You clearly know nothing. The Argies had invaded sovereign territory, rounded all the civilians up and had their ships at sea. And you think they would have backed down, what you mean talk to them nicely and ask them to leave. That's what a weasel labour government would have done and after they had given away the Falklands, they would have given away Gibraltar as well, in fact Blair already did a deal with Spain to give Gibraltar to Spain. If the UK had given up on the Falklands that would have been the start of the break up of the UK and it's territories. Thatcher did the right thing and there is no case against her at all.

I think he means, that they might have backed down when they saw a task force sailing their way.

The events that played out proved they weren't going to back down. They had been planning the invasion for a while. They had even bolstered their defences on the Argentine mainland because they thought it might even escalate to a British landing on their home territory.

Yes, but that's an after the fact thing. Plenty thought that the Argentines might have legged it before we got there.

There's always one isn't there?

I said that Thatcher did the right thing - my main point so perhaps we are in agreement. I also suggested that a by product of this might have been the bolstering of her image - especially if the Argentinians had backed down - with no loss of life on both sides, for that matter. (Incidentally, sending a taskforce to the South Atlantic is one thing, invading Iraq is another, in my opinion).

I am giving some credence to the fact it was partly political but not some sort of conspiracy theory which deserves an outcry.

Thankyou. Thatcher's decision was probably based on that likihood. She did not want a prolonged Vietnam or another Northern Ireland. Remember that there was a fair bit of diplomacy whilst the task force was under away. They sailed the second week of April and landed in the 3rd week of May - there was time. They might have turned around at Ascension. She might have taken into account likely losses for political means when she did her assessment.

(Spoken from one who was there.)

One of the things that came out of that limited war, was that a lot of the troops did not expect to fight and one of the reasons there was so much bitterness amongst Falkands veterans was that a lot of the British public did not seem to care, or notice. A lot of soldiers left afterwards, many the product of N Ireland.

One of the things about Iraq and Afhanistan is that we have an entire generation of current soldiers - the majority who have served in one or more 'warfighting' theatres, with multiple tours.

In 1982, the current experience amounted to anti-terrorism n Northern Ireland. There are Generals serving now whose main experience was N Ireland. It's a compliment to current serving soldiers that the UK will have a lot of experience in 'warfighting' operations - as I believe the term is called now(!)

I'll second that.My last ship before I left the RN 'Argonaut' was hit by 2 bombs.Neither exploded, although one killed two of the lads on board.

And they got the Atlantic Conveyor which meant that in the event a whole Brigade had to march across East Falkland ( less one batallion) in the first month of winter. Fortunately the Brigade was suited to load-carrying in mucky weather.

If they had got the Canberra, or the assault ships there might not have a beachhead in that place at that time and a rethink would have been needed. Goose Green might not have fallen.

Delays in landing, or protracted land operations would have allowed the winter to advance - and with that comes fatigue and logistical issues.

etc.

I thought you were saying the opposite, so yes we agree then!

Not just luck mate. Rapier and anything else that could be fired, was aimed at those jets. They had to come in so low, that the bombs didn't have time to arm.

One of the poor buggers who died was my relief.There but for the grace etc.

Indeed.

From what I heard at the time, the guys on Broadsword were the luckiest buggers of the lot, after a bombed bounced off and then exploded !

I'd forgotten that.

So the Argies did not adjust basically.

I also remember the story of some Rapier units locking onto multiple targets and disengaging.

I did a report on Rapier '2', years later for BAE, so remember a bit of it. We took into account the San Carlos experience.

I don't think they had too many options really mate. Low and fast was about the best they could hope for. Anything else saw them picked off by the air defence systems. They were more succesful out in the open ocean where their French kit could be used.... bloody Frogs.

Was only 5 when the Falklands kicked off! But when I joined up in 96 the cold war was over and 'warfighting ops' (BTW your right it is this term used now), were becoming a faded memory. My first tour was Belfast followed by Bosnia, good old Ulster punch ups in the street and peace support for the UN/SFOR.

When Mr Blair came to power in 97 that was when the real fun began! Kosovo (went there) Sierra Leone (didnt go to that one!) and then finally to top it off Iraq and Afghan fighting which was warfighting more so after the invasion. Just to give and idea how busy my battalion was at one point in 2005 we had 1 company in kosovo, 1 in Afghan and rest training for Iraq!

The experience we gained in NI certainly prepared us for the war on Terror and as always the Yanks got hammered, didnt listen to us, in Iraq and could've used some our text books. (but thats another story)

However, my point is throughout my 12 years of service the Labour government constantly cut the Army even in 2004 by 4 Battalions!!!
You can argue that a Conservative cabinet would not have done the same but then as I've read Thatchers lot were going to pretty much destroy the Senior service just before the Argies invaded.

I heard that they had primed the bombs to be dropped from a higher altitude and that's why they failed to detonate.