One nuke.
That's all we need. May as well use them before they get obsolete.
Chat Forum
Are the Argies eyeing up The Falklands again?
-
Posted 3 months ago #
-
Whatever anyone thinks of her she had more balls than any male Cabinet member. If we had stepped back/down. How the bell may have tolled for our prestige since.
Yes she closed a lot of industries however it was her own Churchillian moment (where are you Junkyard? Come and get me!)
Posted 3 months ago # -
willard - Member
TeaToo... That's a proper 80's SF tash there. You forgot the black nasty though.Hahaha..
It's the issue one.
Posted 3 months ago # -
Unlikely......
Posted 3 months ago # -
hora - Member
Its a wee bit sad that they feel the need to political posture time and time again over a small spec of an Island in the Atlantic.
pmsl
Posted 3 months ago # -
I reckon we should give the Falklands
backto the Argentines just as soon as the Spanish give back Argentina to the Incas...Posted 3 months ago # -
Racist.
Posted 3 months ago # -
Teetosugars, yesterday.
Posted 3 months ago # -
I reckon we should give the Falklands back to the Argentines just as soon as the Spanish give back Argentina to the Incas..
Posted 3 months ago # -
zokes - Member
I reckon we should give the Falklands back to the Argentines just as soon as the Spanish give back Argentina to the Incas...The Inca's? They were from the north and invaded the present day land of Argentina, but only a sidgen of it). Think you may mean the indigenous tribes of the region than the Inca's. It's like saying give Britain to the Vikings. History lesson over.
Posted 3 months ago # -
wallace1492 your irony filter is malfunctioning.
Posted 3 months ago # -
I think it should be given back to the Welsh
Posted 3 months ago # -
It's too early in the day for irony! That comes after lunch!
Posted 3 months ago # -
I had a quick look at Argentine Military in wiki yesterday. They really are still flying the same planes they had at the end of the 1982 war.
Lovely people the Argentinians, can anyone think of a modern conflict that has been fought with so little actual hatred? Lots of actual bloodshed, but the point being we can and will get along.
It's not going to be a poplar position in BA but young Argentinians ought to be damn thankful they didnt win in 1982. A thoroughly nasty, Fascistic, anti-semitic gang of murderous bastards were running that marvelous country into the ground and would have continued had they not been exposed for the thugs they were. Who knows how S.American politics would have gone had they remained in power. Things are better today.
Posted 3 months ago # -
So what's really going on over there? Is it just some Argentinian political posturing 30 years on or is there a serious threat of shots being fired? UN have told both sides to calm down, not sure what significance that has. Or have our leaders seen political capital in upping the ante?
Posted 3 months ago # -
is there a serious threat of shots being fired?
No, there isn't a serious threat of shots being fired imo.
Posted 3 months ago # -
Maybe the gov are trying to avoid past mistakes. If the Franks Report into the first and hopefully only Falklands War is correct, we sent mixed messages to Argentina about our willingness to defend the islands. Perhaps they are merely sending a "gentle reminder."
Certainly only a gentle one though given that we probably couldn't defend the islands militarily now anyway.
From Franks:
"116. In July 1981 the British Embassy in Buenos Aires reported, in a letter to the Foreign
and Commonwealth Office at official level, that several Argentine newspapers had
carried prominently versions of a report of an article in The Daily Telegraph on the
subject. The letter reported that all the newspaper articles highlighted the theme that
Britain was “abandoning the protection of the Falkland Islands”. An intelligence report in
September 1981 quoted an Argentine diplomatic view that the withdrawal of HMS
Endurance had been construed by the Argentines as a deliberate political gesture; they
did not see it as an inevitable economy in Britain's defence budget since the implications
for the Islands and for Britain's position in the South Atlantic were fundamental. "Posted 3 months ago # -
@redfordrider
Bit of man posturing on my part but I'd rather go to the FI and fight for them than go back to Afghan fighting for a people without an inkling of understanding about the value of their lives.
Posted 3 months ago # -
No, there isn't a serious threat of shots being fired imo.
Probably right. 1, The Argies couldnt win if we are to believe the state of their military & the ability of ours. 2, its highly unlikely HM Gov want another fight for many reasons. Mainly 'cos we are broke & cant really afford it & we have no real ability to get the necessary bits & bobs down to the FI with any expediency.
Posted 3 months ago # -
mu3266 - Glad to hear it. Let's hope that you don't have to. I have no doubt that our Armed Forces will do us proud in the unlikely event the Argies forget their history. However, I'm not certain that the British public has the stomach to take the sort of casualties as last time. I'm not even sure that we're willing to kill 700 Argies to keep it. Anyway, I don't think that this hypothesis will be tested anytime soon - Unless Argie Military Intelligence monitor this forum.
Posted 3 months ago # -
Mainly 'cos we are broke & cant really afford it
Well that's the point - Argentina knows that Britain is declining economically and therefore also militarily. It's all just a matter of time. Whether it takes 20, 40, or 60 years, eventually, Argentina will be in a much stronger position economically and militarily, as will her allies such as Brazil. In the meantime Argentina will tighten the noose causing the Falklands to be a further economic liability to Britain. Already Britain is spending far more than it would wish to as the price of defending 3000 islanders 8000 miles away, and it should probably be spending more. Expect also the economic burden to increase dramatically when the weekly flights from Chile cease.
Another reason Argentina would not want to take any hostile military action is due to the fact that it enjoys overwhelming global support for its stance on the Falklands Islands, it would make no sense alienating that, specially as Britain is in breach of UN Resolutions concerning the Falklands. And that support is huge, even the United States votes with Argentina at the UN. Moreover support from its South American neighbours is growing, even Chile which has traditionally been a bit out of sync with other South American countries and has historical territorial disputes with Argentina has now thrown its weight behind Argentina. And support from other South American nations is now beginning to also turn proactive.
My guess is that Argentina is playing a long game with subtle but increasingly relentless pressure on Britain. The only thing which I can imagine that would dramatically hot things up is if Britain starts extracting large amounts of oil from the region. I'm highly suspicious of what the Argentine government would do under those circumstances. Specially as they will be aware that Britain can ill afford to have a large permanent Royal Navy presence 8000 miles from the UK. Plus they have powerful trading partners such as China who are very likely to prefer Argentina rather than Britain extracts any oil. For me what the Argentine government would do should the situation arise where Britain is helping herself to "their" oil is pretty much an unknown, although it is something which they have undoubtedly discussed and have contingency plans for - whatever they may be. IMO
Posted 3 months ago # -
is there a serious threat of shots being fired
Highly doubt it, as many Chileans on the island as there are British. If Chile is behind Argentina at the moment that would be a pretty big wrong move.
Posted 3 months ago # -
Taff, the general assumption is that the Chileans will leave the Falklands as soon as direct flights from Chile cease - they will not want to go on 16000 mile home visits via the UK. Which probably is the main reason why Argentina has requested that direct flights from Chile cease, rather than to cause shortages other than labour shortages. I agree there is zero chance of them bombing the Falklands though.
Posted 3 months ago # -
If the Argies do try it on they'll get a bloody nose like last time and sent packing again..... The Falkland Islanders want to remain British and thats all that counts....
Unless they want to send a warship to frighten us....
Gotcha!!
Posted 3 months ago # -
The only thing which I can imagine that would dramatically hot things up is if Britain starts extracting large amounts of oil from the region. [...] Specially as they will be aware that Britain can ill afford to have a large permanent Royal Navy presence 8000 miles from the UK.
Are you sure those two statements aren't somewhat contradictory?
Posted 3 months ago # -
Already Britain is spending far more than it would wish to as the price of defending 3000 islanders 8000 miles away
go on, how much?
if we have warships they need to sail and train, if we have warplanes they need to fly and train etc Or do you propose a reduction in these if we give the place away?
so what is the real cost?
Posted 3 months ago # -
I agree there is zero chance of them bombing the Falklands though.
are you related to the defence minister? how did you come by this insider information?
Posted 3 months ago # -
are you related to the defence minister? how did you come by this insider information?
I shouldn't really be telling you this but he's my uncle.
.
.
Although you would do well to try to understand the concept of "I agree" big and daft.
It is generally understood to mean "I agree with your opinion".Speech/talking can sometimes be such a complex thing, wouldn't you say big and daft ?
Posted 3 months ago # -
Although you would do well to try to understand the concept of "I agree" big and daft.
It is generally understood to mean "I agree with your opinion".and what do you base this viewpoint on? what your uncle told you at the family barbeque?
Speech/talking can sometimes be such a complex thing, wouldn't you say big and daft ?
you have an audio version of stw?
Posted 3 months ago # -
at the family barbeque
It's called an "asado" for your information.
Really.......sometimes I truly despair at the lack of culture shown on STW.
Posted 3 months ago # -
From a UK military point of view, nothings changed. Just carrying on with what has been going on since 1982. I think that Kirchner's "militarisation" claims are more to do with deflecting attention away from the fact that her administration has decimated the Argentine military. In fact the UK is has been de-militarising the Falklands.
Well that's the point - Argentina knows that Britain is declining economically and therefore also militarily. It's all just a matter of time. Already Britain is spending far more than it would wish to as the price of defending 3000 islanders 8000 miles away
Argentina can have all the time it wants, it's the only thing it will be getting as long as the islanders want to remain "British".
and it should probably be spending more.
A curious quote, considering the state of Argentina's armed forces. you are almost saying that it's un-affordable.
And that support is huge, even the United States votes with Argentina at the UN. Moreover support from its South American neighbours is growing, even Chile which has traditionally been a bit out of sync with other South American countries and has historical territorial disputes with Argentina has now thrown its weight behind Argentina. And support from other South American nations is now beginning to also turn proactive.
The power of the UK Veto renders anything meaningful happening from an Argentine perspective.
The real issue is the same issue as before, deflect attention away from domestic issues. I do believe that there are fuel and transportation price increases going on in Argentina at the moment.
Kirchner is doing what all governments do when there are uncomfortable domestic issues...what the Romans called "do panem et circenses."
Posted 3 months ago # -
I think that Kirchner's "militarisation" claims are more to do with deflecting attention away from the fact that her administration has decimated the Argentine military.
And I think you'll find that 'decimating the Argentine military' was highly popular in Argentina. The days of their supreme privileges have long gone. You'll also find that Argentina has been working very closely with Brazil an emerging superpower which has been building up its navy in preparation for a more assertive role (as has/is China). Argentina has maintained its aircraft carrier qualifications by regularly operating its planes off Brazil's carrier. It is also in the process of helping Brazil build a fleet of nuclear submarines (soon to be operational) with its extensive nuclear expertise. Argentina will also have two nuclear powered submarines of its own. 30 years ago, although supportive, Brazil was not in a position to help Argentina, it will be in the future - even if it doesn't directly involve itself. France has already stated that it will not allow British planes to operate from the Charles De Gaulle in any possible future Falklands conflict. Argentina is still comparably militarily weak, but things do not necessarily remain static, and Britain is unlikely to be militarily stronger in future years to come. I still think another Falklands war is extremely unlikely though, and not least because it's not necessary imo.
Posted 3 months ago # -
And I think you'll find that 'decimating the Argentine military' was highly popular in Argentina.
Yes, 1976-83 was the death blow.
You'll also find that Argentina has been working very closely with Brazil an emerging superpower which has been building up its navy in preparation for a more assertive role (as has/is China). Argentina has maintained its aircraft carrier qualifications by regularly operating its planes off Brazil's carrier.
The two countries that the UK has strongest political links with are Brazil and Chile. While banning Falkland flagged vessels is something these countries can do as it costs little, who would these countries really side with if it got nasty?
When the likes of landlocked Bolivia sign up to the ban, you know its pretty useless. They wouldn't go as far as to ban UK registered vessels.
The Uk has just sold three off shore patrol vessels to Brazil, so they can better protect their off shore resources.
It is also in the process of helping Brazil build a fleet of nuclear submarines (soon to be operational) with its extensive nuclear expertise. Argentina will also have two nuclear powered submarines of its own.
While both countries have extensive knowledge in building nuclear reactors for commercial purposes, fitting one inside a sub is a different matter. The French are helping Brazil build conventional subs and then Brazil will take one of these subs and fit a reactor into it. The French under international treaty cannot share nuclear technology, so Brazil will have to work out how to do it and they realise that a conventional sub hull is not perfect for this task. They will have to design and build a dedicated sub. So about the year 2030 before that happens?
Of course, if a shooting war does kick off(god forbid) they will go up against a Royal navy who have operated these type of subs since the 1960's and are among the best at anti-submarine warfare in the world.
Brazil was not in a position to help Argentina, it will be in the future - even if it doesn't directly involve itself. France has already stated that it will not allow British planes to operate from the Charles De Gaulle in any possible future Falklands conflict.
There wouldn't be any need for France to be directly involved. The UK will have two carriers. But, as you say that Brazil would probably not get directly involved, France will do what it did during the last conflict. I hear Argentina are still smitten with French aircraft.
Argentina is still comparably militarily weak, but things do not necessarily remain static, and Britain is unlikely to be militarily stronger in future years to come.
Dangerous to predict the future in both instances.
I noticed that Argentina's defence minister is making even more absurd statements. I like the one saying that HMS Vanguard has been sent to the south Atlantic. Vanguard is a ballistic missile carrying sub. At least we now know where the the former Iraqi information minister has been hiding.
Doesn't he know that the UK Subs are too busy crashing into their French counterparts in the North Atlantic?
Posted 3 months ago # -
Britain is unlikely to be militarily stronger in future years to come.
With the obvious exception of carrier capability - the lack of which is something people keep suggesting makes us weak at the moment.
Posted 3 months ago # -
Why all the fuss;
Because both of us want to claim the Oil and Fish down there.
We only claim to be justified in that Oil and Fish because we say we own the island, but didnt we just stick some people on it when it was uninhabited. Thereby giving us the excuse to "defend" it as ours.
Or is my history wrong ? Anyone know just how we end up with British people living on an island 8000 miles away ?
Posted 3 months ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
