[Closed] The Falklands

It worked for Mrs T, maybe Brown will get lucky!

Like to see them enforce it 🙂

Can't have too many 'Belgranos' left?

Richmars, a valid poiint.

Only thuing is, Mrs T hadn't already stretched the armed forces way beyond breaking point in a couple of questionable wars.

Also, they can't enforce any sort of total blockade on the whole South Atlantic!

Can understand them stopping ships going to and from the mainland but to South Georgia. Is it not international waters?

Entire fleet is smaller than the task force

No SHAR or replacement

No long range air assets

- and have we even got enough troops and planes left to reinforce MPA?

Only similarity would be the shortage of rotary wing! Still, at least we've still got Trident, we can roast a lot of beef with a few bucketfuls of instant sunshine 😈

I always wondered why they were so keen to keep hold of the Falklands.

Only thuing is, Mrs T hadn't already stretched the armed forces way beyond breaking point in a couple of questionable wars.

Be fair, she did her best with what was available at the time.

This program cannot display the webpage

This is why we have nuclear submarines, cruise tomahawk for land strikes and torpedos for ships. Just rotate a hunter-killer on patrol and only a major superpower would be a threat.

No doubt the US would help out to protect "our" ownership of what are thought to be the largest untapped oil reserves in the world....

tankslapper - Member

Can't have too many 'Belgranos' left?

Anyone watch QI at the weekend? General B was renamed by the Argentinians when she was bought from the US Navy. Previously she'd been known as USS Phoenix, the only ship to survive Pearl Harbour unscathed.

That film has a lot to answer for...

Instant sunshine, love it. Get some of that over to afghan
land I say!

Entire fleet is smaller than the task force

But more capable,

No SHAR or replacement

The GR7/9's are more than a match for their aging skyhawks,

No long range air assets

Not really required, long range air assets didn't really cause much damage last time round,

- and have we even got enough troops and planes left to reinforce MPA?

Always. If the conditions merited it, the forces would be withdrawn from elsewhere, like they were withdrawn from NATO commitments in 82,

Only similarity would be the shortage of rotary wing! Still, at least we've still got Trident, we can roast a lot of beef with a few bucketfuls of instant sunshine

We have a quantum leap in amphib capability copmared to 82, that coupled with TLAM equipped Submarines against a vastly inferior Argentine force compared to 82, means an conflict will be over very quickly.

So Argentina can do what they like, they have little to back it up with.

Plus I think the Americans wouldn't be chuffed to see the British forces leaving current warzones and would be putting pressure on Argentina to back off from that side too.

The really stupid thing is the new president in Argentina has made it one of her pledges that she'll get the Falklands back to their "true" ownership so it's going to get worse before it gets better.

Storm/teacup anyone?

Its Latin-American political posturing. In addition, isn't the stationed force on the Falklands larger now? In the Falklands War the small detachment of Marines gave them a bloody nose didn't they? I imagine a larger force (well equipped) wouldnt be a nice prospect.

It added that Argentina and Britain were "important partners" and pledged to "co-operate" on issues in the South Atlantic, where the Falklands are located.

Roughly translated -
"Now then, son, play the game nicely or we'll send you packing like we did last time"

😉

Bloody argies.....get stuffed and f*&k off, you want it , bring it on then.

El-Bent,

the GR9 has no radar therefore has practically no air-air capability unless you're really wishing to put all your faith in AIM-9M. I wouldn't! No radar = total reliance on visual acquisition. Oops!
You would be right about the lack of requirement for long range assets if we had a deployable air-air capability, but we sold those to the Indians!

and exactly where do you propose all these extra troops will come from?
The major draw through NATO is Afghanistan.

Keep taking the pills!!

and exactly where do you propose all these extra troops will come from?
The major draw through NATO is Afghanistan

A combat partner is invaded through the backdoor? I think Argentina would be given zero patience this time from other countries.

Teacup/storm.

A combat partner is invaded through the backdoor?

😯

It takes rather longer for the AA battery on the Falklands to come online than it does for a jet to get from Argentina to the Falklands. Unless they're sat waiting on 24/7 alert, the air defences would be likely to be destroyed before they managed to engage enemy aircraft.

That said, exactly this kind of sabre rattling is the kind of thing that would cause the AA battery to be put on alert 😆

Only thing is, Mrs T hadn't already stretched the armed forces way beyond breaking point in a couple of questionable wars.

Correct, she'd just cut their budgets like buggery and as a result had to get one aircraft carrier back from the knackers yard and the other from the Australian Navy who she'd just sold it to. Apart from that your point is factually correct Cap'n

Hora, that would be foolish to assume that we'd get unconditional support. If we want the reserves, we need to be able to fight for them.

Blimey, the Diplomatic corps won't be recruiting anywhere round here in a hurry...

Key word here is Oil. Argentina wants either what it thinks is a fair share, or a bit more of a share, and it knows full well that to make it viable people will want to use Argentine ports. Opening shots in a trade war, not a re-run of '82...

The new detachment of Typhoons down there all have nice radars though

Thatcher had also withdrawn( or in the process of doing so) the military presence form the region IIRC - not that it was much anyway but it was taken as a signal that britain was not interested.

the air defences would be likely to be destroyed before they managed to engage enemy aircraft.

There will be alot of electronic eavesdropping etc going on on Argie radio traffic as well.

Right, I'm off down to Argie town here on Craggy Island to start cracking some heads 😈

Aiee, a squadron of Typhoons woud have some fun down there.

Perhaps that's why the Vulcan was recently restored to airworthiness.

I think flying the XH558 on VFR's to the Falklands and back might be a bit of a challenge

The new detachment of Typhoons down there all have nice radars though

I was wondering how long it would take for someone to remember they were there....

Out of interest. How does Argentina stand with the US interms of region/politics? I read that Argentina was key back in the early 80's as a ally/buffer against Communist elements in South America?

We'd need the help of Pinochet again!

I'm sure the 'phoon will be fine. As long as MPA runway isn't denied and they've got a serviceble tanker. Obviously the argies primary target would be the runway. Once that's gone it's fair game.

Time to deploy the "Bombers" so we can own them!

Time to deploy the "Bombers" so we can own them!

Post of the day.

Sad fact for the Argetinian AF is that the RAF has gone through three generations of fighters at Mount Unpleseant while they are still scrapping around for spares for the same kit they had in 82.

Anyhoo, nothing like a bit of shit stirring from the Current Bun....

[i]RAF chiefs have enraged Argentina by sending four of their most sophisticated superjets to the Falklands.
The £60million Typhoons are already posted on the South Atlantic isles after slipping out of the UK last week.

They are now the most sophisticated war jets in the southern hemisphere. Argentina, who went to war with us in 1982 over the Falklands, is understood to have made a formal protest.

The Typhoon can be used as a fighter and a bomber. It flies at twice the speed of sound and is far more manoeuvrable than the Tornado it replaces.

Its missile system even knows the target the pilot is looking at using helmet sensors. A senior RAF source said: "The Argentines are unhappy but it's our duty to provide the best possible defence of the Falklands."[/i]

Can't wait for the Daily Wail to chime in.

Park 1x Trident platform in the South Atlantic. Job done.

Its missile system even knows the target the pilot is looking at using helmet sensors.

😀

Love it when my work makes the news!!

Didn't they build a massive runway down that way after 82? Presumably the argies wouldn't get near it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Mount_Pleasant

Thatcher had also withdrawn( or in the process of doing so) the military presence form the region IIRC - not that it was much anyway but it was taken as a signal that britain was not interested.

I think its difficult to overlook there the fact that there were years of mixed messages from various governments, leading to a false expectation of the outcome of negotiations by Argentina.

Fair enough Zulu

Troll mode......

Why not give the Argies the Shetland Isles? It makes as much geographical sense as us having The Falklands.

/Troll mode

Its Latin-American political posturing. In addition, isn't the stationed force on the Falklands larger now? In the Falklands War the small detachment of Marines gave them a bloody nose didn't they? I imagine a larger force (well equipped) wouldnt be a nice prospect.

There were ~70 marines on the Falklands at the time, as I recall they hit an armoured personal carrier (killing 1, wounding a few?) before they were ordered to surrender by the governer due to the overwhelming forces the argies had.

Does that class as a bloody nose?
/me plays macc lads bunous aeries..

Why not give the Argies the Shetland Isles? It makes as much geographical sense as us having The Falklands

At the time the offer was Northern Ireland for the Falklands.....it was not seen to be a fair offer by the Argies.

what nick c said.

It's a commercial move isn't it. "We ain't, can't do anything but if you want to use our waters/ports it will cost"

And the daily wail, linked from the BBC, headline is that the argie's have taken control of the Falkland's waters. Amazing, as are some of the reader comments.

Last time our forces had no realistic non-nuclear capability to attack mainland Argentinean military facilities. One difference this time is that we do, and that I think would be a key factor in any conflict.

Argentina would also need absolute surprise in launching an attack in order for their invasion force to make it to the Falklands this time, given the threat from nuclear subs and from the aircraft based in the Falklands.

I was a naval intelligence officer in the late 80's and a lot of lessons were learnt, including that it shouldn't take much of a force stationed in the Falklands to render any invasion attempt by Argentina risky and costly.

Ewan - Member
Didn't they build a massive runway down that way after 82? Presumably the argies wouldn't get near it.

Yep. they built it allright, Last time I was down there it was being used as a rather awesome Go-karting Track....

El-Bent,

the GR9 has no radar therefore has practically no air-air capability unless you're really wishing to put all your faith in AIM-9M. I wouldn't! No radar = total reliance on visual acquisition. Oops!

You haven't learned much from the last conflict. The Argentine airforce who are still using the same generation of fighters as in 82, will be at the limit of their endurance and would not want to mix it up with harriers, like in 82. The only way the Argentine airforce could survive is to adopt the tactics of 82 and fly low but while the gr9's don't have radar the Royal navy now have airborne early warning, which removes the low fly tactic and will vector the gr9's onto target.

You would be right about the lack of requirement for long range assets if we had a deployable air-air capability, but we sold those to the Indians!

What?

and exactly where do you propose all these extra troops will come from?
The major draw through NATO is Afghanistan.

Like I said, if the situation warranted it, what would you think the UK Government would do eh? Keep troops in Afghanistan and leave the Argentinians to occupy UK territory?

Dick.

All of which doesn't matter as Argentina is not currently capable of invading and holding territory and we will know the minute they try anything.

the argentines must be very bitter about it

imgine if there was a potentially oil rich island off our coast owned by a foreign power that was based in another hemisphere

there cant be that many of these imperial anachronisms left in the world, we will have to give it back one day

I think if the current goverment stay in power then they will probably give the Falklands back as they have no backbone...they virtually gave away our gold reserves so why not the chance of a nice big oil resrve.

Hopefully though to preserve the honour of the fallen british Soldiers we should get heavy with them, and say hoi give us back our ship or else we will senf in the Ghurhas to scare the crap out of you. I have some friends who served in the Falklands and they said the Argies where terrified of the Ghurhas as they liked to sneek up on them and slit their throats.

Give them back to whom exactly? The "ownership" of the islands has been disputed since before Argentina gained it's independance. There are many countries that have laid claim to them and Britain's claim is as good (or bad) as anyones. Given that the entire population want to stay as part of the UK then I can't see any compelling reason to give it to anyone.

we will have to give it back one day

A ridiculous statement - the driving force should always be the decision of the residents, the Bennies have identified themselves as "British" for as long as the Argentines have been trying to claim ownership.

Its like saying that we should hand "ownership" of the Channel islands to France, even though they have no history or cultural ties with modern France (they have been a possession of the Duchy of Normandy since time immemorial)

Now im no no expert on international territorial disputes but come on!!!!

[img] [/img]

infact we do seem to have a lot of imperial relics!
The oil and gas potential of the faklands means its the one that people care about

[img] [/img]

Geographical anomolies exist all over the world, look at Alaska for example. Decisions are better made by the population rather than geography.

Indeed, colonialism was a bad, bad time we caused a holocaust's worth of deaths all in the name of bringing exotic food and goods to Britain while enslaving or dominating other populations. These relics or at least those which are wanted by their former sovereign states should be handed back.
Is it really worth another thousand deaths and hundreds of millions of pounds and loss of international diplomatic legitamacy for a chunk of rock and a few people?

so when the population of catholics in NI passes the 50% mark as i believe its due to in a few years everyones agreed it will become part of ireland?

[i]look at Alaska for example[/i]

Bought by America from the Russians, all legit and everything. hardly the same at all really

by their idea that the falklands being argentinian, should they not give tierra del fuego to the chileans?

Is Tierra del Fuego claimed by the Chileans

A fair few of you sound quite war-mongering.

Is it really worth another thousand deaths and hundreds of millions of pounds and loss of international diplomatic legitamacy for a chunk of rock and a few people?

sadly its not just a chunk of rock and a few people its about all that potential oil

but with so many on here getting all misty eyed at recollections of slitting argy throats and the red tops ready to beat the propaganda drum so we all get blinded by patriotism
till we turn on the pm and realise we went to war for teh wrong reasons, if there is a right reason

everyones agreed it will become part of ireland?

If the people of NI decide that that is what they want then I've got no issue with it.

Bought by America from the Russians, all legit and everything. hardly the same at all really

And how did the Russians get hold of what is clearly part of Canada then?

What exaclty is not legit with the UK having soveriegnty over the Falkland isles? There was no indiginous population there when they were discovered by europeans so they had a bit of a fight over then and britain won.

My work colleagues kitkat chunky is closer to me at the moment than it is to him, i'm not going to suddenly lay claim to it though.

I'd go for the Kitkat if I was you!

My work colleagues kitkat chunky is closer to me at the moment than it is to him, i'm not going to suddenly claim to it though.

does it have oil?

Hainey, I'd argue that it wasn't a 'Kitkat' but rather 'la barra de chocolate kitkata'. Then grab it and barricade yourself on their desk. Make sure you ask him if he's got any Typhoons first.

Maybe the Americans should hand Texas back to Mexico?

actually, to be fair they should both hand the whole lot back to the Indians.

And, really, the Argentines should hand their whole country over to someone else since they were just a Spanish colonial possession themselves... what real claim can they hold when the Falklands have been British since BEFORE Argentina as a nation was created?

good point Z11 but i still cant see people sitting happily with it if teh situation were reversed

kimbers - so any island 500km from the coast of a larger nation should be invaded by that nation so it can exploit its mineral reserves? Not to mention that Argentina is trying to lay claim to South Georgia too, which is 1500km or more from Argentina.

By your logic Iceland should never have been Danish and so we should invade immediately.

And don't go on holiday to the Canary Islands, Madeira or the Azores, that would be supporting imperialism by Spain and Portugal 😉

I think we should lay claim to France.

Already have.
You ever been to the Dordogne? English is the first spoken language in some villages. 😛

It will all come down to the oil,Argentina will want part of it,and will end up giving concessions on it's ports for a share.Until then we will play poker with warships and highly expensive missiles.Going to the UN would be a waste of time as we are one of the holders of a veto.
Hora;Argentina does not have the clout with the US that it used to. It all about Muslims now,Communists are so 1980's. Also the truth coming out about what the Argentinian secret police did to anybody browsing the Billy Bragg section in HMV Cordoba made even the US pale.The Falkland Islanders wanted to stay part of the UK,more so after their brief taste of the military Junta and the half-Irish secret policeman sent to head up internal security during the occupation,so IMO their geographical location becomes of secondary importance.

Although not relevant or succesful, Thatcher sending the Vulcans down was an amazing logistical feat.Must have been busy at Diego's underwear emporium the next morning.

Hainey; large parts of France were in the posession of England until the 16th century.Should you not be elsewhere fighting with rprt and Junkyard? 😀

Who me? I just wander from room to room.

All the little red dots in the map above are potentially sitting on large oil deposits, if you consider where the main oil basins are today, they just may be a little more inhospitable to develop (at the minute)

Just no other country is really disputing them thats why no one cares

yeah id like to see the american reaction if we started drilling in the carribean!

im not sure about falklands but a firend did his geology phd looking for oil in the falklands (lived there for 2 months) and he is of the opinion that there isnt much

but if oil prices keep rising and more favorable studies have been done then it becomes more viable to extract from there

I recently found out I have Argentinian kin...
so I have no strong opinion on this matter (makes a change) 😉

[i]infact we do seem to have a lot of imperial relics![/i]

Most of those are now just strategic military bases.