Are the Argies eyeing up The Falklands again?

Viewing 40 posts - 81 through 120 (of 134 total)
  • Are the Argies eyeing up The Falklands again?
  • It’s all about the media images. 10 minutes will do nicely. Footage of the SBS sand bagging Argie students will not go down well, even in the UK.

    jota180
    Member

    Footage of the SBS sand bagging Argie students will not go down well, even in the UK.

    you mean like all that other vt of the SBS on an active op?

    bwaarp
    Member

    I assure you footage of the SBS slotting argies, let alone students would go down very well with the British public. Have you not forgotten the student protests?

    We wouldn’t even need to do that. You just ignore them and cut off their supplies and eventually they’ll be begging to leave.

    Israel still manages to get things done despite having the worlds worst media image.

    Jota180 – vt?

    jota180
    Member

    sorry – video tape (footage) it’s a term we use at work

    Surprisingly, very little video footage of UK forces killing Afghans is seen in the mainstream media. So I doubt there would be any more of an appetite for images of westernised youngsters being killed or maimed.

    The UK has failed if it needs to use military force. It might be better to open limited discussions now, hold a referendum on the island to add weight to the democratic arguement. Stall the Argies until after the Olympics by offering to refer the case to the ICJ. Of course this could take decades…

    jota180
    Member

    The UK has failed if it needs to use military force

    We won’t unless threatened by other military force, we won’t attack only defend

    Premier Icon v8ninety
    Subscriber

    redfordrider – Member

    Jota180 – vt?

    Redford, you obviously don’t watch celebrity juice… 😆

    The UK needs to think strategically, not tactically. It should defuse the situation before it goes too far.

    Celebrity juice?

    bwaarp
    Member

    Actually Redford, check out liveleak. Lots of stuff on there…. including close up footage of British soldiers slotting people. You are making the same point over and over again. If they are armed and get killed no one will have any sympathy for them, if they are not then we will simply starve them out or arrest them. Arresting people at sea isn’t hard to do and we can jam their transmissions whilst we’re doing it so it’s not televised.

    You’re not a dirty Argie are you? Yeah we should think strategically,…..the Falklands has got oil…… the Scottish are running off with ours….better point the SSBN’s at targets other than Iran and Russia.

    bwaarp – stand easy, listen in. The British public don’t have to watch kill tv if they don’t want, and most don’t. I suspect that most civvies would be utterly appalled. However, footage of the boot necks or the boys from Hereford brassing up Argies will be on the 10 o’clock news, Fox, Sky, etc It’s not exactly the sort of publicity we need unless we want to join Israel, Syria and Iran on the list of pariah states. The Argentineans would love to provoke a tactical overreaction that will win them global sympathy, destroy the ‘special relationship’, and potentially lose the UK its seat on the P5. In fact, this is probably the most dangerous enemy COA. We need to pre-empt this and not fall into the trap.

    The UK has not exactly been able to use its overwhelming military superiority to achieve its foreign policy objectives in Iraq and Afghanistan. The war in 1982 clearly didn’t provide a permanent solution to this problem either. We can do the smart thing and find a political outcome by negotiating while occupying the moral and legal high ground. We can do the dumb thing – under estimate the enemy and have to use brute force – and do it all again in 30 years time.

    Premier Icon kimbers
    Subscriber

    can i just point out, again.

    that no ones found any real oil in the falklands yet and its far from a dead cert that anyone ever will

    Just a few points of information, contrary to suggestions made in this thread :

    “The real issue is the same issue as before, deflect attention away from domestic issues.”

    Cristina Kirchner is not concerned about poor approval ratings, she won a presidential election just a few weeks ago when she was the first choice of more than half of the electorate, she got more than three times the votes of her nearest rival. The sort of support which any British Prime Minister can only dream of. The reason for this huge support is quite clear – because of how well the Argentine economy has been preforming for many years. Last year it was the fastest growing economy in the world (along with China) at 9.2%. It is now slowing down – next year growth it is predicted at about 5%, which is a long way from recession and more than twice the growth which Britain enjoyed in the “booming” 1980s. Unemployment is still falling and is at its lowest rate for 20 years – now significantly lower than Britain’s.

    “The power of the UK Veto renders anything meaningful happening from an Argentine perspective.”

    Any UK veto at the UN does not help the UK’s position one iota – it weakens it. The purpose of the Security Council is to to provide immediate responses to international situations which a full General Assembly cannot not practicably deal with. Britain is in breach of UN General Assembly Resolutions and more seriously, in breach of the UN Charter with regards to decolonisation. Many Members States are unhappy that the former WW2 Allies should still have a right to sit as permanent members of the Security Council when countries such as Brazil, which has three times the population of Britain and is now a wealthier nation than Britain, has no such right. Eventually the status quo will change, the UK’s non-compliance is simply speeding up that process.

    “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?”

    Argentina has in recent years been heavily involved in military integration with Brazil and Chile. They regularly hold joint exercises in each others territories, and have their troops embedded in each others overseas peacekeeping operations. Furthermore many South Americans saw the Falklands War not just as a defeat for Argentina, but also as a defeat for themselves/South America.

    South American countries had to fight for their independence from European Colonial Powers – it wasn’t given to them. Not only that, but they had to help each other as allies in achieving that independence. South American countries need each other much more than they need Britain. As the Uruguayan President recently said, “We hold nothing against the UK, but we have a lot in favour of Argentina” And both Brazil and Chile, but probably particularly Brazil, needs Argentina.

    “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?”

    Although both Argentina and Brazil have long worked together on nuclear development, Argentina’s nuclear industry is much older and more established – they have built several power stations for other countries including Australia. The first Brazilian nuclear powered submarines will be launched in 2 or 3 years time – not in 2030.

    “Worryingly, they have spent a great deal of money on modernising and professionalising their armed forces.”

    Argentina spends very little on its military. IIRC Suriname is the only South American country to spend less of its GDP on defence than Argentina. Argentina is however actively rearming and reopening shipyards to build naval craft, it has also “professionalised” its armed forces since the abolition of conscription.

    “The country does not trust it’s military”

    It has gone beyond that – there is now no realistic chance of any possible military takeover in the future. And the same can probably be said of all South American counties. Northern bully boys no longer call the shots, and self-reliance and integration has helped to guarantee that – MERCOSUR has been instrumental in thwarting an attempted military coup in Paraguay. South America is now quite different to what it was 30 years ago. Lack of spending on the military in Argentina has probably more to do with deeply held resentment that for years the military helped themselves to the nation’s coffers – on both buying hardware and on themselves (military pensions haven’t kept up since the return to civilian rule).

    “To top it all off the Americans are in the process of signing a Billion dollar contract for some of the Falklands Oil. So what do you think would happen if they got caught in the crossfire? Every Brazilian and Argentine military base along the coast would have it’s furniture permanently rearranged by Tomahawk missiles.”

    There is no reasonable possibility of the United States ever going to war with Latin America. Quite apart from the Bay of Pigs fiasco the US struggles to deal with desperately weak Third World countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan. A couple of years back the Brazilian General Staff gave some thought to the issue of which were the most likely countries to ever attack Brazil. The conclusion that they came to was that the United States was the only country which they could realistically envisage attacking them. With that in mind they sent some high ranking officers to meet their counterparts in Vietnam with the purpose of learning more about jungle warfare – Brazil has a lot of jungle. The US would lose any war it fought in South America, and it’s not a scenario which the US would want to encourage – they are fully aware that both Argentina and Brazil are perfectly capable of developing nuclear weapons, should they feel constantly under threat from a nuclear armed country (although it’s worth pointing out that Argentina, unlike the UK, is staunchly committed to the Non-Proliferation Treaty)

    “The Argentines at best would only ever have 35-40 aircraft in a combat ready state, the Brazilian fighters would either need to fly from Argentine airbases (which intelligence would notice before hand), fly from the Argentine carrier (again intelligence would see that steaming towards the Falklands within no time)”

    Your intelligence is poor – Argentina no longer has an aircraft carrier. Argentina’s fleet arm pilots maintain their qualifications by regular exercises from Brazil’s carrier the Sao Paulo.

    Finally, there is no credible evidence that Argentina has any plans or any desire to attack the Falklands. Any suggestion that they have is probably more to do with the need of an unpopular UK government, which is pursuing unpopular domestic policies, to create some sort of distraction in the form of political posturing, and focusing on the fact that whilst life in the Britain might be a bit shitty right now, and going to be getting even shittier on the future, 3000 people, 8000 miles away, want to remain British. So just remember how lucky you are.

    What I suspect is possible however, is that Argentina might want to harass the extraction operations of any oil which might be found in the region. Specially if it requires the UK to have a naval presence which renders the oil extraction economically nonviable (and I doubt whether they’re bothered about upsetting the US government – they already do that regularly) Certainly they have been harassing shipping recently in the region with some effect. But I don’t know, I guess it’s a possibility, along with putting economic pressure on the Falklands.

    Well said , El Che!

    IvanDobski
    Member

    Ernie – can you please define both “lose” and “any war” with respect to a US/Brazil conflict?

    If the US wants to smash each and every Southern American state back to the mid 20th century within a week it has more than enough capability to do so. Granted it wouldn’t be popular but still, it could. Given the economic, military and cultural power of the US I doubt too many countries would do anything in the defence of Southern American states.

    I’ll acknowledge that a subsequent Iraq style invasion would probably then go badly, badly wrong but only in the same kind of “thousands of US troops die whilst the homeland remains relatively untouched and the invaded country gets utterly, utterly screwed over” kind of way as Iraq/Afghanistan did/is.

    There’s a world of difference between being able to completely smash a country, ruining it’s economy and removing it as a global player and being able to subsequently impose a democratic western style system government upon it afterwards, particularly if that country is used to totally different power structures. Being unable to do the latter does not in anyway prevent you from doing the former.

    The more developed a country is the more it has to lose. Think Afghanistan – when the western powers pull out not much will have changed (relatively) for the average bod on the street. If the US went to town on Brazil then the same could not be said for the average Brazilian.

    So no, the US would not “lose” any war with Brazil it would just win at various costs.

    If any global leaders are thinking that because of the troubles the US has had in Afghanistan and Iraq they’re suddenly unable to raze 99% of countries to the ground they’re sadly mistaken. Unwilling – possibly, unable – no.

    Ernie – can you please define both “lose” and “any war” with respect to a US/Brazil conflict?

    The US “wanted” to win the Vietnam War, they didn’t, they lost it……..and were humiliated in the process. The US would never win a war against Brazil.

    And remember, the only reason the US has not reused nuclear weapons, something which it has willingly done previously, has nothing to do with the sudden need to be nice, it has been simply because for over 60 years it hasn’t been the only country to have them – using them has not been an option.

    Willing – possibly, able – no.

    Edric 64
    Member

    We still have one Vulcan Bomber.Ok it`s old and a wreck but for one last hurrah cant we nuke Buenos Aires Dr Strangelove style?

    IvanDobski
    Member

    Yes they lost Vietnam, in so far as an expeditionary war was stopped and the US withdrew and drew a line under it. They could easily have said “balls to this”, leveled each and every village, sanctioned the hell out of any country which even looked at Vietnam and still be doing so now.

    Obvious differences with Brazil include it’s relative proximity, Brazil’s level of economic development dependent on a functioning infrastructure, the lack of a specific military backer and the lack of an obvious general political alternative to US style capitalism as per the capitalism/communism line in the sand of cold war tensions.

    Any Brazilian “victory” would be pyrrhic at best and leave it utterly **** whilst the US continued practically unabashed.

    And remember, the only reason the US hasn’t used nukes again is because it hasn’t had to. An obvious reason Brazil hasn’t is because it hasn’t got any.

    wrecker
    Member

    **** hell, that’s a lot of googling ernie

    mu3266
    Member

    Politics aside of it all I’ve got zero doubt in the USA’s ability to wage total war against another country. No hearts and minds, I’m referring to the complete destruction of another countries military (and possibly) civil infrastructure. Whether the US has the will to do such a thing is open to debate, their way, however, isnt.

    They could easily have said “balls to this”…..

    Erm, they did. Perhaps you haven’t heard of “Operation Rolling Thunder” – the carpet bombing of North Vietnam ? Or the defoliation of Vietnam with Agent Orange and napalm ?

    Bombing the crap out of a country and poisoning its land does not constitute “winning” a war, as the US discovered in Vietnam.

    But you sound rattled Ivan, I was going to remind you that it took the US military a week to gain full control of Grenada, when they invaded it in 1983, something which they were immensely proud of, despite the fact that Grenada is a tiny speck in the ocean with a population of just a few thousand, but perhaps I shouldn’t ?

    And remember, the only reason the US hasn’t used nukes again is because it hasn’t had to. An obvious reason Brazil hasn’t is because it hasn’t got any.

    Well actually the US “needed” to use nukes in Vietnam, or are you going to tell me that the US did in fact win the Vietnam war and without having to use nuclear weapons ?

    The only time the US has ever used nuclear weapons was in a war where it didn’t actually need to use nuclear weapons to win it.

    And no, the obvious reason why Brazil hasn’t used nuclear weapons is because using them has never been an option for them. Having nuclear weapons is an option for Brazil.

    IvanDobski
    Member

    I’m not ratted, I’m just amused that somebody can envisage a scenario in which Brazil beats the US in a military conflict.

    You specifically said the US could not win any war against Brazil, a statement which is demonstrably untrue.

    Well I think our differences lies in our definition of “winning”. You appear to believe that bombing the crap out of a country represents a winning a war, I don’t. And most people don’t. They see taking control of the country as “winning”. The US could never take control of Brazil in any meaningful way. It could never win a war against Brazil. Again, Vietnam proves the point.

    IvanDobski
    Member

    Ok then, if taking a country back to the stone age, removing it as a global power, leaving it ripe for a regional takeover and blockading any meaningful aid whilst sustaining almost zero casualties doesn’t count as winning can you hypothesise a Brazilian victory?

    Premier Icon aracer
    Member

    Well I think our differences lies in our definition of “winning”.

    In the context of:

    Every Brazilian and Argentine military base along the coast would have it’s furniture permanently rearranged by Tomahawk missiles.

    ie removing the ability of Brazil and Argentina to take offensive action against the Falklands, then your definition of winning being taking over a country is totally spurious. They have no need whatsoever to take over Brazil or Argentina to protect any interests they might have in the Falklands.

    IvanDobski
    Member

    No you’re wrong, if Ernie says they’ve lost then they’ve lost. Which will be a great comfort to the few remaining Brazilians if every aircraft they’ve ever built has been shot down, every ship bigger than a pedallo has been sunk and every town with a pop of greater than 20,000 has been nuked for a cost of ****-all.

    If you can’t imagine a scenario in which the US can beat Brazil then that’s down to a lack of imagination on your part, not lack of capability on theirs.

    Still, as there’s no yanks in (the glowing) Brazil then they’ve obviously won…

    Dust off the Vulcan, convert the concordes to drop bombs and stop buying corned beef.

    jota180
    Member

    Unless your enemy capitulates, you can’t claim to have won anything really
    The US couldn’t get the Vietcong to do so and simply gave up trying

    ‘War is the continuation of politics by other means.’. Almost all modern militaries teach their strategists that war is about using military force to achieve a political goal. Shortly after the Peace of Wesphalia in 1648, It became possible to defeat nation states in battle and to impose your terms on their rulers. If the people didn’t accept defeat, the LOAC made provision for dealing with them very harshly indeed. Just consider what happened to the Francs-tireurs in the Franco-Prussian war. Interestingly, the NAZIs often executed resistance fighters in occupied Europe in full accordance with the prevailing Laws of War.

    However, modern states are seldom the only actors involved in conflict. A government may be utterly defeated militarily, but the population may refuse to submit to the will of ‘victors’. So it was in Iraq and is in Afghanistan. The most serious challenge to hitech modern armed forces today is how to turn their overwhelming military superiority into meaningful, lasting political outcomes. After all, it’s easier to blow a mans brain out, that to change his mind.

    Premier Icon aracer
    Member

    Unless your enemy capitulates, you can’t claim to have won anything really
    The US couldn’t get the Vietcong to do so and simply gave up trying

    Can I just check who you (and ernie) think won the last Falklands war? That being a war against Argentina which didn’t end in the UK taking control of Argentina.

    So Argentina is on the brink of blocking the last remaining flight from Chile to the islands. And with the Argentine shipping ban, islanders have shortages of essential foodstuff such as vegetables and eggs.

    loum
    Member

    ‘War is the continuation of politics by other means.’. Almost all modern militaries teach their strategists that war is about using military force to achieve a political goal.

    Sometimes the political goal is war.

    wrecker
    Member

    islanders have shortages of essential foodstuff such as vegetables and eggs

    Is that an actual real fact?
    Did you make it up?

    Can I just check who you (and ernie) think won the last Falklands war? That being a war against Argentina which didn’t end in the UK taking control of Argentina.

    Which fits in very nicely into my definition of what it means to win a war, ie, it’s about taking control of a country in a meaningful way, not simply bombing the crap out of it.

    Thanks aracer, you’re a little sweetie 🙂

    .

    Btw, this thread is rapidly turning into a pedants wet dream……“you said…blah, blah, blah,….Yes, but what about this example….blah, blah, blah,” and so on.

    Everyone is fully aware what the other person means, so playing the simpleton is pointless.

    leaving it ripe for a regional takeover

    Do even know what you’re talking about ?

    I can hypothesise that any form of military action by the US against Brazil, as suggested by a previous contributor, is unthinkable. No such thing would ever happen. And not least because it would achieve nothing in favour of the US and in fact cause them a great deal of harm.

    Furthermore I can hypothesise – since you want to talk about what the US could do if it wanted to, that should the US ever, in a fantasy scenario, attack, invade, and attempt to win control of Brazil, it would fail in its aims. And I can guarantee that not only would the US be fighting Brazilians, but that if they persisted, then they would also potentially be fighting all Latin Americans – from Tierra del Fuego to the Texas border. And if they still wanted war, then it could quite easily be taken into the US cities. They would certainly never win the war. But that isn’t going to happen. So the best the US can do now is to be nice and not upset countries by ‘permanently rearranging their furniture with Tomahawk missiles’ as previously suggested.

    Washington can’t even rely on brutal military dictators to step in and do their bidding any longer. The US is far weaker than you seem to think – and getting weaker. The only crumb of comfort the US has, is in fantasising on what it “could do” if it “wanted to” in an unreal world.

    IvanDobski
    Member

    As is making sweeping and demonstrably untrue generalisations based on nothing more than your own particularly narrow definitions of “any war” and “winning”. Definitions which you only chose to clarify later. If you’d been more accurate in your original statement then there’d have been no grounds for disagreement.

    big_n_daft
    Member

    it intrigues me how a colony (Argentina) which broke it’s links with it’s former colonial power by force rails against a what it calls a “colony” offshore which wants nothing to do with them. They self determined, why can’t the islanders?

    and how do these independent “colonists” in Argentina behave to the indeginous population of the country they colonised?

    lets ask Amnesty International
    http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/AMR13/002/2011/en

    I’m sure the population will be reasured by all the promises the Argentinians are making to respect their human rights

    Premier Icon aracer
    Member

    Which fits in very nicely into my definition of what it means to win a war, ie, it’s about taking control of a country in a meaningful way, not simply bombing the crap out of it.

    Except the UK didn’t take control of Argentina, hence I presume you’re happy to accept that it’s possible to win a war with Brazil without taking control of Brazil?

    Btw, this thread is rapidly turning into a pedants wet dream

    Strangely enough, most of these threads seem to end up like that when you’re on them…

    OK, you want to carry on playing the simplton aracer – you know full well that I wouldn’t dispute that the US could take control of large chunks of Brazil, if it so wanted to. And yes, the UK was able to regain control of the Falklands and therefore won the war.

    But apparently you pretending to be daft is all my fault 🙄

Viewing 40 posts - 81 through 120 (of 134 total)

The topic ‘Are the Argies eyeing up The Falklands again?’ is closed to new replies.