Increasing Tension Between the UK and Argentina over the Falkland Islands
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Aaaaaaaargh!
Well actually, the range of the missiles were mentioned, so, we kinda were.
My comment "how can you possibly know that?" was aimed at Drewski and was a reply to his claim that he knows how many trained pilots Argentina has because he has three friends who were stationed on the Falklands for 6 months. i.e. Nothing to do with military equipment.
Original post by Chucklefiend
My comment "how can you possibly know that?" was aimed at Drewski and was a reply to his claim that he knows how many trained pilots Argentina has because he has three friends who were stationed on the Falklands for 6 months. i.e. Nothing to do with military equipment.
Well OK, even so, my comment still stands WRT intelligence services, they could find that out pretty easily. They may not even be involved, it may be common knowledge.
And you're downplaying what Drewski actually said. This stuff was his job.
Original post by Barden
Everyone seems to be forgetting that regardless of how capable or incapable our military is at present, we have powerful friends.
We do, but they're useless unless it is in Americas intrest. They never helped us last time, they are unlikely to help us in the future.
Lady questioned in article
"Sometimes, I'm afraid of saying it, I'm afraid of how people will react, but why are they Argentinian?"
And in a single use of parentheses, the who Argentinian argument is lost. If you question, in Britain, Britain's sovereignty, you aren't going to get beaten up or ignored in order to distract your attention from any notion of a valid argument. Hopefully this attitude will take off more.
Perhaps she is still ignorant, such as saying 'why do the British have a right to it? Surely they have the right to self-determination'. I mean Jesus, it's not like we're dragging them kicking and screaming in the United Kingdom. I thought that was the thing that bolstered British 'ownership' of the islands, because that was what they wanted.
The only thing that is remotely Argentinian is maybe the landscape that resembles barren Patagonia...
Great article btw - thanks for that
I give you the Falklands and the North West of Scotland (Sutherland)...
There was a long thread about this on here a few weeks ago with some of the military guys from TSR talking about it. Having read their views, and also cross referenced with some other stuff I found on the internet, the summary of how I understand it is:
- whilst it is true that the UK military has faced significant cuts, they still possess cutting edge military technology, so whilst our forces are small relative to others they can pack a massive punch
- the Argentinian military is a long way behind in terms of technology, they haven't moved forwards that much since 1982 whereas we are a long way ahead of the technology we had then (politically, because Argentina used to be ruled by military juntas like Galtieri's in '82, when they moved to democracy, the government always kept military spending low out of fear that the army would retake control....hence Argentina does not have much of a military)
- cuts to the Navy mean that retaking the Falklands would be more difficult if they actually fell, but the Falklands are now better defended than in 1982 and taking them in the first place would be difficult
- there are four Eurofighter Typhoon jets defending the Falklands which have such superiority over the Argentinian jets that they would be able to take out their entire air force without the Argentinians getting within firing/tracking range of the Typhoons. An air force commander quoted in the paper said that an air battle in the Falklands would be a 'turkey shoot' for Typhoon pilots
- without the ability to establish air superiority any invading ground forces would be dangerously exposed, as the defending ground forces could just call in air strikes onto them at will
- the Navy could send a submarine that would have the range to strike Argentinian mainland with Tomahawk cruise missiles, so if the Argentinians really did want to go to war with us, we could start destroying their military bases in their own country, and they would have no capability to respond at the UK
- there is a TA style territorial defence force of Falkland Islanders, trained by the British military, so even if the Argentinians did somehow manage to briefly take the Falklands, they would face local resistance that was professionally trained
In summary, the prospects of Argentina actually launching a military campaign and retaking the Falklands are remote, and to do so could be catastrophic for Argentina, as any attempted invasion could result in shocking losses to Argentina within the first few days, including the destruction of their entire air force.
So the tactics Argentina wants to employ is to build a general Latin American consensus against Britain over a long period of time, to make things awkward for the Falklands and make Britain feel that it's not a case of Britain v Argentina but Britain v Latin America. Although it might seem a long way off at the moment, if there was a genuine Latin American alliance against Britain, and it came down to military action, where the Brazilians, Venezuelans were fighting us as well then that would make things much more difficult.
However there are a lot of political consequences with that and it is a big step for the rest of Latin America to actually declare war on a nation like Britain, it might have been more credible if Latin America was being dominated by right wing military dictators as in the past, but their governments are generally run these days by socialists and trade unionists, although they regard the Falklands as an imperial occupation by the Brits, these types tend to oppose military action wherever it goes on. So it would be hard for Argentina to actually get them to sign up to fight.
- whilst it is true that the UK military has faced significant cuts, they still possess cutting edge military technology, so whilst our forces are small relative to others they can pack a massive punch
- the Argentinian military is a long way behind in terms of technology, they haven't moved forwards that much since 1982 whereas we are a long way ahead of the technology we had then (politically, because Argentina used to be ruled by military juntas like Galtieri's in '82, when they moved to democracy, the government always kept military spending low out of fear that the army would retake control....hence Argentina does not have much of a military)
- cuts to the Navy mean that retaking the Falklands would be more difficult if they actually fell, but the Falklands are now better defended than in 1982 and taking them in the first place would be difficult
- there are four Eurofighter Typhoon jets defending the Falklands which have such superiority over the Argentinian jets that they would be able to take out their entire air force without the Argentinians getting within firing/tracking range of the Typhoons. An air force commander quoted in the paper said that an air battle in the Falklands would be a 'turkey shoot' for Typhoon pilots
- without the ability to establish air superiority any invading ground forces would be dangerously exposed, as the defending ground forces could just call in air strikes onto them at will
- the Navy could send a submarine that would have the range to strike Argentinian mainland with Tomahawk cruise missiles, so if the Argentinians really did want to go to war with us, we could start destroying their military bases in their own country, and they would have no capability to respond at the UK
- there is a TA style territorial defence force of Falkland Islanders, trained by the British military, so even if the Argentinians did somehow manage to briefly take the Falklands, they would face local resistance that was professionally trained
In summary, the prospects of Argentina actually launching a military campaign and retaking the Falklands are remote, and to do so could be catastrophic for Argentina, as any attempted invasion could result in shocking losses to Argentina within the first few days, including the destruction of their entire air force.
So the tactics Argentina wants to employ is to build a general Latin American consensus against Britain over a long period of time, to make things awkward for the Falklands and make Britain feel that it's not a case of Britain v Argentina but Britain v Latin America. Although it might seem a long way off at the moment, if there was a genuine Latin American alliance against Britain, and it came down to military action, where the Brazilians, Venezuelans were fighting us as well then that would make things much more difficult.
However there are a lot of political consequences with that and it is a big step for the rest of Latin America to actually declare war on a nation like Britain, it might have been more credible if Latin America was being dominated by right wing military dictators as in the past, but their governments are generally run these days by socialists and trade unionists, although they regard the Falklands as an imperial occupation by the Brits, these types tend to oppose military action wherever it goes on. So it would be hard for Argentina to actually get them to sign up to fight.
Original post by the mezzil
We do, but they're useless unless it is in Americas intrest. They never helped us last time, they are unlikely to help us in the future.
Simply untrue.
Original post by the mezzil
We do, but they're useless unless it is in Americas intrest. They never helped us last time, they are unlikely to help us in the future.
I'm not so sure. It's not like we needed the help last time, so of course they did not. Surely if we actually needed help we'd get it, else what's the point of even being part of NATO etc?
Original post by Barden
I'm not so sure. It's not like we needed the help last time, so of course they did not. Surely if we actually needed help we'd get it, else what's the point of even being part of NATO etc?
Actually, the help they gave us last time - and they did give us help - proved vital in a few ways. Maybe we could have just about coped without, but it would have made our lives harder.
Using NATO would be a grey area for The Falklands. The first two words alone do make it a little awkward.
Original post by Chucklefiend
Says who? Britain is a declining power that's in the midst of a recession. Military spending cuts means the UK doesn't even have an aircraft carrier available anymore.
Edit:
So I dared to question the imperial military might of the British... 
Edit:
So I dared to question the imperial military might of the British... This post, along with your others in this thread, confirm that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
Our single hunter-killer sub alone could devastate any ship that Argentina operate, and a single typhoon could destroy those A-4's without blinking. The only inconvenience is that it would have to land and reload before it went and killed a few more.
Original post by Drewski
Actually, the help they gave us last time - and they did give us help - proved vital in a few ways. Maybe we could have just about coped without, but it would have made our lives harder.
Using NATO would be a grey area for The Falklands. The first two words alone do make it a little awkward.
Using NATO would be a grey area for The Falklands. The first two words alone do make it a little awkward.
But doesn't North Atlantic refer to the signatory nations, not the operational area? Considering its counter-part was the Warsaw Pact and so the operational area would have been the entire northern hemisphere lol.
Original post by Barden
But doesn't North Atlantic refer to the signatory nations, not the operational area? Considering its counter-part was the Warsaw Pact and so the operational area would have been the entire northern hemisphere lol.
Which still discounts the southern hemisphere
The argument is that it has nothing to do with the other countries within NATO. Admittedly, the argument is weakened by the Afghanistan action, which was instigated after a claim was made that "an attack on one is an attack on all".
Fact is, if Argentina attacked [which is extremely unlikely in the first place] then we'd have to assume noone is going to help in a man/firepower sense.
Original post by Drewski
Actually, the help they gave us last time - and they did give us help - proved vital in a few ways. Maybe we could have just about coped without, but it would have made our lives harder.
Using NATO would be a grey area for The Falklands. The first two words alone do make it a little awkward.
Using NATO would be a grey area for The Falklands. The first two words alone do make it a little awkward.
Dare I mention the word...
Oil? 
Original post by Mrkingpenguin
Dare I mention the word...
Oil?
Oil? i see what you did there
Original post by DdotT
i see what you did there
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9f9b8896-2cb4-11e1-aaf5-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1krVpLoxK
'dere be oil in those Islands
Original post by TableClock
This post, along with your others in this thread, confirm that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
Our single hunter-killer sub alone could devastate any ship that Argentina operate, and a single typhoon could destroy those A-4's without blinking. The only inconvenience is that it would have to land and reload before it went and killed a few more.
Our single hunter-killer sub alone could devastate any ship that Argentina operate, and a single typhoon could destroy those A-4's without blinking. The only inconvenience is that it would have to land and reload before it went and killed a few more.
While I've already made it perfectly clear that I'm fully aware of the Typhoon's vast superiority over the A4s, the notion that a single Typhoon could single handedly take out 34 of them is simply absurd.
Original post by Mrkingpenguin
'dere be oil in those Islands
Which is why the Argentinians are kicking up a fuss.
Original post by Chucklefiend
Again Argentina are not as defenseless in the air as some people seem to think.
They have 34 of these for a start:
A-4AR Fightinghawk (kindly provided by our American cousins). While they are obviously hugely technically inferior to typhoons, I think 34 versus 4 evens it up a bit.
They have 34 of these for a start:
A-4AR Fightinghawk (kindly provided by our American cousins). While they are obviously hugely technically inferior to typhoons, I think 34 versus 4 evens it up a bit.
The USA also gave them the one ship from WW2 that was never hit, the USS Phoenix. . . They renamed it the Belgrano. Look where that got them.
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by Chucklefiend
Again Argentina are not as defenseless in the air as some people seem to think.
They have 34 of these for a start:
A-4AR Fightinghawk (kindly provided by our American cousins). While they are obviously hugely technically inferior to typhoons, I think 34 versus 4 evens it up a bit.
They have 34 of these for a start:
A-4AR Fightinghawk (kindly provided by our American cousins). While they are obviously hugely technically inferior to typhoons, I think 34 versus 4 evens it up a bit.
That fighter looks realllly out of date, wouldn't be surprised if 4 could take out 34 of those! Anyway, as my previous comment states, don't think force is on the cards..maybe a referendum
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- How many countries have you been to?
- Name a country or city with the last letter of the previous one
- Can I continue to drive with my Indian license after provisional license?
- Geography 12marker edexcel plzzz someone mark it and give advice
- a level history - edexcel cold war coursework
- Can someone help me on this biology question?
- How many countries have you been to?
- AQA A Level Physics Paper 1 7408/1 - 26 May 2022 [Exam Chat]
- Aqa english literature gcse predictions?
- Edexcel A-Level Geography Paper 2 | [6th June 2023] Exam Chat
- Can someone please mark my 9 mark question for the 2023 Geography paper 3 exam?
- Unrequited love
- Rugby World Cup 2023 official discussion thread
- AQA English lit 24th May
- Achieving the Highest Growth in the G7 – Is it time to turbocharge our economy?
- Can someone please mark my 9 mark question for the 2023 Geography paper 3 exam?
- Geography Water Cycle
- 2020 - 5 wasted years, what could have been?
- we're all going to die, soon
- Is the UK prepared for WW3?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 5 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 5 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 5 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 5 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 5 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 5 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
