was superior. It more than 'just' did it; it did splendidly with what materials were available, and the fleet was never majorly threatened; some ships were lost, but they were not of a truly essential nature - even the loss of helo's on board one ship was shrugged off. Certainly they did not have the strategic effect of the sinking of the General Belgrano by HMS Conqueror.


It was a hard fight, but it was a triumph, and showed that Britain was the only other power other than the US who could even contemplate such an exercise. And their capabilities have only improved in this respect in the time since, and will continue to do so.
China, Russia, France, Germany, India - none could do such a thing. Their conventional power is confined to their immediate locality

 

[Hamlet]

Originally posted by Switch625
Hamlet, any nation can put troops on a plane and send them anywhere in the world. The crunch comes when they have to support those troops in combat. Without the logicstics supplied by the US primarily, and the UK secondarily, they couldn't sustain any sort of combat operations in Afghanistan. Not one of those nations you are mentioning would be able to operate independently in Afghanistan. Prove me wrong, please.

I'd imagine that US assistance was vital to that sort of thing, but I don't know enough to say that UK assistance is also vital, although I am sceptical.

 

[Smaasnekje]

I hope the EU plan gets abandoned.......

 

[Switch625]

Originally posted by Hamlet


I'd imagine that US assistance was vital to that sort of thing, but I don't know enough to say that UK assistance is also vital, although I am sceptical.

Vital? Not really. Helpful? Without a doubt.

 

[Dr. Dr. Doktor]

I agree that the Falklands war has since proved a diplomatic embarrasment to Britain. I am refering to the Pinochet case. If i remember correctly he was not extradited to Spanish prosecution because Chile had handed over military intelligence to the British.
It would be interesting to see what would happen should Osama bin Laden fall into the hands of the Spanish authorities. After all, according to the rule of law, criminals cannot be prosecuted if they have shared military intelligence with any state.
On the other hand , the Maldivos or Falklands War, was probably one of the reasons the military Junta was removed in Argentine.

 

[MrPresident]

If i remember correctly he was not extradited to Spanish prosecution because Chile had handed over military intelligence to the British.

I thought it was because he was considered to ill to stand trial.

I want England in the US...I want freedom to go to ENgland and get a job without a bunch of passport/immigration crud...You need a seperate line for Americans after all we've done for you.

Why don't you want Scotland/Wales? (on second thoughts you don't have to answer that one). I was looking at this post and suddenly I started to wonder, why do people think Americans are arrogant?