Despite denials by London and the Falkland Islands government that military cutbacks expose the islands' vulnerability to attack, protests over the cuts by retired British senior officers continue to reverberate, causing potential embarrassment to both British government and Falkland Islands' local administration.

The Falklands are a British overseas territory that Britain defended against an Argentine invasion in 1982. A 74-day conflict cost more than 1,000 lives and ended with formal surrender by Argentine forces sent for the attack by a military junta that ruled the country.

Renewed Argentine calls for its sovereignty claims to be considered led to British defense reinforcements and expansion of military facilities on the islands and increased supplies of British arms and ammunition to the Falklands government forces.

Despite that assistance, financially strapped Britain initiated huge cuts in defense spending, including the planned scrapping of aircraft carrier Ark Royal and a review of the deployment of Harriet jets.

This week, a group of former high-ranking British military officers called for a government reversal of the decision to scrap the Ark Royal and a fleet of Harrier jets.

In a letter to The Times of London, the former officers said the defense cuts will leave the Falkland Islands open to attack and called a decision to do away with the Harrier jets defending the islands "financially perverse."

But both British and Falklands governments contested the case.

British Defense Secretary Liam Fox said dismantling of the Harrier feet wouldn't "impact upon our ability to defend territories in the South Atlantic."

Fox told The Times, "We maintain a wide range of assets, not least a well-defended airfield to ensure the defense of the Falkland Islands.

"The Harrier force has made an impressive contribution to our nation's security over the decades but difficult decisions had to be made ... and I'm clear that rationalizing our fast jet fleet makes both operational and economic common sense," he said.

The protest letter said British Prime Minister David Cameroon was badly advised over the decision to scrap the Harrier force and the Ark Royal and to rely entirely upon Tornadoes. They say the Harrier was more versatile than the Tornado and will be cheaper to maintain.

"The existing Tornado force will cost, over 10 years, seven times as much to keep in service as Harrier. Was the recent exercise not supposed to save money?" the admirals asked.

The decision will leave the Falklands open to attack after the cutbacks and would be a costly one, said the admirals. The islands' North Falkland Basin is being studied for lucrative hydrocarbons reserves.

They admirals wrote: "In respect of the newly valuable Falklands and their oilfields, because of these and other cuts, for the next 10 years at least, Argentina is practically invited to attempt to inflict on us a national humiliation on the scale of the loss of Singapore. One from which British prestige, let alone the administration in power at the time, might never recover, said the letter, which was signed by admiral Alan West, a former First Sea Lord, Julian Oswald, Vice Admiral Jeremy Blackham, Vice Admiral John Mcanally and Maj. Gen. Julian Thompson.

"The decision to ax the entire Harrier force is strategically and financially perverse," the letter said. "The government has, in effect, declared a new '10-year rule' that assumes Britain will have warning time to rebuild to face a threat."

It recalled the last Treasury-driven "10-year rule" in the 1930s nearly cost Britain freedom when faced with Adolf Hitler in Germany.

del.icio.us	Digg	Reddit
YahooMyWeb	Google	Facebook

Memory Foam Mattress Review

SPACE MEDIA NETWORK PROMOTIONS Solar Energy Solutions Tempur-Pedic Mattress Comparison ... Newsletters :: SpaceDaily :: SpaceWar :: TerraDaily :: Energy Daily XML Feeds :: Space News :: Earth News :: War News :: Solar Energy News