1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Falklands tensions a building

Discussion in 'Serious' started by eddie543, 18 Feb 2010.

  1. cjmUK

    cjmUK Old git.

    Joined:
    9 Feb 2004
    Posts:
    2,553
    Likes Received:
    88
    As I understand it, we posed as buyers and tried to buy up the world's stocks, but never got as far as actually buying any....
     
  2. Elton

    Elton Officially a Whisky Nerd

    Joined:
    23 Jan 2009
    Posts:
    8,575
    Likes Received:
    189
    The issue here is that Argentina isn't really in any shape to start claiming it, although their claims would naturally make sense since it is something profitable, but they'll be as effective in going through with that claim as the US is.
     
  3. bodkin

    bodkin Overheating

    Joined:
    8 Apr 2009
    Posts:
    1,392
    Likes Received:
    74
    It was never an appropriate weapon for a Navy as advance as ours. Far to unreliable and it had a habit of spraying burning rocket fule into ships rather than exploding causing horrific injures but not sinking the ship. Also with goalkeeper system become the norm it was no longer any use at all
     
  4. bigkingfun

    bigkingfun Tinkering addict

    Joined:
    27 Jul 2008
    Posts:
    987
    Likes Received:
    58
    Have you upgraded your submarines yet?
     
  5. bodkin

    bodkin Overheating

    Joined:
    8 Apr 2009
    Posts:
    1,392
    Likes Received:
    74
    ^lol, seen it before but it gets me everytime
     
  6. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,217
    Likes Received:
    1,660
  7. unknowngamer

    unknowngamer here

    Joined:
    3 Apr 2009
    Posts:
    1,200
    Likes Received:
    98
    We don't have the logisitics for the Falklands.

    The only air support would be ship based Harriers.
    While agile are in limited numbers and not the best dog fighter.
    And if they got thier SAM batteries up and running on the island an air assault would also fail.

    All it would take is one of the Argentine attack subs or mirages to sink the carrier and it's game over.

    Argentina could build an airbase 300 miles form the falklands.


    Without aircover an amphibious landing would be a masacre.


    We don't have the infrastructure to fight a war 6000 miles away. The nearest freindly ports or airfields would be South Africa or the US, and they are 4000 miles away.


    I don't think the UK could
    A) afford a war on another front
    B) Support a war on another front
    C) Support a war 6000 miles away with no local infrastructure.

    IMO.
    We could could not only loose the war.
    We could loose credability.
     
  8. pdf27

    pdf27 New Member

    Joined:
    6 Jul 2006
    Posts:
    169
    Likes Received:
    1
    So what? They've been comprehensively updated since the Falklands, while the Argentines are still using the very same aircraft.

    The best they have is Roland, and that was also the best they had last time. It didn't do them much good then either.

    Same as last time, only their submarines are even more obsolete this time - and they didn't achieve anything last time either. The RN had several major changes made based on experience in the Falklands - the ARA was unable to make any such changes.

    So what? Without air refuelling (which they are barely capable of) they can only barely reach the Falklands. A 600 mile round trip while carrying external stores is a hell of a long way for the aircraft they have.

    Since the Argentines won't have air cover for any potential invasion of the islands (their air force being heavily outclassed by the Eurofighters based there), you're undermining your own point here.
     
    Landy_Ed likes this.
  9. Landy_Ed

    Landy_Ed Combat Novice

    Joined:
    6 May 2009
    Posts:
    1,428
    Likes Received:
    39
    +1 pdf, you beat me to it.

    But how terrible a thought that we might "loose" (?) a war and worse (?) credibility if we don't stand by, do nothing, leave our contingent out there to rot along with the locals & wave goodbye to any resources out there.
     
  10. PureSilver

    PureSilver E-tailer Tailor

    Joined:
    16 Dec 2008
    Posts:
    3,152
    Likes Received:
    235
    What? No, we built a fast-jet capable airbase at Mount Pleasant just after the war. There are four Eurofighters there permanently and we can reinforce those within 24 hours with any number of UK-based squadrons. Hence, there's no carrier on station; we don't need one. Where are these SAM batteries coming from?

    What carrier? What submarines? The only submarine sinking of the last war (when they still used the same submarines) was our sinking of the Belgrano. We already have an airbase on the Falklands, and the Argentines still don't have an aircraft carrier so they're going to be in the same situation as last time - long trip in, virtually no loiter time over the islands, run for home. And your amphibious landing applies to them, not to us. We're already there. It's them that will have to make an amphibious landing because they don't have heavy-lift helicopters. And you're right, because they don't have fighters even remotely on the same level as the Typhoon they won't have air support and they'll be massacred. Why on Earth would we need to make an air assault? What would we make it from?! Your entire argument hinges on the Argentines completely overwhelming the defences of the Falklands before we can reinforce them. How are you proposing this happens?

    We're already fought two wars many thousands of miles away simultaneously this decade alone. And the Falkland ARE local infrastructure; you know, the 1,000 military personnel permanently stationed on the islands? The garrison? The naval task force in the area? We might not like it very much but we fought on two fronts for the best part of the last decade. Now we're only committed in one country we could do two fronts again, especially if one of them's barely the size of an Iraqi province rather than the entire country.

    This is just stupid scaremongering and it doesn't deserve headlines.
     
  11. bodkin

    bodkin Overheating

    Joined:
    8 Apr 2009
    Posts:
    1,392
    Likes Received:
    74
    What are you talking about. What about the Typhoons based at RAF Mount Pleasant?

    Plus we have a fleet of submarine pingers, all our aircraft can easily defeat there obsolete sam systems. Also it was exoset which was a threat to our ships, not subs.
     
  12. Mr Mario

    Mr Mario New Member

    Joined:
    4 Oct 2008
    Posts:
    472
    Likes Received:
    36
  13. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,217
    Likes Received:
    1,660
    Oh, lookie. Other Mercosur countries are officially backing up Argentina's claim. Who would have thunk? In military terms that may not mean much, but politically we're not just dealing with one country anymore.

    And in related news:
    Seems to me South America is deciding that gringos are trying to muscle in on their action a bit too much. This could be the prelude to a long and unpleasant mess.
     
  14. kingred

    kingred Surfacing sucks!

    Joined:
    27 Mar 2008
    Posts:
    2,462
    Likes Received:
    87
    Also a task force of marines left Portsmouth a week ago for the falklands.

    And they have been told there's no pornography on board so if the conflict kicks off they will be very pissed off.
     
  15. Guest-16

    Guest-16 Guest

    But surely having to run with balls the size of watermelons is not a good thing?
     
  16. cjmUK

    cjmUK Old git.

    Joined:
    9 Feb 2004
    Posts:
    2,553
    Likes Received:
    88
    Give me a break! They can't really say much else. We're dealing with one country which can sniff the sweet scent of oil.

    It carries as much weight as Portugal agreeing to Spain's claim to Gibraltar, the Norwegians agreeing to support Denmark's bid to buy back the Shetlands for 200Kg of gold. or Belgium agreeing that France has rights to the Channel Islands...
     
  17. MacWalka

    MacWalka New Member

    Joined:
    4 Nov 2009
    Posts:
    361
    Likes Received:
    10
    Exactly cjm. In issues of this sort, countries will normally side with their neighbours. However, this is all "in principle" essentially. If push came to shove, how many of those countries would back Argentina if it meant they would lose trade/aid etc from countries that back the UK? Not many I would expect.
     
  18. PureSilver

    PureSilver E-tailer Tailor

    Joined:
    16 Dec 2008
    Posts:
    3,152
    Likes Received:
    235
    ^The truth, this is. [/YODA]

    The facts are these;
    1. Argentina's in a bad way economically. The Government is looking for solutions both real and paper-tiger to console the populace and boost popularity.
    2. Las Malvinas are political band-aid to keep the people united against a common enemy and reelecting in the hope that the Government will magically retrieve the islands.
    3. Alternatively, given Argentina's poor economic health, a sudden oil boost could be really damn handy right about now.
    4. The old colonials are also backing Argentina, surfing a wave of renewed South American unity under President Chavez' banner rejection of the West's corrupting influence (in favour of devil-you-know President-for-life corrupting influence).
    5. This, collectively, changes absolutely nothing. All the banana republican armies in the Americas couldn't dislodge the UK from the Falklands in a politically expedient manner, if at all.
    6. They have little to threaten the UK with apart from withholding beef they can't afford not to sell to us.
    7. The rest of the Americas can't afford to lose lucrative contracts with the West by invading some islands on behalf of a broke nation that their own electorates probably don't give a **** about anyway.
    Sorry. But this just isn't going to be as big a problem as everyone's making out, unless there's so much oil down there that the UK will go in all guns blazing anyway.
     
  19. steveo_mcg

    steveo_mcg New Member

    Joined:
    26 May 2005
    Posts:
    5,841
    Likes Received:
    80
    Brazil might well agree in principle but i wonder what cost there principles if they were threatened with the loss of there biofuel contract with the EU?
     
  20. specofdust

    specofdust Banned

    Joined:
    26 Feb 2005
    Posts:
    9,568
    Likes Received:
    168
    I think it's important, partially in response to PureSilver, to point out that there quite possibly is ball-loads of oil down there. Predictions I've read are for around 60Bn barrells of oil in Falklands territorial waters alone. That's the same amount as Russia has, and they've pretty much been running their entire country off hydrocarbon money for the last 15 years or so.

    Of course the question is, how much of that is extractable for at an economically viable price. The last surveys done concluded that it wasn't worth the cost of extraction, however oil costs several times what it did then, so perhaps now almost all of it will be very much worth extracting. In which case, understandably since they seem to be too poor or too disorganised to actually do any drilling themselves, the argies are unhappy about. We're sticking our straws into their milkshake, in their mind.

    Of course they're wrong, and all the South American countries backing them up changes nothing. Argentina has no valid claim to the Falklands, nor the oil in it's sovereign waters, which we very kindly reduced by a quarter after we had to spend lots of money kicking their asses back in the first conflict. It does seem quite strange to me that Argentina appears to believe that if it pursues the route of diplomatic pressure it can retrieve the Falklands from the UK. It seems to be a case of "Well, we can't take them back by force, so we'll pressurise the UK into doing the right thing by "returning" the falklands to us. It's confusing, I just can't think where any rational people down there are getting the idea that Argentina has any sort of claim to the Falklands.
     

Share This Page