[united.spammers]

Obviously OP is brain damaged but nuclear weapons don't produce as much fallout as everybody seems to think. Remember all the nuclear weapon tests during the Cold War? The world has seen many hundreds more nuclear explosions that just the two at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

[2468_James_Maaay]

(Original post by united.spammers)
Obviously OP is brain damaged but nuclear weapons don't produce as much fallout as everybody seems to think. Remember all the nuclear weapon tests during the Cold War? The world has seen many hundreds more nuclear explosions that just the two at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Agreed, an isolated nuclear test in an uninhabited area is not likely to cause prolonged damage, but with a full scale nuclear attack (which is what OP suggests), the everlasting effects are caused by more than fallout. You need to remember all the crap that ends up in the atmosphere after a nuclear attack (soot, dust, smoke etc.) and what it can cause in the long term. I'm not saying that it would cause a nuclear winter, although it could be at a similar level, and bad enough to cause severe damage to the o zone layer.

[Mequa]

(Original post by 2468_James_Maaay)
Anyone who condones the use of nuclear weapons ought to see a shrink.

That seems to imply that sociopathy is curable. Something I am quite sceptical of.

[Mequa]

(Original post by 2468_James_Maaay)
I suggest you watch Threads (if you haven't already), a docu drama showing you that even just one bomb on Sheffield would cause horror beyond imagination. Watch it from start to finish, then you may have second thoughts. It's worth mentioning that the real effects of a nuclear war would most likely be even more catastrophic than this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MCbTvoNrAg

I second that recommendation. What an amazing film. Not for the faint-hearted though.

It's also available on *cough* TPB.

[MalleusMaleficarum]

Aside from the unpleasantries that they entail, there's no need for nuclear weapons - a nuclear submarine is equally capable of dropping a few cruise missiles with conventional warheads on, say, the Argentine seat of government when in session. It's stupid, and wrong, to kill civilians when it would be just as easy to simply blow up those responsible for starting the war.

The biggest advantage here is that we only have to quietly remind them of this capability, and then no one need ever die.

[Bornblue]

Yeah let's Nuke Argentina, killing millions of people. What a splendid idea. I can see no possible repercussions.

[Carter78]

Great. What a disproportionate response to a minimal threat...

[james22]

A more interesting question would be if the Argentinian's invaded the falklands and we said we would nuke them if they didn't leave within a certain period of time, and they didn't leave, would we then be able to nuke them?

The answer is still no, but I think this is a less one sided question.

[Andy Denyer]

OP plays Call of Duty too much, methinks.

[CurlyBen]

(Original post by james22)
A more interesting question would be if the Argentinian's invaded the falklands and we said we would nuke them if they didn't leave within a certain period of time, and they didn't leave, would we then be able to nuke them?

The answer is still no, but I think this is a less one sided question.

And the second shot could be for the other foot! As far as I can see making a threat like that would probably be more damaging to our international standing than actually deploying the weapon - not least because we'd probably have nukes levelled at us, and if all out war was avoided it would be almost inevitable that the international community would force our disarmament. "It's much easier to get forgiveness than permission!"

[DH-Biker]

(Original post by 122025278)
X

Although Britain's conventional force is, currently, underpowered, we would still give the Argentinian's a run for their money. They lack the firepower we have on the ground and at sea and to a lesser extent in the air. There's no need for a tactical nuclear strike, its completely unneccessary. Furthermore, as others have said, any nuclear strike today would be a final option, not a first strike option.

If the situation ever came to a war between us again, we'd send our Astute Submarine there with its warheads. They aren't nuclear and as a result can attack military instilations and limit the civilian, collateral damage.

We can land paratroopers and Royal Marines to capture strategic locations both close to the oceans and inland, supported by the AAC and RAF, the Argentinians don't possess the necessary nor remotely capable rapid response methods to counter it, at least not before the above can lock down the areas they capture and ensure their possession.

Britain isn't as powerful, today, militarily as it has been in the past. If anything, out of the major EU powers we're one of the weaker nations. France and Germany could, individually, take us on quite easily. We lack the necessary defenses to ensure the safety of our own country against modern military equipment that the Germans and French possess, the defenses that are in place we have in such short supply it would make little difference. The Challenger II tank is one of if not the greatest main battle tank in operations globally. However, it means little given the number of them we have. In World War II, the Tiger and its larger, rarer cousin the King Tiger were the most feared military machines on the planet, but it made little difference given the Allies and Russians had the Sherman and T-34 in such numbers they simply couldn't compete. It would be the same situation in Britiain, the Le Clerc is not nearly as apt as the Challenger but they have more. Simple as.

The situation would be different in a war with Argentina, however, which simply doesn't possess military equipment as up-to-date. As such, we could take them in a conventional war, even though the cost would be high. It wouldn't be a situation, though, that would require the use of a tactical nuclear warhead, nor a MEM system. That's neither practical nor justifiable, the cost in civilian casulties would be astronomical and the amount of international outcry that Britain would recieve could well lead to an all out attack on Britain.

[CurlyBen]

(Original post by DH-Biker)
Although Britain's conventional force is, currently, underpowered, we would still give the Argentinian's a run for their money. They lack the firepower we have on the ground and at sea and to a lesser extent in the air. There's no need for a tactical nuclear strike, its completely unneccessary. Furthermore, as others have said, any nuclear strike today would be a final option, not a first strike option.

If the situation ever came to a war between us again, we'd send our Astute Submarine there with its warheads. They aren't nuclear and as a result can attack military instilations and limit the civilian, collateral damage.

We can land paratroopers and Royal Marines to capture strategic locations both close to the oceans and inland, supported by the AAC and RAF, the Argentinians don't possess the necessary nor remotely capable rapid response methods to counter it, at least not before the above can lock down the areas they capture and ensure their possession.

Britain isn't as powerful, today, militarily as it has been in the past. If anything, out of the major EU powers we're one of the weaker nations. France and Germany could, individually, take us on quite easily. We lack the necessary defenses to ensure the safety of our own country against modern military equipment that the Germans and French possess, the defenses that are in place we have in such short supply it would make little difference. The Challenger II tank is one of if not the greatest main battle tank in operations globally. However, it means little given the number of them we have. In World War II, the Tiger and its larger, rarer cousin the King Tiger were the most feared military machines on the planet, but it made little difference given the Allies and Russians had the Sherman and T-34 in such numbers they simply couldn't compete. It would be the same situation in Britiain, the Le Clerc is not nearly as apt as the Challenger but they have more. Simple as.

The situation would be different in a war with Argentina, however, which simply doesn't possess military equipment as up-to-date. As such, we could take them in a conventional war, even though the cost would be high. It wouldn't be a situation, though, that would require the use of a tactical nuclear warhead, nor a MEM system. That's neither practical nor justifiable, the cost in civilian casulties would be astronomical and the amount of international outcry that Britain would recieve could well lead to an all out attack on Britain.

While I agree with a lot of what you say, we're reducing armour numbers as it's relevance to modern warfare is ever diminishing, particularly between advanced countries. A couple of Apaches could wipe out an armoured squadron without ever being seen. Also where have you got your numbers from? A quick google suggests we have 408 Chally IIs to France's 406 Leclercs. I'd also say we're still probably the strongest military in the EU, although it is spread more thinly than others are.

[DH-Biker]

(Original post by CurlyBen)
While I agree with a lot of what you say, we're reducing armour numbers as it's relevance to modern warfare is ever diminishing, particularly between advanced countries. A couple of Apaches could wipe out an armoured squadron without ever being seen. Also where have you got your numbers from? A quick google suggests we have 408 Chally IIs to France's 406 Leclercs. I'd also say we're still probably the strongest military in the EU, although it is spread more thinly than others are.

Ahh, but Armour still represents the strongest form of ground warfare, whilst its weak against airborne attack or even an infantryman with an anti-armour weapon, a main battle tank still poses a potent tactical tool. In the almost certain event of a Third World War, Tanks will once again come into their own. Most armour in Europe and America today was designed for wars in central Europe between the Russians and Americans, and whoever else sided with which nation. It is still advanced upon, however, and we haven't seen the end of the tank yet, nor much of the armoured vehicles we utilise on the modern battlefield today. They just haven't had a chance to fully come into their own yet, all they've really had a chance to attack are the Taliban in caves, mountains or buildings with RPGs, they aren't really designed for that purpose, they are dedicated hunters of other armour and for putting rounds through buildings and fortifications, little else.

My Brother is in the AAC and he's told me before about how effective modern military helicopters are at taking on armour. As you say, an AH-64 can hover behind a treeline ten miles away from several tanks and fire missiles that will guide to each one, and all it takes is several seconds above the trees to fire. It doesn't limit Armour's effectiveness, though, and a tank will still hold an impressive shock factor for any infantry around. Not to mention they are extremely effective at holding an area, even more so if the crews and / or engineers have had time to erect defenses for them such as firing pens, etc.

406? Ahh, apologies, last time I saw a source the number of Leclercs was nearly twice as many as that. If my source was incorrect, I stand corrected. Still, the point still has an air of truth; whilst the Challenger is again one of if not the greatest MBT on the planet, if it runs into a squadron of Leclercs it stands little chance, even with its impressive main gun and target acquisition systems. Its Choblam Armour is perhaps the greatest combat protection yet concieved and stories are in circulation of it sustaining nigh on a hundred RPG-7 projectiles and still protecting the crew inside, but it does have weaknesses and concentrated fire will knock holes through it.

I would disagree with your last point, however. I would wager Germany would now be able to take us quite efficiently, though I do agree France would have a harder time. I think Germany would quite easily have us on the ropes, though. Against larger forces such as the Russians, we'd be overrun within hours, there is no way we can match their logisistics. They can land tanks and infantry here by the hundreds and thousands respectively very efficiently with their Antanov A-225 aircraft. They can easily begin mass production of those and given each one has a cargo capacity of over 48,000sqft, you think how many infantry they could pack into that and how quickly they could deploy them.

Still, this thread is about Argentina and the point still stands that we wouldn't have to resort to nuclear arms to defeat them, we could easily achieve it with convnetional means and a tactical strike would be the absolute final option if all else failed.

[CurlyBen]

(Original post by DH-Biker)
Ahh, but Armour still represents the strongest form of ground warfare, whilst its weak against airborne attack or even an infantryman with an anti-armour weapon, a main battle tank still poses a potent tactical tool. In the almost certain event of a Third World War, Tanks will once again come into their own. Most armour in Europe and America today was designed for wars in central Europe between the Russians and Americans, and whoever else sided with which nation. It is still advanced upon, however, and we haven't seen the end of the tank yet, nor much of the armoured vehicles we utilise on the modern battlefield today. They just haven't had a chance to fully come into their own yet, all they've really had a chance to attack are the Taliban in caves, mountains or buildings with RPGs, they aren't really designed for that purpose, they are dedicated hunters of other armour and for putting rounds through buildings and fortifications, little else.

My Brother is in the AAC and he's told me before about how effective modern military helicopters are at taking on armour. As you say, an AH-64 can hover behind a treeline ten miles away from several tanks and fire missiles that will guide to each one, and all it takes is several seconds above the trees to fire. It doesn't limit Armour's effectiveness, though, and a tank will still hold an impressive shock factor for any infantry around. Not to mention they are extremely effective at holding an area, even more so if the crews and / or engineers have had time to erect defenses for them such as firing pens, etc.

406? Ahh, apologies, last time I saw a source the number of Leclercs was nearly twice as many as that. If my source was incorrect, I stand corrected. Still, the point still has an air of truth; whilst the Challenger is again one of if not the greatest MBT on the planet, if it runs into a squadron of Leclercs it stands little chance, even with its impressive main gun and target acquisition systems. Its Choblam Armour is perhaps the greatest combat protection yet concieved and stories are in circulation of it sustaining nigh on a hundred RPG-7 projectiles and still protecting the crew inside, but it does have weaknesses and concentrated fire will knock holes through it.

I would disagree with your last point, however. I would wager Germany would now be able to take us quite efficiently, though I do agree France would have a harder time. I think Germany would quite easily have us on the ropes, though. Against larger forces such as the Russians, we'd be overrun within hours, there is no way we can match their logisistics. They can land tanks and infantry here by the hundreds and thousands respectively very efficiently with their Antanov A-225 aircraft. They can easily begin mass production of those and given each one has a cargo capacity of over 48,000sqft, you think how many infantry they could pack into that and how quickly they could deploy them.

Still, this thread is about Argentina and the point still stands that we wouldn't have to resort to nuclear arms to defeat them, we could easily achieve it with convnetional means and a tactical strike would be the absolute final option if all else failed.

To an extent it depends on how you envisage a modern war unfolding really - I would expect surgical strikes against key targets, and then the fight for air superiority (complicated of course by the enormous leaps in ground and sea based anti-air systems). An-225s are doubtless an extraordinary aircraft, but useless without large landing strips (paratroops excepted, though I'm not sure whether they're used in that role). I don't disagree with you with regards to modern tank technology, but personally I wouldn't envisage large scale ground conflict as the next major conflict. Must get round to having a look at the SDSR to see what the official position is!

If I remember the AH-64/Hellfire RF combination has an even neater party trick - hovering behind a hill top or similar, sticking the Longbow radar just above the obstruction (and being at the top of the aircraft helps there) and launching a Hellfire in 'pop up' mode, so it launches, climbs, then acquires the target. Nothing more than the radar of the helo need ever be exposed!

They have built something like 800 Leclercs, but the French have sold about half of them whereas we've sold very few Challys. The numbers I gave are only the delivered stats from Wikipedia so by no means gospel!

I'd still disagree, the Germans have some good kit but their military isn't really set up for expeditionary warfare. Of course our big advantage is the Channel, in that ground security is probably the least easy to achieve. There's no doubt the Russians could squash us - but then what's the likelihood of a war solely involving the UK and Russia? Not high, I would say!

Anyway, that's definitely off-topic - we can definitely squash bolshy Argies with conventional means if it came down to it

[Kiss]

We can but it doesn't mean we should. Though the Argies need their arse's kicked and fast for their disrepect and whiney bitching.

[DarkArt]

Any conflict over the Falklands would be over before it's begun these days.

The garrison on the Falklands is much larger, the Eurofighter is much more capable than the aircraft the Argentineans are still flying (still Skyhawks from the last conflict) and Argentina doesn't really have the money to launch a full scale military invasion these days anyway. The sabre rattling is only going on because it's makes whatever-her-name-is seem a strong leader for a country that has a failing economy and high levels of poverty. Kick starting nationalism over historic terroritories is a sign of desperate tinpot dictators.

Should we actually end up with rounds flying, nukes? No. Just a few TLAMs into EVERY single important industrial/economic/military centre would pretty soon make them crumble without the huge loss of life, without the risk of retaliation and all from the middle of nowhere in the the South Atlantic.

[Carter78]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18412195 (Referendum to be held by the Falkland Islands government next year)

Bold move by the Falklanders......how will this go down in Buenos Aries?

[Cannotbelieveit]

We would only nuke someone if we ourselves were nuked first, or if the United Kingdom depended on it to survive.

[Psyk]

(Original post by Carter78)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18412195 (Referendum to be held by the Falkland Islands government next year)

Bold move by the Falklanders......how will this go down in Buenos Aries?

They'll ignore it and keep on moaning.