[sukhoi-30mki]

[mainepatsfan]

I wonder if the British could have fought that war with today's 24/7 media.

[The Great RJ]

Blair is no Margaret Thatcher and his Labour Party has its full share of anti-war and appeasement types. Blair may talk tough, but has neither the military power nor more importantly the political will to get anything done. Sadly the same thing is happening to the US particularly with the political will part.

[Dixiekraut]

As I recall first time the general public became aware of the Harrier "jump-jet"..which was already in the U.S.Marines' arsenal.

[VeniVidiVici]

I still have this magazine. One of my all-time favorite covers:

[BuffaloJack]

"Blair is no Margaret Thatcher".
Maybe not, but I think he is Maggie's equal and just as determined.

[Jake The Goose]

I recently spent 2 weeks in the U.K. (sadly) on business.

It was incredible to me just how many of the English people have zero pride
in their own nation - I mean zero.

It's almost as if they emulate the dark dreary weather they live in every day.

I was really surprised at how little energy the nation has, how little muchizmo there was in the men alone.

It can turn around - but it's going to take a rock solid leader with rock solid strength to do it.

[LibWhacker]

...to take part in the race south.

What?!? Was Novak born yesterday? I followed that little war closely and the talk at the time was how slow and deliberate the Brits were taking things, in order to give diplomacy time to work. It took forever for the fleet to arrive at the Falklands once it left England. The Argentines were given every opportunity to reconsider.

[jim_trent]

I remember when the Faulkland war was fought. A British "Vulcan" bomber had been in a local aircraft museum for a long time (I remember seeing it for as long as I can remember). Some British technicians flew in and spent a couple of weeks getting it ready to fly. Then it flew out of here to augment the warplanes being used in the Faulkland war.

I understand that they used something like 8 bombers for each mission of one or two that actually dropped bombs. They would use the others as tankers, carrying no bombs, but carrying as much fuel as possible. They would leave from England and some would refuel the others then turn around and head for home. Only the last one or two would make it all the way.

What a way to fight a war.

[Truth29]

This should be widely read by not only Tony Blair, but also the British citizens and their representatives. Britain has cut its military severely and is no the verge of cutting it even more. Soon, if this trend continues, Britain truly will not have the ability to project force and will only be able to use harsh language.

[ken5050]

Presidetn Reagan gave the Brits full access to our satellite reconaissance and NSA intercept capabilities.

[matt1234]

Thanks for the post. I forgot that the 25th anniversary was almost here.

If anyone's interested in a computer simulation game of the Falklands War, try this: http://www.shrapnelgames.com/prosim/falklands_82/1.htm

I have a copy and have played several of the scenarios. It's more simulation than game, and fairly complex. It's an excellent study in infantry tactics, given the absence of vehicles and air power from most scenarios. The system is similar to the JANUS software, which the US Army uses to train its leaders.

If anyone wants an opponent for this sim, email me. I'll play.

[razorback-bert]

capturing Mt Harriet and Goat Fudge.

Is Goat Fudge, what I think it is?

[BuffaloJack]

Never underestimate the Brits.
Their intelligence service nearly rivals that of Israel.
Their military people are intelligent, well trained and determined.
If they want to do something, do not get in their way.
Too many nations have underestimated their resolve and resources and have come to regret their underestimation.

The Brits are a good ally and we will stand with them in anything that they do.

[Milwaukee_Guy]

The Brits tend to have a habit of overstating and over analyzing their military achievements. Too many "scholars" in wool suits with too much time, rewriting history. I much prefer American or German authors of military history. The worst are the Russians, unreadable propaganda.

I very much respect the Tommy's as well trained and professional soldiers. The British foot soldier has little to apologize for.

History however has granted the Brits a lot of plain old good luck.

Take for example,

- The US effected emergency supplies of the latest AIM-9 Sidewinder missiles to the Brit's. The latest US AIM-9 had a true "fire and forget" head on capability. It was the US AIM-9 and -not- the British Sea Harrier which provided local but not strategic air superiority for the British.

- The Argentine Mirage would have dominated the Harriers were it not for the latest AIM-9 and the lack of range of the Mirage as deployed by Argentina. By the same token the British Harriers never could make a real threat against Argentine bases.

- The Argentine pilots were brave almost to a fault. Brimming with prestige and machismo they forced their low level attacks using American A-4 Skyhawks and French Super Entendards against British warships with telling effect. Only the lack of proper bomb fusing saved the British from serious naval disasters. The Argy bombs were fuzed "too long" and penetrated many British ships without exploding. If the Argys had targeted the QE or other troops ships, with proper fuses, the loss of life would have made the Brits reconsider the whole operation.

Given all that I very much would like to see another Margret Thatcher around to challenge tyranny and aggression. Despite the Brits faults during the Falklands, good training and a firm goal found them victory.

The Falklands War was the first real demonstration of "high tech" weaponry since WWII. Alot of time has passed since the Falklands and the capabilities of modern East/West weapon systems has not been demonstrated in a full scale war.

Maybe Iran and the Gulf will be the next demonstration?

[Doctor Don]

Maggie was tougher than Tony is!