Seems that things are hotting up in the Falklands.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1346094/Brazil-sides-Argentina-Britain-Falklands-warship-turned-away-Rio.html The Brazilians are re-affirming their support for the Argentine cause, and today's National Security Council meeting was entirely on the matter of the Falkland Isles (they most often dicuss multiple matters).
Britain is currently lacking an aircraft carrier, but with two large carriers on the way Argentina's best chance would be to strike sooner rather than later.
British navy at present is still pretty effective, with a few of the higher tech type 45 destroyers and missiles. Argentinia's navy is considerably smaller, though they'd be able to lauch sorties from the mainland in a conflict.
Do people think a conflict in the near future is likely?
I don't doubt that Argentina is AGITATING for conflict, but most likely in hopes the UK government will back away from a fight. Had they been more of a threat 2 years ago perhaps Cameron would not have castrated the Navy's Fleet Air Arm. Is irony the word I'm looking for here? The Falklands saved Invincible and Ark Royal from scrapping and now 20 years later Ark Royal is decommissioned fresh off a refit and the GR7s go into storage...
If a conflict really does happen we'll finally see if Ocean can in fact deploy Harriers for combat duty, assuming anyone remembers how to fly them anymore. Most likely if tensions increase the RN presence will grow larger and the RAF will ferry more aircraft in.
I would be most interested to see if Britain would call on her allies to assist in defending the Falklands, I doubt it, but it would be interesting to say the least to see the response by say the US for a call for help. It would seem politically that we owe them at least one for Iraq, and possibly two for dragging NATO into Afghanistan, I checked on my map: it's nowhere near the North Atlantic.
I really hope not. The last one was a waste of lives, all over a tiny little island (although of course by extension the natural resources lying around it, which is the real reason for the conflict).
The problem is of course that the current President of Argentina apparently made an election pledge that he will take control of the territory, which is probably responsible for the angry rhetoric flaring up again.
The UK armed forces are considerably smaller than they were 30 years ago, a conflict which I believe we only just had enough manpower and weaponry for last time.
Not having a carrier force I would think would probably make the defence of the islands impractical in any case.
And Europe is hardly likely to give any support either, considering Cameron seems to have given a big 'F*** you' to Europe at any given opportunity, for no real reason at all other than just to be obstinate.
TBH I would rather see the UK move the couple of thousand, or however many people, away from the island than have a loss of life (on both sides) like the last time. If we had an island that close to the UK owned by Argentina or some other random country thousands of miles away we would be crying blue murder at our politicians to do something about it.
They can feth off. A claim for islands they have no justification for trying to claim, other than they want the resources there, because they landed on it for a few months what one hundead and eighty years ago? before we sailed over and kicked them off territoty that was already ours.
A local population who have been there for a long time, that want nothing to do them and are happy being British, and to top it off, the thought of letting them profit after trying to snatch it away thirty years ago.
I have issues over certain wars we have taken part in over the years, but never that one, and seriously I'd fully support us going up against them again if they try and pull any rubbish.
Saying all that mind, I don't think they have a stomach for a real fight, its just saber ratling, hoping we'll suddenly back down and give them the islands.
** please note - I can't remember the dates so my 180yrs might be way out. Just know that we where awarded the territory, didn't really have a setltlement, they tried to nab, we kicked them off and have had British citizens there ever since.
Just no...
At least other countries try to come up with legitimate reasons to invade people...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:They can feth off. A claim for islands they have no justification for trying to claim, other than they want the resources there, because they landed on it for a few months what one hundead and eighty years ago? before we sailed over and kicked them off territoty that was already ours.
A local population who have been there for a long time, that want nothing to do them and are happy being British, and to top it off, the thought of letting them profit after trying to snatch it away thirty years ago.
I have issues over certain wars we have taken part in over the years, but never that one, and seriously I'd fully support us going up against them again if they try and pull any rubbish.
Saying all that mind, I don't think they have a stomach for a real fight, its just saber ratling, hoping we'll suddenly back down and give them the islands.
Why the hell do they really want the falklands though?
So the Argentinian President gets re-elected.
It's likely that if he's successful and manages to take the Falklands from the UK, he'll just move on to something else like a toddler that's bored of a certain toy.
I wouldn't mind if the Falklands wanted to be brought under Argentinian rule, something could probably be sorted out in that circumstance, but the Falklanders seem happy as they are, and Argentina is just throwing a hissy fit.
Pacific wrote:I really hope not. The last one was a waste of lives, all over a tiny little island (although of course by extension the natural resources lying around it, which is the real reason for the conflict).
The problem is of course that the current President of Argentina apparently made an election pledge that he will take control of the territory, which is probably responsible for the angry rhetoric flaring up again.
It's about national pride. No one knew there was oil there 30 years ago, it was just a rock in the Atlantic with the Union Flag on it.
Pacific wrote:
The UK armed forces are considerably smaller than they were 30 years ago, a conflict which I believe we only just had enough manpower and weaponry for last time.
Not having a carrier force I would think would probably make the defence of the islands impractical in any case.
And Europe is hardly likely to give any support either, considering Cameron seems to have given a big 'F*** you' to Europe at any given opportunity, for no real reason at all other than just to be obstinate.
The UK armed forces are much stronger than they used to be, in particular our naval capacity. We are still the second largest navy in the world, far more powerful than the Argintinian.
The rest of Europe probably wouldn't mind much. The French couldn't object since they have overseas territories of their own, and they'll all be preocupied with the sovreign debt crisis as it is.
The US would give diplomatic support and maybe airbases but there'd be no actual US servicemen on the ground.
Pacific wrote:
TBH I would rather see the UK move the couple of thousand, or however many people, away from the island than have a loss of life (on both sides) like the last time. If we had an island that close to the UK owned by Argentina or some other random country thousands of miles away we would be crying blue murder at our politicians to do something about it.
True. But the UK is more powerful than Argentinia so we have the right to those islands.
Why the hell do they really want the falklands though?
So the Argentinian President gets re-elected.
It's likely that if he's successful and manages to take the Falklands from the UK, he'll just move on to something else like a toddler that's bored of a certain toy.
I wouldn't mind if the Falklands wanted to be brought under Argentinian rule, something could probably be sorted out in that circumstance, but the Falklanders seem happy as they are, and Argentina is just throwing a hissy fit.
Why the hell do they really want the falklands though?
So the Argentinian President gets re-elected.
It's likely that if he's successful and manages to take the Falklands from the UK, he'll just move on to something else like a toddler that's bored of a certain toy.
I wouldn't mind if the Falklands wanted to be brought under Argentinian rule, something could probably be sorted out in that circumstance, but the Falklanders seem happy as they are, and Argentina is just throwing a hissy fit.
I think you mean she.
After closer examination, I do believe that I was not mistaken in my original description.
AustonT wrote:The real problem Ketara is that no aviators are rated to fly ONTO her.
Expansion on this please?
Neither the RAF or RN has flown Harriers since 2010 which means even of those pilots are still in uniform they are out of currency. Flying a plane requires a great many perishable skills that degrade quickly, asking pilots not just to get back in the cockpit but land on the pitching deck of a carrier requires time.
DeadlySquirrel wrote:Haven't we officially spread our nuclear umbrella over the Falklands?
AFAIK a great deal of our nukes are based on submarines... so yeah i guess so...
Would be rather extreme to use one though... not like Argentina can retaliate though...
Mineral rights and the UK wanting to preserve it's ability and standing to defend any oversea's interests make defending the Falklands worth it. But without a way to protect it's Navy and troop ships from aerial attack, any expedition to retake the islands would be very risky.
If the US stood by it's British ally by maybe sending a carrier to cover landings by the Royal Marines and/or to help enforce a blockade (both maritime and in the air), then Argentina would be screwed. But Obama is loathe to piss off any Western Hemisphere country at the moment and certainly has not been very nice to our "friends".
Joey wrote:Seems that things are hotting up in the Falklands.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1346094/Brazil-sides-Argentina-Britain-Falklands-warship-turned-away-Rio.html The Brazilians are re-affirming their support for the Argentine cause, and today's National Security Council meeting was entirely on the matter of the Falkland Isles (they most often dicuss multiple matters).
Britain is currently lacking an aircraft carrier, but with two large carriers on the way Argentina's best chance would be to strike sooner rather than later.
British navy at present is still pretty effective, with a few of the higher tech type 45 destroyers and missiles. Argentinia's navy is considerably smaller, though they'd be able to lauch sorties from the mainland in a conflict.
Do people think a conflict in the near future is likely?
Pro tip, Brazil's economy is bigger than yours. In an all out fight, you will be beaten. Badly. It aint the 80s any more.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote:Why does Argentina even want the Falklands? There's NOTHING there! At least when Iraq invades a giant sandbox there was oil around XD
Oil. Worth killing for.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AustonT wrote:Wouldn't you have to borrow them from New Zealand?
Even Imperial Japan didn't feth with New Zealand. Even samurai can't handle killer attack sheep by the millions.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Why is this even an issue? Just liquor up Matty (ok that might require the full Scotch production of the world for the next nine months), give him a swiss army knife, and a letter from the Queen stating "Matty, I need you to kick some ass, pretty please."
If we actually have any true respect for democracy then this isn't even up for debate.
The inhabitants WANT to remain British. Case closed.
If we have a war ill join back up to machine gun some Argie conscripts. I will gleefully hose them down with my GPMG and a hearty dose of rage and hate. Then ill swim over to Buenos Aires and off that fat midget Maradonna for bonus points.
Frazzled wrote:Pro tip, Brazil's economy is bigger than yours. In an all out fight, you will be beaten. Badly. It aint the 80s any more.
Protip - you're wrong. By nominal GDP Britain is larger than Brazil by about 10%, but PPP it's a tick under 1%. Not that any of that matters, because armies aren't fought by economies but the people in them. If you look at defence expenditures, then Britain almost doubles the Brazilians.
Frazzled wrote:
Why is this even an issue? Just liquor up Matty (ok that might require the full Scotch production of the world for the next nine months), give him a swiss army knife, and a letter from the Queen stating "Matty, I need you to kick some ass, pretty please."
Problem solved.
If we got her to seal the letter with a kiss, some pink lipstick maybe, we wouldn't even need to give him a knife!
But really, if the people of the Falklands want to be British, and the UK claims them. Argentina can cram it?
Tory Government cuts defense spending (Thatcher stopped Naval patrols around the Falklands) and Argentina starts it's sabre waggling.
Add to this the fact that Oil has been found and we get a lovely mix.
Brazil may well stand by Argentina in the hope of some cheap oil out of the deal.
The U.S. would obviously have no interest in a war fought over oil or pipelines.
We need to station a squadron or two of the RAF at Port Stanley because Mr. Myopic is determined to cut the gonads off Britains ability to project power abroad; or maybe he is looking for the election winner that is a Falklands conflict.
It's a shame some kind of compromise can't be reached.
The problem is, look at where the Falklands is on a map:
Even if you are arguing that the inhabitants of the island have a right to their own choice of government (which I agree with), I can imagine the reaction now if the Argentinians started drilling in areas around the UK and taking the fossil fuel wealth. Actually, we could just sell it to them I suppose, like we did with our North Sea oil to the Koreans.. Although apparently a Conservative MP tried to arrange selling the Falklands some years ago, but the press picked up on it and there was an outcry which ended with him resigning.
Sorry I was wrong about relative military forces, the UK's is still much bigger than the Argentinian's despite the cuts over the last 30 years. But, again if it comes to bloodshed then again our politicians have failed in their task IMO, in not being to negotiate anything over what is essentially a barren poke-hole.
International law defines national sea boundaries and rights to the underlying seabed and resources.
While on the large scale map the Falklands look close to South America, they are actually 250 nautical miles away and well outside Argentina's area of exclusive economic interest which extends 200 miles.
The Argentinians therefore have no claim on the Falklands or the immediate area of possible resources. Obviously there is an overlap between the zones of the Falklands and Argentina. This would have to be resolved by negotiation and treaty.
Conversely the oil bearing areas in the North Sea are all within the 200 nm limit of the surrounding nations such as the UK and Norway. It would be illegal for Argentinians to pitch up and start drilling without permission.
The historical claim of the UK to sovereignty over the Falklands is clear and solid. It is also backed by post-WW2 treaties on the right to self-determination.
If the islands are sitting on rich natural resources, perhaps they are worth fighting for.
Frazzled wrote:Pro tip, Brazil's economy is bigger than yours. In an all out fight, you will be beaten. Badly. It aint the 80s any more.
Protip - you're wrong. By nominal GDP Britain is larger than Brazil by about 10%, but PPP it's a tick under 1%. Not that any of that matters, because armies aren't fought by economies but the people in them. If you look at defence expenditures, then Britain almost doubles the Brazilians.
Err... ...guys we are talking about ARGENTINA not Brazil.
If Brazil steps in along side Argentina in an all out conflict they would set a very bad precedent that would drag other nations in as well.
All Brazil has done is refuse one warship permission to dock. This could be for any number of reasons that no-one will talk about; it could just be a diplomatic snub for some petty business deal gone wrong; Prince whoever may have pinched the backside of ambassador's wife...
I would like to just to raise the small point that THE DAILY MAIL IS NOT AN UNBIASED COMMENTATOR it is a bile ridden tiolet wragg of a paper with dubious sources and a vested interest in making people angry.
Tory Government cuts defense spending (Thatcher stopped Naval patrols around the Falklands) and Argentina starts it's sabre waggling.
Oh what a surprise, lefties using ANY news story as a stick to beat the Tories with. The Argentinians were making similar noises when we were under a Labour government.
Add to this the fact that Oil has been found and we get a lovely mix.
Old news.
Brazil may well stand by Argentina in the hope of some cheap oil out of the deal.
No, Brazil won't declare war on one of the world's most powerful nations. They value their status as a rising economic power too much.
The U.S. would obviously have no interest in a war fought over oil or pipelines.
I'm sure you think that's fairly witty.
We need to station a squadron or two of the RAF at Port Stanley because Mr. Myopic is determined to cut the gonads off Britains ability to project power abroad; or maybe he is looking for the election winner that is a Falklands conflict.
Frazzled wrote:Pro tip, Brazil's economy is bigger than yours. In an all out fight, you will be beaten. Badly. It aint the 80s any more.
Protip - you're wrong. By nominal GDP Britain is larger than Brazil by about 10%, but PPP it's a tick under 1%. Not that any of that matters, because armies aren't fought by economies but the people in them. If you look at defence expenditures, then Britain almost doubles the Brazilians.
Err... ...guys we are talking about ARGENTINA not Brazil.
If Brazil steps in along side Argentina in an all out conflict they would set a very bad precedent that would drag other nations in as well.
All Brazil has done is refuse one warship permission to dock. This could be for any number of reasons that no-one will talk about; it could just be a diplomatic snub for some petty business deal gone wrong; Prince whoever may have pinched the backside of ambassador's wife...
I would like to just to raise the small point that THE DAILY MAIL IS NOT AN UNBIASED COMMENTATOR it is a bile ridden tiolet rag of a paper with dubious sources and a vested interest in making people angry.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Albatross wrote:
Sonophos wrote:Oh what a surprise.
Tory Government cuts defense spending (Thatcher stopped Naval patrols around the Falklands) and Argentina starts it's sabre waggling.
Oh what a surprise, lefties using ANY news story as a stick to beat the Tories with. The Argentinians were making similar noises when we were under a Labour government.
Add to this the fact that Oil has been found and we get a lovely mix.
Old news.
Brazil may well stand by Argentina in the hope of some cheap oil out of the deal.
No, Brazil won't declare war on one of the world's most powerful nations. They value their status as a rising economic power too much.
The U.S. would obviously have no interest in a war fought over oil or pipelines.
I'm sure you think that's fairly witty.
We need to station a squadron or two of the RAF at Port Stanley because Mr. Myopic is determined to cut the gonads off Britains ability to project power abroad; or maybe he is looking for the election winner that is a Falklands conflict.
Read more. That is all.
You know you can be very patronising when you want to Albatross.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Yes I err towards the leftwing but probably not as far as you think. I remember Thatcher. I remember very well indeed. I remember the desolation that was Manchester (where you live) from my frequent visits from the rich south. I remember the news reporting practically every job gained and lost. I remember North sea oil being sold on the cheap. I remember privitisation of things that had no business being private, in fact I remember every time my bills come in. I remember every time we have to turn away a family in distress because we don't have any social housing. I remember the loss of manufacturing that is only now being bemoaned by politicians.
Please feel free to dispute the points I make but please refrain from actual personal attacks.
AustonT wrote:The real problem Ketara is that no aviators are rated to fly ONTO her.
Not really a problem as we have a sodding great RAF base on the Falklands. Don't really think we need a carrier this time around. Easier to repair holes in tarmac than in the side of a ship that's in the middle of the Atlantic.
AustonT wrote:The real problem Ketara is that no aviators are rated to fly ONTO her.
Not really a problem as we have a sodding great RAF base on the Falklands. Don't really think we need a carrier this time around. Easier to repair holes in tarmac than in the side of a ship that's in the middle of the Atlantic.
When one is answering a post about an aircraft carrier, one generally talks about the aircraft carrier instead of the island.
AustonT wrote:The real problem Ketara is that no aviators are rated to fly ONTO her.
Not really a problem as we have a sodding great RAF base on the Falklands. Don't really think we need a carrier this time around. Easier to repair holes in tarmac than in the side of a ship that's in the middle of the Atlantic.
When one is answering a post about an aircraft carrier, one generally talks about the aircraft carrier instead of the island.
Your post may be correct, but I was just pointing out that it's a moot point concerning the Falklands as they have a RAF base there. Obviously what you are saying would impact any future carrier operations.
I demand that the thread title be changed to "The Malvinas."
Excellent destination for ornithology evidently. Hope to get there some day to add a few species to the old life list.
I am watching developments of this situation daily, and have been for a while now.
Argentina is getting its excuses lined up, an invasion is not unlikely. If they do, the UK will get little support, and if they win they will get away with it.
Argentina are playing the 'colonial card' and the 'race card', playing it daily and don't look like they are going to give up anytime soon. Much of their support is garnered around the ideology of Latin nations ganging together against a non-Latin population. Which is just blatant racism. The colonial card is used because British = colonialists in many eyes, which is more than a little hypocritical, but a powerful tool nonetheless.
The rights of the islanders will be ignored by Argentina if they can get away with it. The only solid recourse is a strong defence. At least with oil there, that is affordable.
Invasion. Very unlikely, while Argentina has made it part of their constitution to regain the Malvinas, Kirchner has stated publically that force would not be used and that they would be recovered by diplomatic means. Unfortunately the precondition of any talks is that the Isles will be handed back. Not if but will and when. Unfortunately such a promise is only as good as the President, and once she leaves office such 'grace' may dissappear.
It is unlikely that after the 'arab spring' and the support of the UN and various sovereign goverments to the right of self determination that any invasion would actually be sucessful in the long term. In the short term terrible damage could be wrought on the infrastructure and population.
The 'Monroe Doctrine' raised it's head in the first conflict and was neatly avoided because the UK never attacked Argentina. All hostilities took place in and around FI, which meant that the US could sit back and say that Argentina started it and so could finish it themselves.
The 82 invasion suceeded because of lack of local manpower. Another invasion could only suceed with overwhelming superior forces, because the 'trip wire' is considerably better manned, and equipped, than 40 odd RMs, the level of force to be mustered makes it very hard to conceal. I would not like to be in the shoes of anyone trying to get here in one piece.
If push comes to shove I do not think that the US will back an Argentinian claim, afterall if they accept that Britain 'stole' and colonised the Islands, does that not mean that President Obama should hand back the US to the native americans?
AndrewC wrote:
If push comes to shove I do not think that the US will back an Argentinian claim, afterall if they accept that Britain 'stole' and colonised the Islands, does that not mean that President Obama should hand back the US to the native americans?
The claim is actually much flimsier than that. British control of the isles predates the existence of Argentina. Argentina claims the Falklands are theirs due to the fact that Spain once had a claim, and they inherited much of Spains land holdings. However, all this means is that if anyone had the right to exercise a historical claim, it would be Spain, not Argentina. Argentina as a nation has never possessed them.
Argentina's claim is essentially reduced to, 'We want it. Give it to us.' It has no basis in history, self-determination, or even geogrpahical location necessarily.
You know, I'm all for self determination and all, but has anyone ever bothered to look at the Falklands population? A bit over 3,000 people... its the second least densely populated region in the world, second only to Greenland (which has 57,000 people living in an area that is technically much larger but mostly uninhabitable). Two-thirds of that population live in Stanley, the other third are scattered farmers and live in small communities. When cruise ships come into port, the tourist population can easily outnumber the local population.
At that point, when the population is so small, and so concentrated in one area, it really begs the question, do they have the right to self-determination over such a large, mostly uninhabited area? It seems to me the British should either star colonizing the islands, or seek out a compromise with the Argentines and pull a Northern Ireland type situation, giving most of the territory to them and keeping a small sliver of it around the Stanley area for themselves. I'm sorry but the reality is that you cannot claim the right to self-determination when the vast majority of a very very very small population is 1. non-aborignal and 2. mostly concentrated into a very very small area of a much larger territory that is mostly uninhabited.
BTW, the Falklands were an American territory prior to being an Argentinian territory ;P
And in regards to Ketaras comment about Spain, I will point out that Spain backs Argentina's claim (as does the Peoples Republic of China oddly enough...)
Frazzled wrote:
Why is this even an issue? Just liquor up Matty (ok that might require the full Scotch production of the world for the next nine months), give him a swiss army knife, and a letter from the Queen stating "Matty, I need you to kick some ass, pretty please."
Problem solved.
If we got her to seal the letter with a kiss, some pink lipstick maybe, we wouldn't even need to give him a knife!
But really, if the people of the Falklands want to be British, and the UK claims them. Argentina can cram it?
unless they want to fight of course. There's oil there and national politics. Britain's ability to project force is limited and if Brazil supports its no bueno.
Unless Matty pulls a NEO of course...
Kilkrazy wrote:International law defines national sea boundaries and rights to the underlying seabed and resources.
While on the large scale map the Falklands look close to South America, they are actually 250 nautical miles away and well outside Argentina's area of exclusive economic interest which extends 200 miles.
The Argentinians therefore have no claim on the Falklands or the immediate area of possible resources. Obviously there is an overlap between the zones of the Falklands and Argentina. This would have to be resolved by negotiation and treaty.
Conversely the oil bearing areas in the North Sea are all within the 200 nm limit of the surrounding nations such as the UK and Norway. It would be illegal for Argentinians to pitch up and start drilling without permission.
The historical claim of the UK to sovereignty over the Falklands is clear and solid. It is also backed by post-WW2 treaties on the right to self-determination.
If the islands are sitting on rich natural resources, perhaps they are worth fighting for.
That only matters if your guns are bigger than their guns. paper means nothing. Ask the Cheyenne.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sonophos wrote:My point exactly. Put a few more planes there to deter offensive action against the islands.
One of the big problems we had during the Falklands war was establishing air superiority in the area.
That would do it, or dial in a nuke with a Buenos Ares address on it and put it right in the middle of the biggest island.
chaos0xomega wrote:You know, I'm all for self determination and all, but has anyone ever bothered to look at the Falklands population? A bit over 3,000 people... its the second least densely populated region in the world, second only to Greenland (which has 57,000 people living in an area that is technically much larger but mostly uninhabitable). Two-thirds of that population live in Stanley, the other third are scattered farmers and live in small communities. When cruise ships come into port, the tourist population can easily outnumber the local population.
At that point, when the population is so small, and so concentrated in one area, it really begs the question, do they have the right to self-determination over such a large, mostly uninhabited area? It seems to me the British should either star colonizing the islands, or seek out a compromise with the Argentines and pull a Northern Ireland type situation, giving most of the territory to them and keeping a small sliver of it around the Stanley area for themselves. I'm sorry but the reality is that you cannot claim the right to self-determination when the vast majority of a very very very small population is 1. non-aborignal and 2. mostly concentrated into a very very small area of a much larger territory that is mostly uninhabited.
BTW, the Falklands were an American territory prior to being an Argentinian territory ;P
And in regards to Ketaras comment about Spain, I will point out that Spain backs Argentina's claim (as does the Peoples Republic of China oddly enough...)
I wasn't aware that your right to your own country depended upon your population figure. One usually presumes it is conferred primarily by the fact that you live there. As to being non-aboriginal, well, there was nobody on those islands 'originally'. One could claim that 180 years on, they are now the original populace.
And Spain may back whichever countries right to another countries territory they choose. That doesn't make the initial claim any more valid. If South Africa decided it wanted to own Zimbabwe, and we decided to back them, it wouldn't make their claim any better.
The fact is simply that Argentina has no claim to the islands, beyond the fact that they want them. Period.
I wasn't aware that your right to your own country depended upon your population figure. One usually presumes it is conferred primarily by the fact that you live there. As to being non-aboriginal, well, there was nobody on those islands 'originally'. One could claim that 180 years on, they are now the original populace.
Technically the Falklands, as I understand it, weren't even really part of the UK until 1983, merely an area claimed, and its population basically second class citizens. In any case, 'your right to your own country' does depend on your population figure when you're using self-determination as an argument (otherwise, you know, you don't have a population to claim self determination in the first place...), and not the fact that its "your land" (which I've yet to hear the British government actually claim, most likely because of the complicated history of the islands and the fact that the British have about as much right to claim it as a sovereign territory as the Spanish do, read up on the history of how these 'claims' were made and you'll see why, apparently a plaque affirming territorial sovereignty is all you need...). If your right to your own country isn't based off of population, then we should probably give the Polish corridor and East Prussia back to the Germans. After all, the right to your own country isn't based on who is living there, so we can ignore all the Poles and Russians that have been sitting on the land since the German population was expelled after World War 2, and it was German land well before it was any of theirs. The fact is that Poland and Russia have no claim on East Prussia and the Polish Corridor, beyond the fact that they want them. Period.
And using your own arguments against you, that would be like me settling on one of the dozens of tiny unpopulated rocks called islands in northern scotland, etc. and claiming it as a United States territory. Nobody was on the island originally, one could claim that two weeks on, I am now the original populace and therefore have the right to self-determination.
Damn it, Frazz and Chaos Omega, who's side on are you on?? What happened to Washington favours, the special relationship, the trans-atlantic alliance, Truman's visit to London etc etc
Say what you want about Ronald Reagan, but the guy was loyal to his allies and would have backed us all the way.
I mean, all those years of watching presedential election coverage, buying John Wayne films on DVD...I mean that's got to count for something???
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Damn it, Frazz and Chaos Omega, who's side on are you on?? What happened to Washington favours, the special relationship, the trans-atlantic alliance, Truman's visit to London etc etc
Say what you want about Ronald Reagan, but the guy was loyal to his allies and would have backed us all the way.
I mean, all those years of watching presedential election coverage, buying John Wayne films on DVD...I mean that's got to count for something???
Didn't you hear? The special relationship went out the window with the 2008 election.
I don't have a dog in this hunt. I am just saying that its not the early 1980s any more. You don't have the naval power you had. As importantly, while Argentina is still the crapper, Brazil isn't. They have strength, strength to change the outcome to something entirely different in a full on balls to the wall fight.
I'm not taking sides, I'm playing Devils Advocate. I'm all for imperialistic expansionist policies, if a nation is strong enough to claim an area as their own and they have the ability to back up that claim, then I believe it is that nations natural right to do so. (Read: I support the UK's right to claim the Falklands so long as they have the military capacity to do so, in the event that the Argentines some how manage to re-invade, re-capture, and then thwart off the counter-attack, then tough crap, its Argentinastan's, fair and square, though you are always free to attempt a re-capture of your own).
chaos0xomega wrote:
Technically the Falklands, as I understand it, weren't even really part of the UK until 1983, merely an area claimed, and its population basically second class citizens. In any case, 'your right to your own country' does depend on your population figure when you're using self-determination as an argument (otherwise, you know, you don't have a population to claim self determination in the first place...), and not the fact that its "your land" (which I've yet to hear the British government actually claim, most likely because of the complicated history of the islands and the fact that the British have about as much right to claim it as a sovereign territory as the Spanish do, read up on the history of how these 'claims' were made and you'll see why, apparently a plaque affirming territorial sovereignty is all you need...). If your right to your own country isn't based off of population, then we should probably give the Polish corridor and East Prussia back to the Germans. After all, the right to your own country isn't based on who is living there, so we can ignore all the Poles and Russians that have been sitting on the land since the German population was expelled after World War 2, and it was German land well before it was any of theirs. The fact is that Poland and Russia have no claim on East Prussia and the Polish Corridor, beyond the fact that they want them. Period.
And using your own arguments against you, that would be like me settling on one of the dozens of tiny unpopulated rocks called islands in northern scotland, etc. and claiming it as a United States territory. Nobody was on the island originally, one could claim that two weeks on, I am now the original populace and therefore have the right to self-determination.
One would assume that actually having a population as the precursor to having self-determination would be assumed (otherwise there'd be no population to claim self-determination of, hmm?). I'm not sure however, that a certain level of population (beyond the minimum criteria to posses a 'population') is required before one can claim self-determination. That's still a new one, and I remain unconvinced. I've never heard it raised as a criteria for an ethnic grouping before.
The flaw in the rest of your reasoning, is that I need not necessarily demonstrate the complete legitimacy of the right of the Falkland Islanders to exist there indepedently of Argentina, rather, simply that their claim outweighs Argentina's. There is no such thing as truly 'owning' land, its nothing more than a social construct ultimately.
However, within the framework of the social construct that is international law, what is perceived of as having a 'right' to the land is based on many factors.
The Falklanders have in their support the factors of:-
- History (180 years of settlement)
-Self determination (the right to decide whether they wish to belong to another power or themselves).
- Military protection (they shelter under the wing of Great Britain)
- A lack of settlers before them, making their claim to be the only settlers undisputed,
-Recognition on the international stage as an ethnicity (they are called Falkland Islanders, not English).
The Argentinians have :-
-They want it.
-Some other people with dubious political motives also say they should have it.
That's it.
I'm pretty sure weighing those two sides up, its quite apparent who has the pre-eminent claim there, at least from the point of Western Democracy.
chaos0xomega wrote:
Technically the Falklands, as I understand it, weren't even really part of the UK until 1983, merely an area claimed, and its population basically second class citizens.
Try 1833.
chaos0xomega wrote:
The fact is that Poland and Russia have no claim on East Prussia and the Polish Corridor, beyond the fact that they want them. Period.
That is pretty much the only reason anyone has any claim to any territory. All arguments from legitimacy are just window dressing for the plebes.
chaos0xomega wrote:
BTW, the Falklands were an American territory prior to being an Argentinian territory ;P
And in regards to Ketaras comment about Spain, I will point out that Spain backs Argentina's claim (as does the Peoples Republic of China oddly enough...)
You could say that America was a British terrirtory prior to it being American territory... now where does that put us?
Ketara wrote:
- A lack of settlers before them, making their claim to be the only settlers undisputed,
The Argentinians have :-
-They want it.
-Some other people with dubious political motives also say they should have it..
The Falklands were settled before the British by the French and the Spanish. If you read up on the history, the French ceded their claim to the Spanish and sometime later the British withdrew leaving a "plaque proclaiming British sovereignty over the islands" making the Spanish colonists the only settlers. The Spanish government over the island was withdrawn by the colonial government at Montevideo (which at the time administered Argentina) leaving a "plaque proclaiming Spanish sovereignty over the islands", eventually most of the colonists left to as I understand it. Some time later the British returned and re-settled the island, and this time they set up a stronger military presence to keep the Spanish from returning. When the Latin American states gained their independence from Spain, the Spanish passed along their claims to the new nations (hence the Spanish recognition of the Argentine claim). Technically, based on those grounds, the Argentines do have a legitimate claim to the island, just as legitimate as the English claim, the only difference is that the island now has a population large enough and of a persuasion that warrants rejecting the Argentinian claims to sovereignty as violating their right to self-determination.
Try 1833.
And yet the Falkland Islanders didn't gain British citizenship until 100 years later?
dogma wrote:The fact is that Poland and Russia have no claim on East Prussia and the Polish Corridor, beyond the fact that they want them. Period.
That is pretty much the only reason anyone has any claim to any territory. All arguments from legitimacy are just window dressing for the plebes.
Yep.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
purplefood wrote:
chaos0xomega wrote:
BTW, the Falklands were an American territory prior to being an Argentinian territory ;P
And in regards to Ketaras comment about Spain, I will point out that Spain backs Argentina's claim (as does the Peoples Republic of China oddly enough...)
You could say that America was a British terrirtory prior to it being American territory... now where does that put us?
People in America have short memories. If it wasn't for people like me, then Dallas would not have been the smash hit TV that it was!
Back OT From whatever legal angle you look at it UN, EU, high court, supreme court, Estonian court etc Argentina does not have a leg to stand on. For a group of people who themselves descended from colonialists to attack Britain for being an imperial power, well i just want to HAHAHAHA etc etc
As for Brazil, long run we could not compete with their resources, but this isn't total war. It's a short sharp military operation from a country that has plentyof recent combat experience in the middle east. Argentina and Brazil could not compete in the short term. Of course, all this is hypothetical.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:People in America have short memories. If it wasn't for people like me, then Dallas would not have been the smash hit TV that it was!
Back OT From whatever legal angle you look at it UN, EU, high court, supreme court, Estonian court etc Argentina does not have a leg to stand on. For a group of people who themselves descended from colonialists to attack Britain for being an imperial power, well i just want to HAHAHAHA etc etc
As for Brazil, long run we could not compete with their resources, but this isn't total war. It's a short sharp military operation from a country that has plentyof recent combat experience in the middle east. Argentina and Brazil could not compete in the short term. Of course, all this is hypothetical.
Sure they can. Absent nukes (see my earlier post) how much force projection does the UK have without US help? Then compare the number of planes Argentina and Brazil have that are in range, plus SS missiles. Who comes out on top?
Especially considering how rapidly Brazil has been modernizing its Navy and Air Force... Give it a few more years and they will have commissioned their first nuclear submarine (based on French designs no less)
It doesn't matter how big or how much money the Brazilian or Argentinian governments spend on their armies - they will do the same thing that the Argies did in '82 - guns thrown down, hands in the air '¡No disparen!' (or Portuguese equivalent) as soon as the Marines or Paras crest the hill.
filbert wrote:It doesn't matter how big or how much money the Brazilian or Argentinian governments spend on their armies - they will do the same thing that the Argies did in '82 - guns thrown down, hands in the air '¡No disparen!' (or Portuguese equivalent) as soon as the Marines or Paras crest the hill.
In the end, superior training will out.
Actual question here. Do you have any aircraft to fly cover at this point?
Are you talking the Tornadoes? If so don't they need a full on aircraft carrier to launch (assuming they can from ships, again thats why I am asking). Do you have a carrier to get them there?
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:People in America have short memories. If it wasn't for people like me, then Dallas would not have been the smash hit TV that it was!
Back OT From whatever legal angle you look at it UN, EU, high court, supreme court, Estonian court etc Argentina does not have a leg to stand on. For a group of people who themselves descended from colonialists to attack Britain for being an imperial power, well i just want to HAHAHAHA etc etc
As for Brazil, long run we could not compete with their resources, but this isn't total war. It's a short sharp military operation from a country that has plentyof recent combat experience in the middle east. Argentina and Brazil could not compete in the short term. Of course, all this is hypothetical.
Sure they can. Absent nukes (see my earlier post) how much force projection does the UK have without US help? Then compare the number of planes Argentina and Brazil have that are in range, plus SS missiles. Who comes out on top?
The UK. Will you drop this already? You haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about, you just seem to have this weird Armchair General power fantasy whereby all these backwater nations are able to defeat Britain's military. Why have you got such a chip on your shoulder about us, and more to the point, why haven't you been banned yet for constantly trolling the Britons on this forum?
Let's get some things straight:
- Brazil is not the global superpower you seem to think it is. Although Fox might like to peddle some ridiculous decline narrative whereby China, Brazil, India overtake a USA blighted by socialism, Brazil still occupies a somewhat precarious economic position, and millions of its people still live in quasi-medieval conditions. It's military might doesn't even come CLOSE to the UKs, and no amount of 'hurr they got more mans/money' makes that untrue. Someone mentioned that they just got their first nuclear sub. A British nuclear sub sank an Argentine warship in the original Falklands conflict. They are years behind us in terms of military tech. Brazil would be comprehensively defeated in an open conflict with the UK. That will remain the case for the forseeable future.
- Brazil will not declare war on the United Kingdom. Never in a million years. For that to happen they would have to be willing to destroy all the progress they have made in recent years, all the economic improvement, all the international goodwill and respectability, everything. Argentina doesn't have the credibility that Brazil does, so they don't care.
- The force projection that the UK is capable of is second only to the USA's, so you're talking out of your arse there. Not that I'm surprised about that. We also have the second largest blue-water navy in NATO and one of the largest and most capable air forces, with technological capabilities that, again, are only surpassed by the US - and that is only in certain cases.
Frazzled - we get it. You don't like us. We're OK with that, but it's not an excuse to just make gak up.
Are you talking the Tornadoes? If so don't they need a full on aircraft carrier to launch (assuming they can from ships, again thats why I am asking). Do you have a carrier to get them there?
Are you talking the Tornadoes? If so don't they need a full on aircraft carrier to launch (assuming they can from ships, again thats why I am asking). Do you have a carrier to get them there?
Well I would assume that any contingency plan involving an Argentinian/Brazilian invasion of the Falklands would involve being able to launch Eurofighter from a friendly airfield (assuming the RAF base on the Falklands itself was denied) since I believe the relevant aircraft carriers have already been decommissioned. Where that friendly airfield would be, I have no idea. Presumably within 1,800 miles since that is the Eurofighter range apparently.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ships_of_the_Brazilian_Navy Look who made their frigates...
All they really have is an old, rusty carrier, and a few frigates. They couldn't compare to the Royal Navy at all.
As others have said though, Brazil wouldn't have the political or popular will to support out and out war (probably illegal internationally as well). Wonder how well their booming export economy would do with British warships sinking their container ships?
And the Argentines don't begin to compare.
And anyway, would a response to Argentinian invasion necessarily require air support? Was the original Falklands war fought from a position of air superiority? (genuine question - I'm not sure). Presumably the MOD have surmised that a deployed navy would be enough to combat the Argentinian air force.
filbert wrote:It doesn't matter how big or how much money the Brazilian or Argentinian governments spend on their armies - they will do the same thing that the Argies did in '82 - guns thrown down, hands in the air '¡No disparen!' (or Portuguese equivalent) as soon as the Marines or Paras crest the hill.
In the end, superior training will out.
Actual question here. Do you have any aircraft to fly cover at this point?
We have 4 typhoons on the island, which is enough to eliminate 3/4 of the Argentine airforce on their own. On top of that, all we need to do is park a pair of Type 45 destroyers off the coast, and Argentina won't even be able to launch sorties from the mainland.
And let us not forget that we could have another set of Typhoons there overnight using in flight refueling systems.
No, militarily, the islands are ours to keep. We're not going to be caught napping again on this one.
filbert wrote:And anyway, would response to Argentinian invasion necessarily require air support? Was the original Falklands war fought from a position of air superiority? (genuine question - I'm not sure). Presumably the MOD have surmised that a deployed navy would be enough to combat the Argentinian air force.
At the time of the Falklands, we were operating under an unenviable, and rather stupid doctrine whereby we assumed that we'd be able to launch aircraft from an allied airfield in any plausible scenario. Nobody saw us going to war in such a remote location (the nearest airfields were in South Africa at the time). Our anti-aircraft destroyers had also had corners cut in the construction that weakened them severely.
In todays scenario, we have even better aircraft capability, in flight refueling, an airfield on the island, and Type 45 destroyers infinitely superior to what we had then. The Argentine's, bar the acquisition of a handful of upgraded Skyhawks from the US, have exactly what they did back then (Mirages and Pucaras), and considerably less of them.
chaos0xomega wrote:
BTW, the Falklands were an American territory prior to being an Argentinian territory ;P
chaos0xomega wrote:
Technically the Falklands, as I understand it, weren't even really part of the UK until 1983, merely an area claimed, and its population basically second class citizens.
Admittedly I didn't stray from Wikipedia in checking but I can find no basis that supports these statements, nor can I remember one from any other source. Aside from the actually citizenship of the Falklanders which I also admit I don't care enough to look into. The dispute between Argentina and the UK has always been spoiled by that nasty little detail that the Falklands don't WANT to be part of Argentina, and that offers to take it to international courts have been flatly refused, by Argentina. I did catch that a constitution of the Falklands exists which I imagine is very much like the original constitution of Canada; allowing mostly internal self government at the convenience of Parliament.
Kilkrazy wrote:Perhaps the USA might like to take that principle to the United Nations for consideration.
The violent internal part of me wants you to reconsider this. I firmly believe the UN has outlived its usefulness, and as anti-US as they are I would LOVE for us to tell them to find a new home.
/rant -
Frazzled wrote:I'm just happy there's one potential war in the world the US is actually not involved in.
Not so fast, people are being OPPRESSED how can we stand by and watch: BOMB LONDON!
Yeah, right. I can see US involvement, on the British side if the Argentinians decide to push this to war...again, perhaps at the behest of congress rather than POTUS...ahh a dream of returning to Constitutional authority where congress declares war and the President executes it.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:People in America have short memories. If it wasn't for people like me, then Dallas would not have been the smash hit TV that it was!
Back OT From whatever legal angle you look at it UN, EU, high court, supreme court, Estonian court etc Argentina does not have a leg to stand on. For a group of people who themselves descended from colonialists to attack Britain for being an imperial power, well i just want to HAHAHAHA etc etc
As for Brazil, long run we could not compete with their resources, but this isn't total war. It's a short sharp military operation from a country that has plentyof recent combat experience in the middle east. Argentina and Brazil could not compete in the short term. Of course, all this is hypothetical.
Sure they can. Absent nukes (see my earlier post) how much force projection does the UK have without US help? Then compare the number of planes Argentina and Brazil have that are in range, plus SS missiles. Who comes out on top?
The UK. Will you drop this already? You haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about, you just seem to have this weird Armchair General power fantasy whereby all these backwater nations are able to defeat Britain's military. Why have you got such a chip on your shoulder about us, and more to the point, why haven't you been banned yet for constantly trolling the Britons on this forum?
Let's get some things straight:
- Brazil is not the global superpower you seem to think it is. Although Fox might like to peddle some ridiculous decline narrative whereby China, Brazil, India overtake a USA blighted by socialism, Brazil still occupies a somewhat precarious economic position, and millions of its people still live in quasi-medieval conditions. It's military might doesn't even come CLOSE to the UKs, and no amount of 'hurr they got more mans/money' makes that untrue. Someone mentioned that they just got their first nuclear sub. A British nuclear sub sank an Argentine warship in the original Falklands conflict. They are years behind us in terms of military tech. Brazil would be comprehensively defeated in an open conflict with the UK. That will remain the case for the forseeable future.
- Brazil will not declare war on the United Kingdom. Never in a million years. For that to happen they would have to be willing to destroy all the progress they have made in recent years, all the economic improvement, all the international goodwill and respectability, everything. Argentina doesn't have the credibility that Brazil does, so they don't care.
- The force projection that the UK is capable of is second only to the USA's, so you're talking out of your arse there. Not that I'm surprised about that. We also have the second largest blue-water navy in NATO and one of the largest and most capable air forces, with technological capabilities that, again, are only surpassed by the US - and that is only in certain cases.
Frazzled - we get it. You don't like us. We're OK with that, but it's not an excuse to just make gak up.
Working thrugh some issues there Alby? It was a question. Usually you can note a question by the "?" at the end. No one yet has noted what force projection the UK has at this point. A lot? Little? What?
The UK has the ability to project more Naval and Marine forces in the area than the Argentines can overcome, the only questionably component is Aviation.
Are you talking the Tornadoes? If so don't they need a full on aircraft carrier to launch (assuming they can from ships, again thats why I am asking). Do you have a carrier to get them there?
No they are not equipped for carrier duty as of yet, there are plans on the drawing board though, not that it maters. There is an airforce base on the islands themselves. They could just fly there using mid air refueling and external fuel tanks. No issues really, as long as they get to the airfield before the Argentinians do. I just don't see the Argentinians being able to put up much of a fight honestly, when was the last time any of them saw any real action. The UK has experience and a much better trained and equipped military on their side. That and this time they know that Argentina may actually bite, I'm sure they never even gave serious consideration that Argentina would attack in the 80's.
filbert wrote:And anyway, would a response to Argentinian invasion necessarily require air support? Was the original Falklands war fought from a position of air superiority? (genuine question - I'm not sure). Presumably the MOD have surmised that a deployed navy would be enough to combat the Argentinian air force.
IIRC and I am not the most informed on this event, but they had at least one carrier with some harriers (hey that rhymes). I know the Argentinians sank at least one ship with ship to ship missiles but that overall the British controlled the airspace.
Again it goes to my question (you know Alby a query) whats the UK navy's capabilities to project power and defend again air attack. I don't know anything about British Navy other than they had funky curly air craft carriers at one time, and probably have a surplus of guys with big moustaches and stiff upper lips.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ketara wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
filbert wrote:It doesn't matter how big or how much money the Brazilian or Argentinian governments spend on their armies - they will do the same thing that the Argies did in '82 - guns thrown down, hands in the air '¡No disparen!' (or Portuguese equivalent) as soon as the Marines or Paras crest the hill.
In the end, superior training will out.
Actual question here. Do you have any aircraft to fly cover at this point?
We have 4 typhoons on the island, which is enough to eliminate 3/4 of the Argentine airforce on their own. On top of that, all we need to do is park a pair of Type 45 destroyers off the coast, and Argentina won't even be able to launch sorties from the mainland.
And let us not forget that we could have another set of Typhoons there overnight using in flight refueling systems.
No, militarily, the islands are ours to keep. We're not going to be caught napping again on this one.
Frazzled wrote:
Working thrugh some issues there Alby? It was a question. Usually you can note a question by the "?" at the end. No one yet has noted what force projection the UK has at this point. A lot? Little? What?
*points upwards*
We also have an aircraft carrier (HMS Illustrious), an amphibious assault ship of the same tonnage as our Carrier (HMS Ocean), and two amphibious landing dock ships (HMS Albion and Bulwark) capable of carrying troop regiments and helicopters. This is of course, not including our capacity to seizeand refit whatever other ships are necessary.
In short, our Navy is several times more effective at force projection than what we had before, and the Argentine forces are probably a third as good as what they had before.
Frazzled wrote:
Working thrugh some issues there Alby? It was a question. Usually you can note a question by the "?" at the end. No one yet has noted what force projection the UK has at this point. A lot? Little? What?
*points upwards*
We also have an aircraft carrier (HMS Illustrious), an amphibious assault ship of the same tonnage as our Carrier (HMS Ocean), and two amphibious landing dock ships (HMS Albion and Bulwark) capable of carrying troop regiments and helicopters. This is of course, not including our capacity to seizeand refit whatever other ships are necessary.
In short, our Navy is several times more effective at force projection than what we had before, and the Argentine forces are probably a third as good as what they had before.
excellent. Does the Illustrious use those harriers or is it capable of launching non VTOL aircraft? Do you guys still have the harriers or have they been replced at this point(I'd imagine they're pretty old now).
I'm perfectly relaxed. However, you DO exhibit a fairly large amount of anti-British bias (not sure of the reasons why), and you DO let this seep into any discussion remotely related to my country. As a Briton, I naturally find this pretty offensive.
It was a question. Usually you can note a question by the "?" at the end.
I answered it!
No one yet has noted what force projection the UK has at this point. A lot? Little? What?
I answered that too! More specifically, the technology and overseas territories we possess mean that the UK is able to wage war pretty much anywhere in the world. Incidentally, the fact that we make those territories available to our allies is also one of the reasons that the USA has the level of force projection it has. You're welcome.
Again it goes to my question (you know Alby a query) whats the UK navy's capabilities to project power and defend again air attack. I don't know anything about British Navy other than they had funky curly air craft carriers at one time, and probably have a surplus of guys with big moustaches and stiff upper lips.
I can't remember what it's called, but our new class of Destroyer has one the most advanced defence systems on earth, iirc. It's able to simultaneously engage more targets than any other system, or something. Fact check, anyone? Ketara?
Albatross wrote:
- Brazil is not the global superpower you seem to think it is. Although Fox might like to peddle some ridiculous decline narrative whereby China, Brazil, India overtake a USA blighted by socialism, Brazil still occupies a somewhat precarious economic position, and millions of its people still live in quasi-medieval conditions. It's military might doesn't even come CLOSE to the UKs, and no amount of 'hurr they got more mans/money' makes that untrue. Someone mentioned that they just got their first nuclear sub. A British nuclear sub sank an Argentine warship in the original Falklands conflict. They are years behind us in terms of military tech. Brazil would be comprehensively defeated in an open conflict with the UK. That will remain the case for the forseeable future.
Its total military ability might not come close to the UK's but it doesn't have to. The UK barely had the force projection capabilities to retake the Falklands during the first conflict, it has even less of that capability today, and is banking a lot on the few military units it has stationed in the Falklands already to hold off an Argentine invasion. Remember, the UK would be fighting a war in Argentina and Brazil's backyard... from across the street...
I dont see your point regarding the british sub back in 82/83... So what you're saying is that a nuclear submarine is a legitimate threat to any navy?
Brazil will not declare war on the United Kingdom. Never in a million years. For that to happen they would have to be willing to destroy all the progress they have made in recent years, all the economic improvement, all the international goodwill and respectability, everything. Argentina doesn't have the credibility that Brazil does, so they don't care.
Doubt it. The UK didnt strike Argentina the first time, the UK isnt going to strike at Argentina or Brazil this time.
- The force projection that the UK is capable of is second only to the USA's, so you're talking out of your arse there. Not that I'm surprised about that. We also have the second largest blue-water navy in NATO and one of the largest and most capable air forces, with technological capabilities that, again, are only surpassed by the US - and that is only in certain cases.
Check your facts mate. The force projection that the UK WAS capable of is second only to the USA's. You've gone and got rid of your only two jet carriers (and youre losing your third potential jet carrier at least 5 years before you will have a replacement) as well as all the fixed-wing aircraft that you could have possibly flown from them (the USMC thanks you for the new Harriers btw), you have a shrinking surface fleet, a shrinking subsurface fleet, and a dead duck naval aviation arm. The RAF is still very capable, but its getting smaller and smaller, and it doesn't have the capability to ferry large numbers of planes to the Falklands and back. If you lose the base there, you will have absolutely no top cover from fast movers, only helicopters, and if you're counting on helicopters to take on jet fighters, you're in for a rough night.The second largest blue-water Navy in NATO is also still small by comparison to several other nations Navy's (China and Russia).
And anyway, would a response to Argentinian invasion necessarily require air support? Was the original Falklands war fought from a position of air superiority? (genuine question - I'm not sure). Presumably the MOD have surmised that a deployed navy would be enough to combat the Argentinian air force.
Air superiority is a key factor in almost any modern conflict. In the original Falkland War the British lost some of their naval assets to Exocet missiles fired from Argentinian Mirages. Without proper air support the Argentinians could have just sunk the British. Once UK's air power took superiority the war was pretty much over. So yes air support was quite important.
This time things would be a little different as technology has changed. With modern navy it would be possible to temporarliy halt Argentinian air projection until the RAF showed up.
The only real issue is if Argentina is able to get those airbases first it is pretty much game over. The RAF would not really be able to effectively project air-power there without those bases and the current Navy's air assets are not up to the task. So if I was the UK I would start moving my navy and air-force now.
Frazzled wrote:
Working thrugh some issues there Alby? It was a question. Usually you can note a question by the "?" at the end. No one yet has noted what force projection the UK has at this point. A lot? Little? What?
*points upwards*
We also have an aircraft carrier (HMS Illustrious), an amphibious assault ship of the same tonnage as our Carrier (HMS Ocean), and two amphibious landing dock ships (HMS Albion and Bulwark) capable of carrying troop regiments and helicopters. This is of course, not including our capacity to seizeand refit whatever other ships are necessary.
In short, our Navy is several times more effective at force projection than what we had before, and the Argentine forces are probably a third as good as what they had before.
excellent. Does the Illustrious use those harriers or is it capable of launching non VTOL aircraft? Do you guys still have the harriers or have they been replced at this point(I'd imagine they're pretty old now).
Alas, the Harrier has been retired for some time now. And currently the Illustrious is modified for helicopter carrying, and the fighters aren't STOVL capable.
However, we have the advantages of in flight refueling, and a local air base this time around. A ground assault would need to put the runway out of commission within 24 hours in order to ensure the RAF could not operate air superiority (incredibly unlikely), and that would simply reduce them to air parity to mild inferiority when the fleet arrived to reclaim the islands (as they would have still lost most of their aircraft against Typhoons, and destroyer capability would render them ineffective at attacking the fleet).
I wasn't aware that your right to your own country depended upon your population figure. One usually presumes it is conferred primarily by the fact that you live there. As to being non-aboriginal, well, there was nobody on those islands 'originally'. One could claim that 180 years on, they are now the original populace.
Technically the Falklands, as I understand it, weren't even really part of the UK until 1983, merely an area claimed, and its population basically second class citizens. In any case, 'your right to your own country' does depend on your population figure when you're using self-determination as an argument (otherwise, you know, you don't have a population to claim self determination in the first place...), and not the fact that its "your land" (which I've yet to hear the British government actually claim, most likely because of the complicated history of the islands and the fact that the British have about as much right to claim it as a sovereign territory as the Spanish do, read up on the history of how these 'claims' were made and you'll see why, apparently a plaque affirming territorial sovereignty is all you need...). If your right to your own country isn't based off of population, then we should probably give the Polish corridor and East Prussia back to the Germans. After all, the right to your own country isn't based on who is living there, so we can ignore all the Poles and Russians that have been sitting on the land since the German population was expelled after World War 2, and it was German land well before it was any of theirs. The fact is that Poland and Russia have no claim on East Prussia and the Polish Corridor, beyond the fact that they want them. Period.
And using your own arguments against you, that would be like me settling on one of the dozens of tiny unpopulated rocks called islands in northern scotland, etc. and claiming it as a United States territory. Nobody was on the island originally, one could claim that two weeks on, I am now the original populace and therefore have the right to self-determination.
You need to look up international law of the sea and the case of Rockall. It is an interesting illustration of the issues.
Alby - the system on ships is called Goal Keeper. It's designed to shoot down ship to ship or air to ship missiles, hence why air superiority is not a massive deal when it comes to the Falklands.
The advantage that Argentina had with Exocet has long passed.
chaos0xomega wrote:
Its total military ability might not come close to the UK's but it doesn't have to. The UK barely had the force projection capabilities to retake the Falklands during the first conflict, it has even less of that capability today, and is banking a lot on the few military units it has stationed in the Falklands already to hold off an Argentine invasion. Remember, the UK would be fighting a war in Argentina and Brazil's backyard... from across the street...
Pardon? Our amphibious assault capabilities are considerably more advanced and efficient than they were then. The whole point of the Falklands was that we re-organised our assets and ordered new ones, and reconsidered doctrine and capability so that we wouldn't be in the same position again.
I'm genuinely not sure where you're pulling your British force projection capability facts from.
Frazzled wrote:
Working thrugh some issues there Alby? It was a question. Usually you can note a question by the "?" at the end. No one yet has noted what force projection the UK has at this point. A lot? Little? What?
*points upwards*
We also have an aircraft carrier (HMS Illustrious), an amphibious assault ship of the same tonnage as our Carrier (HMS Ocean), and two amphibious landing dock ships (HMS Albion and Bulwark) capable of carrying troop regiments and helicopters. This is of course, not including our capacity to seizeand refit whatever other ships are necessary.
In short, our Navy is several times more effective at force projection than what we had before, and the Argentine forces are probably a third as good as what they had before.
excellent. Does the Illustrious use those harriers or is it capable of launching non VTOL aircraft? Do you guys still have the harriers or have they been repalced at this point(I'd imagine they're pretty old now).
In 2010 Cameron's government put the Harriers in storage, and the US Navy (Marines) is in negotiations to buy them. They remain in storage...active storage, they just need pilots. They are actually fairly new airframes, they are in fact Harrier II's of various build groups. Lusty can still launch and land Harriers, and they can launch and land vertically off Ocean but sustained operations would damage Ocean's flight deck and they cannot carry full combat loads. In Libya Apaches were operated off Ocean, that's also a feasible option. If the Falklands shock the government and MoD enough Ark Royal is 5 years out of a total refit and the newest of the Invincible class, she could be reactivated in short order assuming money and men were available. The truth is if they started today the Brits could have 2 carriers and embarked air wing in 1 year or less.
Frazzled wrote:
Working thrugh some issues there Alby? It was a question. Usually you can note a question by the "?" at the end. No one yet has noted what force projection the UK has at this point. A lot? Little? What?
*points upwards*
We also have an aircraft carrier (HMS Illustrious), an amphibious assault ship of the same tonnage as our Carrier (HMS Ocean), and two amphibious landing dock ships (HMS Albion and Bulwark) capable of carrying troop regiments and helicopters. This is of course, not including our capacity to seizeand refit whatever other ships are necessary.
In short, our Navy is several times more effective at force projection than what we had before, and the Argentine forces are probably a third as good as what they had before.
excellent. Does the Illustrious use those harriers or is it capable of launching non VTOL aircraft? Do you guys still have the harriers or have they been repalced at this point(I'd imagine they're pretty old now).
In 2010 Cameron's government put the Harriers in storage, and the US Navy (Marines) is in negotiations to buy them. They remain in storage...active storage, they just need pilots. They are actually fairly new airframes, they are in fact Harrier II's of various build groups. Lusty can still launch and land Harriers, and they can launch and land vertically off Ocean but sustained operations would damage Ocean's flight deck and they cannot carry full combat loads. In Libya Apaches were operated off Ocean, that's also a feasible option. If the Falklands shock the government and MoD enough Ark Royal is 5 years out of a total refit and the newest of the Invincible class, she could be reactivated in short order assuming money and men were available. The truth is if they started today the Brits could have 2 carriers and embarked air wing in 1 year or less.
Interesting and something I did not know. Thanks Auston.
Again it goes to my question (you know Alby a query) whats the UK navy's capabilities to project power and defend again air attack. I don't know anything about British Navy other than they had funky curly air craft carriers at one time, and probably have a surplus of guys with big moustaches and stiff upper lips.
I can't remember what it's called, but our new class of Destroyer has one the most advanced defence systems on earth, iirc. It's able to simultaneously engage more targets than any other system, or something. Fact check, anyone? Ketara?
Again it goes to my question (you know Alby a query) whats the UK navy's capabilities to project power and defend again air attack. I don't know anything about British Navy other than they had funky curly air craft carriers at one time, and probably have a surplus of guys with big moustaches and stiff upper lips.
I can't remember what it's called, but our new class of Destroyer has one the most advanced defence systems on earth, iirc. It's able to simultaneously engage more targets than any other system, or something. Fact check, anyone? Ketara?
Sounds like an Aegis system. There you go.
Goal Keeper
filbert wrote:Alby - the system on ships is called Goal Keeper. It's designed to shoot down ship to ship or air to ship missiles, hence why air superiority is not a massive deal when it comes to the Falklands.
The advantage that Argentina had with Exocet has long passed.
Again it goes to my question (you know Alby a query) whats the UK navy's capabilities to project power and defend again air attack. I don't know anything about British Navy other than they had funky curly air craft carriers at one time, and probably have a surplus of guys with big moustaches and stiff upper lips.
I can't remember what it's called, but our new class of Destroyer has one the most advanced defence systems on earth, iirc. It's able to simultaneously engage more targets than any other system, or something. Fact check, anyone? Ketara?
Sounds like an Aegis system. There you go.
The Type 45 operates Sea Viper, which is capable of launching something along the lines of 50 missiles a minute.
Are you talking the Tornadoes? If so don't they need a full on aircraft carrier to launch (assuming they can from ships, again thats why I am asking). Do you have a carrier to get them there?
No they are not equipped for carrier duty as of yet, there are plans on the drawing board though, not that it maters. There is an airforce base on the islands themselves. They could just fly there using mid air refueling and external fuel tanks. No issues really, as long as they get to the airfield before the Argentinians do. I just don't see the Argentinians being able to put up much of a fight honestly, when was the last time any of them saw any real action. The UK has experience and a much better trained and equipped military on their side. That and this time they know that Argentina may actually bite, I'm sure they never even gave serious consideration that Argentina would attack in the 80's.
filbert wrote:Alby - the system on ships is called Goal Keeper. It's designed to shoot down ship to ship or air to ship missiles, hence why air superiority is not a massive deal when it comes to the Falklands.
The advantage that Argentina had with Exocet has long passed.
Ok, if you have several of those then you have a reasonable deterrant. Coolio.
Its total military ability might not come close to the UK's but it doesn't have to. The UK barely had the force projection capabilities to retake the Falklands during the first conflict,
Eh? Britain won the war VERY comfortably! Our military slaughtered the Argentinian conscripts, frankly, and as you say, we were in their backyard.
I dont see your point regarding the british sub back in 82/83... So what you're saying is that a nuclear submarine is a legitimate threat to any navy?
My point is that, in some cases, they are decades behind us in terms of military technology.
Brazil will not declare war on the United Kingdom. Never in a million years. For that to happen they would have to be willing to destroy all the progress they have made in recent years, all the economic improvement, all the international goodwill and respectability, everything. Argentina doesn't have the credibility that Brazil does, so they don't care.
Doubt it. The UK didnt strike Argentina the first time, the UK isnt going to strike at Argentina or Brazil this time.
I'm not sure I follow you....
Check your facts mate. The force projection that the UK WAS capable of is second only to the USA's. You've gone and got rid of your only two jet carriers (and youre losing your third potential jet carrier at least 5 years before you will have a replacement) as well as all the fixed-wing aircraft that you could have possibly flown from them (the USMC thanks you for the new Harriers btw), you have a shrinking surface fleet, a shrinking subsurface fleet, and a dead duck naval aviation arm. The RAF is still very capable, but its getting smaller and smaller, and it doesn't have the capability to ferry large numbers of planes to the Falklands and back. If you lose the base there, you will have absolutely no top cover from fast movers, only helicopters, and if you're counting on helicopters to take on jet fighters, you're in for a rough night.The second largest blue-water Navy in NATO is also still small by comparison to several other nations Navy's (China and Russia).
I think you're placing too much emphasis on numbers. At the end of the day, we are currently operating a peace-time military capability, and it is more than capable of matching most other countries as is. On a war footing, it would be a completely different story.
By the way the Argentinian air force is apparently still flying basically the same planes they were in the 80's. Their main force is a collection of different versions of Mirage, pretty old even in the 80's. Any modern anti air is going to eat them for breakfast. I think the small squadron of Ero fighters at Stanley air base should be able to smack them down no problem.
No, for some reason we sold them to the US Marines?!!!
Bad thing to do. Brilliant aircraft!
Because of the terrain, air superiority is a must. I know they say that you can't win a war without boots on the ground, but in this case you will lose without planes in the air.
I have to say that it would be interesting to see if anything came from this. From what I understand Argentina talk about the UK "taking" the Falklands in the same way that Republicans talk about "damn commies" and medicare... or "un-Americans" and gun control
I also want to see a surface to air booze powered Matty
I can just imagine him headbutting through the floor of an Argentine plane with a manic grin and biting the pilots ankle
Again it goes to my question (you know Alby a query) whats the UK navy's capabilities to project power and defend again air attack. I don't know anything about British Navy other than they had funky curly air craft carriers at one time, and probably have a surplus of guys with big moustaches and stiff upper lips.
I can't remember what it's called, but our new class of Destroyer has one the most advanced defence systems on earth, iirc. It's able to simultaneously engage more targets than any other system, or something. Fact check, anyone? Ketara?
Sounds like an Aegis system. There you go.
The Type 45 operates Sea Viper, which is capable of launching something along the lines of 50 missiles a minute.
Yeah, I googled it - the type 45s look badass, too! HMS Dragon:
AndrewC wrote:No, for some reason we sold them to the US Marines?!!!
Bad thing to do. Brilliant aircraft!
Because of the terrain, air superiority is a must. I know they say that you can't win a war without boots on the ground, but in this case you will lose without planes in the air.
Cheers
Andrew
Well they are good at somethings, but their performance has really fallen behind the curve over the last 20 years. While it would still be possible to defeat the Argentinian air force with them( because as I said they have not upgraded their forces either) in almost any other theater against a real air force the Harrier could never be a suitable multirole aircraft to build your naval assets around, which is why they retired them. It makes sense for the US to buy them as other craft in our arsenal could provide cover for them. But you can not base a carrier group on the harriers capabilities anymore. The would get taken apart by most semi- modern aircraft available at bargain basement prices from the former Soviet Union.
AustonT wrote:They essentially look like Arliegh Burkes (SP?) with the sail covered by plating. They are very sleek and predatory, just the way a cruiser should be.
There's a reason for the hull design, its a new type of stealth hull we came up with to make it appear the same size as a small boat on radar systems.
The Sea Viper missile system on the other hand, was a joint French/British/Italian system that was designed to negate the weaknesses of the previous Sea Dart system, which was shown in the 80's in the Falklands to be vulnerable to mass attacks, and low flying strike aircraft. So it was basically designed to make numbers irrelevant.
The Navy has been substantially overhauled based on Falklands experience actually. The Carriers are simply the last thing to be upgraded. The new Type 45 Destroyers and Astute class submarine are quite probably the most advanced unit types of their class in the world (including the US), and the new amphibious assault ships are designed with force projection in mind.
No, if the Argentinians tried it again, we're loaded for bear.
The classes of ships have become a bit more flexible. The Type 42's they are replacing are HALF their size, THOSE were true Destroyers. The US Spruance, and Arliegh Burkes and now the British Type 45 's are more like Cruisers than Destroyers. It's just easier to sell Destroyers to Parliament (Congress) than Crusiers. I have whole schpiel but it's better in person. The delineation between size and role of Corvettes, Frigates, Destroyers, and Cruisers has become fuzzy. but a 4,000 ton Destroyer (Type 42) next to an 8,000 ton "ship" the Type 45 looks very much like a Cruiser.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ketara wrote:No, if the Argentinians tried it again, we're loaded for bear.
But Argentina has such wonderful beef, perhaps you should load for cattle.
AustonT wrote:The classes of ships have become a bit more flexible. The Type 42's they are replacing are HALF their size, THOSE were true Destroyers. The US Spruance, and Arliegh Burkes and now the British Type 45 's are more like Cruisers than Destroyers. It's just easier to sell Destroyers to Parliament (Congress) than Crusiers. I have whole schpiel but it's better in person. The delineation between size and role of Corvettes, Frigates, Destroyers, and Cruisers has become fuzzy. but a 4,000 ton Destroyer (Type 42) next to an 8,000 ton "ship" the Type 45 looks very much like a Cruiser.
Can we call them Destroying Cruisers then?
Or Cruising Destroyers?
People will probably laugh at me, but I'm sure we have an agreement with the French to share military capacity, which may include the French lending us a carrier.
Is there a possiblity the Chinese may back the South Americans? I'm sure someone mentioned this a few months ago i.e China supports Argentina for a share of the Oil fields.
AustonT wrote:The classes of ships have become a bit more flexible. The Type 42's they are replacing are HALF their size, THOSE were true Destroyers. The US Spruance, and Arliegh Burkes and now the British Type 45 's are more like Cruisers than Destroyers. It's just easier to sell Destroyers to Parliament (Congress) than Crusiers. I have whole schpiel but it's better in person. The delineation between size and role of Corvettes, Frigates, Destroyers, and Cruisers has become fuzzy. but a 4,000 ton Destroyer (Type 42) next to an 8,000 ton "ship" the Type 45 looks very much like a Cruiser.
Can we call them Destroying Cruisers then?
Or Cruising Destroyers?
Meh, I think they are going to call them Destroyers, meanwhile the Japs are sailing Carriers they are calling Destroyers that are according to wiki 18,000 tons, you know the size of the Invincibles that were sold as "Aircraft carrying Command Cruisers" in the way back, and the US sails the previously mentioned Burkes that are the same size as the Ticonderoga class and carry the same Aegis and more capable radar system that caused the Ti's to be classified as Cruisers.
I like Cruising Destroyers, it's catchy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:People will probably laugh at me, but I'm sure we have an agreement with the French to share military capacity, which may include the French lending us a carrier.
Is there a possiblity the Chinese may back the South Americans? I'm sure someone mentioned this a few months ago i.e China supports Argentina for a share of the Oil fields.
Even if they did China's blue water Navy is outclassed in terms of experience and training by the RN, and their involvement would FORCE the USN to enter the fray. Oh yeah, France would never let you use the De Gaulle, his spirit alone would smite you.
AustonT wrote:The classes of ships have become a bit more flexible. The Type 42's they are replacing are HALF their size, THOSE were true Destroyers. The US Spruance, and Arliegh Burkes and now the British Type 45 's are more like Cruisers than Destroyers. It's just easier to sell Destroyers to Parliament (Congress) than Crusiers. I have whole schpiel but it's better in person. The delineation between size and role of Corvettes, Frigates, Destroyers, and Cruisers has become fuzzy. but a 4,000 ton Destroyer (Type 42) next to an 8,000 ton "ship" the Type 45 looks very much like a Cruiser.
Can we call them Destroying Cruisers then?
Or Cruising Destroyers?
True bu they are more capable then the ship that was twice the size that they replaced and perform the same role, so I don't really see an issue.
Albatross wrote:
The Type 45 operates Sea Viper, which is capable of launching something along the lines of 50 missiles a minute.
Yeah, I googled it - the type 45s look badass, too! HMS Dragon:
That looks seriously badass.
At risk of sounding like a dumbass, where the hell are the guns/missiles?
Apart from the one at the front, obviously.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:People will probably laugh at me, but I'm sure we have an agreement with the French to share military capacity, which may include the French lending us a carrier.
Is there a possiblity the Chinese may back the South Americans? I'm sure someone mentioned this a few months ago i.e China supports Argentina for a share of the Oil fields.
That would essentially mean a declaration of war on NATO...unlikely to happen over a rock in the south Atlantic.
Taiwan, maybe.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:People will probably laugh at me, but I'm sure we have an agreement with the French to share military capacity, which may include the French lending us a carrier.
Is there a possiblity the Chinese may back the South Americans? I'm sure someone mentioned this a few months ago i.e China supports Argentina for a share of the Oil fields.
The problem is you don't have any good carrier bases aircraft right now, also the harrier if it was brought out of mothballs is not built to be launched off of the De gaulls carrier deck catapults. Also as noted the French would never let you use it, not because they are jerks, but because there really is no reason or precedent for them to do such.
China would not want to go toe toe to toe with the west right now.
Albatross wrote:
The Type 45 operates Sea Viper, which is capable of launching something along the lines of 50 missiles a minute.
Yeah, I googled it - the type 45s look badass, too! HMS Dragon:
That looks seriously badass.
At risk of sounding like a dumbass, where the hell are the guns/missiles?
Apart from the one at the front, obviously.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:People will probably laugh at me, but I'm sure we have an agreement with the French to share military capacity, which may include the French lending us a carrier.
Is there a possiblity the Chinese may back the South Americans? I'm sure someone mentioned this a few months ago i.e China supports Argentina for a share of the Oil fields.
The primary armament are the missiles which are in vertical launch cells in the after portion of the ship, I have no idea where the anti missile guns are, but there are only four of them, relatively small on a very large ship.
That would essentially mean a declaration of war on NATO...unlikely to happen over a rock in the south Atlantic.
Taiwan, maybe.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Andrew1975 wrote:
purplefood wrote:
AustonT wrote:The classes of ships have become a bit more flexible. The Type 42's they are replacing are HALF their size, THOSE were true Destroyers. The US Spruance, and Arliegh Burkes and now the British Type 45 's are more like Cruisers than Destroyers. It's just easier to sell Destroyers to Parliament (Congress) than Crusiers. I have whole schpiel but it's better in person. The delineation between size and role of Corvettes, Frigates, Destroyers, and Cruisers has become fuzzy. but a 4,000 ton Destroyer (Type 42) next to an 8,000 ton "ship" the Type 45 looks very much like a Cruiser.
Can we call them Destroying Cruisers then?
Or Cruising Destroyers?
True bu they are more capable then the ship that was twice the size that they replaced and perform the same role, so I don't really see an issue.
You seem to have missed something here, I'll let you figure it out.
AustonT wrote:The classes of ships have become a bit more flexible. The Type 42's they are replacing are HALF their size, THOSE were true Destroyers. The US Spruance, and Arliegh Burkes and now the British Type 45 's are more like Cruisers than Destroyers. It's just easier to sell Destroyers to Parliament (Congress) than Crusiers. I have whole schpiel but it's better in person. The delineation between size and role of Corvettes, Frigates, Destroyers, and Cruisers has become fuzzy. but a 4,000 ton Destroyer (Type 42) next to an 8,000 ton "ship" the Type 45 looks very much like a Cruiser.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ketara wrote:No, if the Argentinians tried it again, we're loaded for bear.
But Argentina has such wonderful beef, perhaps you should load for cattle.
Andrew1975, it's horses for courses. The Harrier is the first 'out the box' jet. That the UK conceived, developed and built, by itself. It's a case of rose tinted specs I admit.
Anyway, the FI have a secret weapon. Killer penguins! Trained to attach limpet mines to ships and peck unsuspecting ankles. Weiner Dogs beware!
AndrewC wrote:Andrew1975, it's horses for courses. The Harrier is the first 'out the box' jet. That the UK conceived, developed and built, by itself. It's a case of rose tinted specs I admit.
Anyway, the FI have a secret weapon. Killer penguins! Trained to attach limpet mines to ships and peck unsuspecting ankles. Weiner Dogs beware!
Cheers
Andrew
Oh don't get it wrong the Harrier WAS great for it's time, it's just shown it's age. It was never meant to go toe to toe with the best fighters even at the time. The problem now comes from the proliferation of advanced Soviet and US fighters that have been sold to the rest of the world. When the Harrier was designed it was not meant to go up against a f-16 or a fulcrum which can be bought for almost nothing now. It could handle the Mirages and Jaguars of it's time just fine though.
Frazzled wrote:unless they want to fight of course. There's oil there and national politics. Britain's ability to project force is limited and if Brazil supports its no bueno.
Unless Matty pulls a NEO of course...
Whereas Brazil's ability to project force is... what exactly? Their primary sea vessels are old warships sold to them by the British when they became too obselete for the British and French, and their support craft are newer vessels... sold to them by the British.
It's really weird that you'd continue repeating nonsense about how powerful the Brazilians are after I pointed out that isn't true, though it is good that when Ketara and some others explained the same thing you accepted it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Damn it, Frazz and Chaos Omega, who's side on are you on?? What happened to Washington favours, the special relationship, the trans-atlantic alliance, Truman's visit to London etc etc
That relationship goes one way. That's what's so special about it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
chaos0xomega wrote:Especially considering how rapidly Brazil has been modernizing its Navy and Air Force... Give it a few more years and they will have commissioned their first nuclear submarine (based on French designs no less)
I'm really struggling to figure out how Brazil's plans to acquire a weapons platform the UK has had in operation for what, five decades, is an argument in favour of Brazil's military capabilities.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
chaos0xomega wrote:Its total military ability might not come close to the UK's but it doesn't have to. The UK barely had the force projection capabilities to retake the Falklands during the first conflict, it has even less of that capability today
One of the primary issues here is that you keep saying the above, even though it's wrong. You can't just read the headlines about very recent cuts to British military spending and assume therefore their capability is worse than it was three decades ago.
I dont see your point regarding the british sub back in 82/83... So what you're saying is that a nuclear submarine is a legitimate threat to any navy?
It would be to any fleet that lacked modern sonar system. Like, say, Brazil and Argentina.
Doubt it. The UK didnt strike Argentina the first time, the UK isnt going to strike at Argentina or Brazil this time.
The war collapsed the Argentinian economy, and led directly to the overthrow of the right wing dictatorship and free elections within a year of their defeat in the Falklands. Britain didn't have to invade, because the defeat led to regime change already.
You think Brazil is looking at that result and thinking it wants a piece of it? Come on.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ketara wrote:Pardon? Our amphibious assault capabilities are considerably more advanced and efficient than they were then. The whole point of the Falklands was that we re-organised our assets and ordered new ones, and reconsidered doctrine and capability so that we wouldn't be in the same position again.
I'm genuinely not sure where you're pulling your British force projection capability facts from.
At a guess, I'm think he followed the debate over British decomissioning of naval assets in the last couple of years, and made the assumption that meant decreasing British naval capabilities to less than they were in 1982.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:People will probably laugh at me, but I'm sure we have an agreement with the French to share military capacity, which may include the French lending us a carrier.
Is there a possiblity the Chinese may back the South Americans? I'm sure someone mentioned this a few months ago i.e China supports Argentina for a share of the Oil fields.
Why would the Chinese throw away the present system of alliances and international deals… just get their hands on some portion of Falklands oil? I mean, do you think the Chinese would be able to rely on pre-existing deals for resources with places like Australia if they were to go to war with China?
This is all beginning to feel like brainstorming for a new Tom Clancy novel.
Whereas Brazil's ability to project force is... what exactly? Their primary sea vessels are old warships sold to them by the British when they became too obselete for the British and French, and their support craft are newer vessels... sold to them by the British.
Brazil's ability to project force in the region is phenomenal. Brazil's navy is at best second rate, and Brazil seems happy with that lot. As far as the Sao Paulo is concerned they bought her for a song, I checked the cost of a Eurofighter on wiki. Their carrier and the fighters they put on her cost less than one Typhoon. That's smart spending!
Against a first rate navy like the RN they are no match, but let's go ahead and toss aside any chance of Brazil entering into conflict with Britain. It's economic and military suicide. They seem quite content to be the big fish in a small pond and stop at every once in awhile telling a RN Captain to find berth somewhere else.
Edit: I'd also point out that their 50 year old carrier and 40 year old embarked air wing are in fact 1 more carrier and embarked air wing than Britain has right now, though that may change, and while widely considered obsolete it was A-4s that caused so much havoc against the RN in the Falklands war, not the Etendards.
Whereas Brazil's ability to project force is... what exactly? Their primary sea vessels are old warships sold to them by the British when they became too obselete for the British and French, and their support craft are newer vessels... sold to them by the British.
Brazil's ability to project force in the region is phenomenal. Brazil's navy is at best second rate, and Brazil seems happy with that lot. As far as the Sao Paulo is concerned they bought her for a song, I checked the cost of a Eurofighter on wiki. Their carrier and the fighters they put on her cost less than one Typhoon. That's smart spending!
Against a first rate navy like the RN they are no match, but let's go ahead and toss aside any chance of Brazil entering into conflict with Britain. It's economic and military suicide. They seem quite content to be the big fish in a small pond and stop at every once in awhile telling a RN Captain to find berth somewhere else.
Edit: I'd also point out that their 50 year old carrier and 40 year old embarked air wing are in fact 1 more carrier and embarked air wing than Britain has right now, though that may change, and while widely considered obsolete it was A-4s that caused so much havoc against the RN in the Falklands war, not the Etendards.
I'm not sure what you mean by the A-4s causing havoc . I also seam to remember the only UK air losses were to ground bases antiaircraft systems. The Argentinian air force was pretty much useless except for launching Exocet missiles from the Super Etendards, that was a devastating blow. Oddly enough the Brits lost more planes to accidents (Harriers were pretty fickle) during the campaign then they lost to the Argentinian airforce.
Whereas Brazil's ability to project force is... what exactly? Their primary sea vessels are old warships sold to them by the British when they became too obselete for the British and French, and their support craft are newer vessels... sold to them by the British.
Brazil's ability to project force in the region is phenomenal. Brazil's navy is at best second rate, and Brazil seems happy with that lot. As far as the Sao Paulo is concerned they bought her for a song, I checked the cost of a Eurofighter on wiki. Their carrier and the fighters they put on her cost less than one Typhoon. That's smart spending!
Against a first rate navy like the RN they are no match, but let's go ahead and toss aside any chance of Brazil entering into conflict with Britain. It's economic and military suicide. They seem quite content to be the big fish in a small pond and stop at every once in awhile telling a RN Captain to find berth somewhere else.
Edit: I'd also point out that their 50 year old carrier and 40 year old embarked air wing are in fact 1 more carrier and embarked air wing than Britain has right now, though that may change, and while widely considered obsolete it was A-4s that caused so much havoc against the RN in the Falklands war, not the Etendards.
I'm not sure what you mean by the A-4s causing havoc . I also seam to remember the only UK air losses were to ground bases antiaircraft systems. The Argentinian air force was pretty much useless except for launching Exocet missiles from the Super Etendards, that was a devastating blow. Oddly enough the Brits lost more planes to accidents (Harriers were pretty fickle) during the campaign then they lost to the Argentinian airforce.
During the 1982 Falklands War, Argentina deployed 48 Skyhawk warplanes (26 A-4B, 12 A-4C and 10 A-4Q aircraft).[34] Armed with unguided bombs and lacking any electronic or missile self-defense, Argentine Air Force Skyhawks sank the Type 42 Destroyer HMS Coventry and the Type 21 Frigate HMS Antelope as well as inflicting heavy damage on several others: the RFA Sir Galahad (1966) (which was subsequently scuttled as a war grave), the Type 42 HMS Glasgow, the Leander Class Frigate HMS Argonaut, the Type 22 Frigate HMS Broadsword, and the RFA Sir Tristram. Argentine Navy A-4Qs, flying from Río Grande, Tierra del Fuego naval air station, also played a role in the bombing attacks against British ships, destroying the Type 21 HMS Ardent.[35]
Its on Wikipedia
I am concerned whether the Falklands face an invasion threat for the following reasons.
International support for Argentinas 'claim'.
1. Argentina has the support of pretty much all South and Central America, some of that support is very vocal, Obama will not want to speak against it either, and has not done so in the past.
2. China actively supports Argentina, and has reciprocal support to keep Tibet off the list of non self governing countries at the UN. China sniffs oil and will likely bid for the contracts after the islands are 'liberated'.
3. The South African government also lightly supports Argentina because of the colonialism mantra, though the UK also has friends who might aid them.
Military situation.
1. Brazil is a firmly pro-Argentine hard neutral, meaning they can send assets out to sea and keep tabs on where all UK assets are.
2. Argentina has a piss weak armed forces but China does not, the strongest worry is a rapid arming of Argentina with Chinese equipment in return for contracted benefits.
3. the Argentina military is better trained than it was and is motivated to do the job.
Argentina is lacking key equipment notably attack helicopters and heavy lift aircraft. However given sufficient material support, plus surprise they could launch an attack on Mount Pleasant neutralising the defenders long enough to land an invasion force.
This would require a surprise missile attack (launched from the mainland) disabling the airfield, I think China has the hardware for that. 400 mile range cruise missiles is pretty much standard tech at the moment.
Follow up with a paratroop assault, control an LZ. Then land your main body by air. This again would need China's help with the loan of heavy lift transport aircraft in sufficient numbers. This is an expensive way of doing things but politically the Argentine government may pay any price as the rewards for the party in power for a successful invasion will be substantial.
Stanley would haver to fall later as the FIDF is well armed and motivated, and there is a residual garrison at the town; but if the Argies get troops on West Falkland and Mount Pleasant they can supply a slow march with continuous reinforcements and air superiority. The UK would not be able to to do much about that, they wouldn't have time for a start and any reinforcement fleet will be pinged by Brazilian 'merchant' vessels. The UK would therefore be forced to come to terms in all likelihood.
All this includes by necessity the tacit approval of China and preferably Brazil, but can be actioned with Argentine troops alone. It still leaves a lot of British Army infantry out of the picture which should not be overlooked, but while they are brave often their politicians are not, the bulk of world opinion is against the UK due to a very successful maskirovka campaign by Argentina. Its not certain, but it is doable. The main point against it is that a massive strike may engender sympathies for the islanders which are up to now absent. argentina made many mistakes last time, but one they did not make was abusing the local populace. Had there been significant casualties amongst the islanders in 1982 this issue might have been dealt with by the UN by now.
Long term the UK has one option, offer the islanders a referendum to join the UK formally as integral territory (and be allowed to vote in an MP for parliament). If the Islands are formally incorporated into the Union they become integral British soil, not an offshore territory and the UK can call on the NATO treaty to help defend them.
AustonT wrote:Against a first rate navy like the RN they are no match, but let's go ahead and toss aside any chance of Brazil entering into conflict with Britain. It's economic and military suicide. They seem quite content to be the big fish in a small pond and stop at every once in awhile telling a RN Captain to find berth somewhere else.
True. Denying port access is a million miles from engaging in open war with a country. I mean, is anyone afraid of New Zealand declaring war on the US any time soon?
AustonT wrote:Against a first rate navy like the RN they are no match, but let's go ahead and toss aside any chance of Brazil entering into conflict with Britain. It's economic and military suicide. They seem quite content to be the big fish in a small pond and stop at every once in awhile telling a RN Captain to find berth somewhere else.
True. Denying port access is a million miles from engaging in open war with a country. I mean, is anyone afraid of New Zealand declaring war on the US any time soon?
Every day, I live in constant fear of the New Zealanders since witnessing a Haka by the All Blacks. It's why I have an arsenal of guns meant only to kill human beings and sheep (ref: Gun Politics)
Orlanth wrote:
This again would need China's help with the loan of heavy lift transport aircraft in sufficient numbers.
You mean purchase.
Orlanth wrote:
Stanley would haver to fall later as the FIDF is well armed and motivated...
~300 people with a budget of ~400,000 FKP per anum?
Orlanth wrote:
Long term the UK has one option, offer the islanders a referendum to join the UK formally as integral territory (and be allowed to vote in an MP for parliament). If the Islands are formally incorporated into the Union they become integral British soil, not an offshore territory and the UK can call on the NATO treaty to help defend them.
It won't matter if NATO dissolves, or significantly weakens. Long-term, Argentina will have the Falklands as their territory, at least that is what is most likely.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Damn it, Frazz and Chaos Omega, who's side on are you on?? What happened to Washington favours, the special relationship, the trans-atlantic alliance, Truman's visit to London etc etc
Say what you want about Ronald Reagan, but the guy was loyal to his allies and would have backed us all the way.
I mean, all those years of watching presedential election coverage, buying John Wayne films on DVD...I mean that's got to count for something???
I knew I wasn't crazy when I was having visions of Robo-Regan smashing stuff....It just wasn't Europe, it was the south atlantic.
To all the people who suggested 'nuking' argentiena, are you nutz? If one nuke is lit off the whole world is going to go... Slime the bastards (Slimed is a term solders used to discribe getting hit with a Biological or chemical weapon, getting 'lit up' was a tatical nuke going off near you.) Do armies still issue MOPP/NBC suits still?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AustonT wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:They send the good stuff to Europe.
KK you say that...but you always show a Japanese flag, and I'm 99% sure I saw a picture of you with shockingly red hair...WHO IS THIS ENIGMA?!
Didn't you know Killkrazy is a hot japanese chicky??
We have a group of South American countries, who are 80% made up of the decedents European settlers, moaning about us laying claim to a lump of rock that is around 300 miles from the mainland. A lump of rock that the natives of South America wouldn't know anything about.
We also have or so called "special" friend standing on the sidelines. A country that I would like to point out that decided by force where Mexico ends and the US starts. They also bought Alaska off the Russians. A country that is a complete country away from them and was inhabited already. Just because the purchase was above board, doesn't change the fact that this is land that wasn't yours. There are also a group of islanders out there who can't go home because we leased / gave / sold you their home for a military base.
And we are in the wrong for claim a lump of rock, that was fought over in an accepted way at the time, and won in an accepted fashion of the time and who is populated by people who consider themselves British!?!
Oh don't get it wrong the Harrier WAS great for it's time, it's just shown it's age. It was never meant to go toe to toe with the best fighters even at the time. The problem now comes from the proliferation of advanced Soviet and US fighters that have been sold to the rest of the world. When the Harrier was designed it was not meant to go up against a f-16 or a fulcrum which can be bought for almost nothing now. It could handle the Mirages and Jaguars of it's time just fine though.
I read a really interesting book about how the Harrier pilots combated the French Mirages they were up against in the Falklands, it was used by one pilot in an air-air situation who then informed the others about it after his success. The Mirages were much faster than the Harrier, which is always a massive advantage in dogfighting, and were also similar in terms of manoeuvrability. When a Mirage got onto the tail of one Harrier, the Harrier pilot let the aircraft drift, changed the angles of the jets so they were pointing vertically (usually used when in VTOL mode) then re-applied thrust and 'jumped' the aircraft. This simultaneously slowed down the aircraft significantly and moved it onto a much higher trajectory, so the Mirage shot past with a pilot who was presumably very surprised and right in the target reticule of the Harrier.
I believe that not a single Harrier was lost in an air-air combat situation with the Mirages, although most of this was down to superior tactics being employed rather than any out and out advantage the Harrier had over the Mirage (it didn't). Some aircraft were lost to mechanical faults and I believe one was lost in bad weather, but that has been the situation with any use in a wartime situation and regardless of type of aircraft.
It was never designed to be used in just air-air roles, in the same way that British commanders in Iraq bemoaned that it was never that effective in an air-ground role when compared to the A10 which is specifically designed for such a purpose. However, like the Concorde*, it was a marvellous piece of engineering, there was nothing else like it at the time it was made, and the thing is bloody loud if you ever get to see flying in VTOL mode.
* Yes, I know the Concorde was a joint project with the French.
The Falklands are ours, we will not allow them to be taken. The population of those islands wish to remain subjects of the crown. They are our countrymen and women.
If it comes to it, we should use massive and deadly force, Argentina was defeated by us once in recent memory.
And yes, this time we would expect US military support, we have suffered losses in two of her wars, one ongoing in the last decade, we will expect a mutual response.
dogma wrote:[
It won't matter if NATO dissolves, or significantly weakens. Long-term, Argentina will have the Falklands as their territory, at least that is what is most likely.
What are you basing that on?
Wait, is this one of those instances where you go 'well, long term could mean in a hundred years...'?
@Orlanth - I think sebster is right. This is starting to drift into the realm of fantasy now. There is absolutely no way that the Chinese will actively aid the Argentinians in a war against the UK. It would destroy our relationship with them, and frankly, we're worth WAAAAY more to them than Argentina, a country which is an economic backwater that has constantly teetered on the brink of default for most of its modern history.
dogma wrote:[
It won't matter if NATO dissolves, or significantly weakens. Long-term, Argentina will have the Falklands as their territory, at least that is what is most likely.
What are you basing that on?
Wait, is this one of those instances where you go 'well, long term could mean in a hundred years...'?
@Orlanth - I think sebster is right. This is starting to drift into the realm of fantasy now. There is absolutely no way that the Chinese will actively aid the Argentinians in a war against the UK. It would destroy our relationship with them, and frankly, we're worth WAAAAY more to them than Argentina, a country which is an economic backwater that has constantly teetered on the brink of default for most of its modern history.
Especially considering we're currently looking to be an off shore trading centre for the Yuan.
We have a group of South American countries, who are 80% made up of the decedents European settlers, moaning about us laying claim to a lump of rock that is around 300 miles from the mainland. A lump of rock that the natives of South America wouldn't know anything about.
We also have or so called "special" friend standing on the sidelines. A country that I would like to point out that decided by force where Mexico ends and the US starts. They also bought Alaska off the Russians. A country that is a complete country away from them and was inhabited already. Just because the purchase was above board, doesn't change the fact that this is land that wasn't yours. There are also a group of islanders out there who can't go home because we leased / gave / sold you their home for a military base.
And we are in the wrong for claim a lump of rock, that was fought over in an accepted way at the time, and won in an accepted fashion of the time and who is populated by people who consider themselves British!?!
Blah blah. If you have more guns than the other guy and the will to use them then you're right. If not, you're wrong. Its Ceasar's legions that make the law legal.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MeanGreenStompa wrote:The Falklands are ours, we will not allow them to be taken. The population of those islands wish to remain subjects of the crown. They are our countrymen and women.
If it comes to it, we should use massive and deadly force, Argentina was defeated by us once in recent memory.
And yes, this time we would expect US military support, we have suffered losses in two of her wars, one ongoing in the last decade, we will expect a mutual response.
We have a group of South American countries, who are 80% made up of the decedents European settlers, moaning about us laying claim to a lump of rock that is around 300 miles from the mainland. A lump of rock that the natives of South America wouldn't know anything about.
We also have or so called "special" friend standing on the sidelines. A country that I would like to point out that decided by force where Mexico ends and the US starts. They also bought Alaska off the Russians. A country that is a complete country away from them and was inhabited already. Just because the purchase was above board, doesn't change the fact that this is land that wasn't yours. There are also a group of islanders out there who can't go home because we leased / gave / sold you their home for a military base.
And we are in the wrong for claim a lump of rock, that was fought over in an accepted way at the time, and won in an accepted fashion of the time and who is populated by people who consider themselves British!?!
Blah blah. If you have more guns than the other guy and the will to use them then you're right. If not, you're wrong. Its Ceasar's legions that make the law legal.
That's the point. we obtained the islands in a period when this was the usual way, in the same way that the US decided on where the US / Mexican border is. You gave the locals a slapping and told them where the border was going to be We took control of a bloody barren piece of rock the same way. At least it was empty and in the middle of the Atlantic, Frazz's ancestors decided that they wanted this bit and that bit and put up the fence!
We have a group of South American countries, who are 80% made up of the decedents European settlers, moaning about us laying claim to a lump of rock that is around 300 miles from the mainland. A lump of rock that the natives of South America wouldn't know anything about.
We also have or so called "special" friend standing on the sidelines. A country that I would like to point out that decided by force where Mexico ends and the US starts. They also bought Alaska off the Russians. A country that is a complete country away from them and was inhabited already. Just because the purchase was above board, doesn't change the fact that this is land that wasn't yours. There are also a group of islanders out there who can't go home because we leased / gave / sold you their home for a military base.
And we are in the wrong for claim a lump of rock, that was fought over in an accepted way at the time, and won in an accepted fashion of the time and who is populated by people who consider themselves British!?!
Blah blah. If you have more guns than the other guy and the will to use them then you're right. If not, you're wrong. Its Ceasar's legions that make the law legal.
That's the point. we obtained the islands in a period when this was the usual way, in the same way that the US decided on where the US / Mexican border is. You gave the locals a slapping and told them where the border was going to be We took control of a bloody barren piece of rock the same way. At least it was empty and in the middle of the Atlantic, Frazz's ancestors decided that they wanted this bit and that bit and put up the fence!
Yep. You're assuming I have a problem with that. I'm the guy who believes in the right to bear nukes.
So who is the current 'bogey man' for the US?
As it's no longer the Russians, I had thought that the chinese had taken over that honour, so I really do not think that they would take kindly to proliferation of Chinese military equipment and manpower in their back yard.
Re the effectiveness of the Argentine Air Force. Yes they did cause many casualties and severe damage amoung the British Forces, but that was due more to the terrain, skill and luck of the pilots rather than the equipment. The fleet was contained inside ffiord like bays and coves surrounded by rocky hills. The UK had no early warning system that could operate in those types of field conditions to warn of approaching aircraft, who could only approach by flying at 'zero' altitude, dropping bombs and running.
Was this effective? Yes to a degree, but relied purely on the conditions of the time. UK had no CAP, no airborne radar, and no ground based radar. Those three conditions no longer apply, and any Argentine approach can and will be seen a long way out.
The only way that Argentina could take these islands is in a massive overwhelming assault, that would cause extensive casualties amoung the military and civilian population on the islands. That does affect the diplomatic situation so that occupation of the islands becomes untenable for them. While the political elite of the US may not mind such an occurence, I do not think that the average american would allow such an act to go by without demanding retribution. While the 'special relationship' may be cooling, the US still sees British Forces dying alongside their troops, in their defence when other contries have shunned them. And that comradeship will allow, force?, the US to act.
So yes, the US probably does want us to hand the islands back, but I dont think that they will want/allow a war to start in the South Atlantic.
Re Brazils involvement. I am surprised that people think that they would enter into a shooting war with another country. TBH I think that the extent of their involvement would be to provide intelligence and supplies to Argentina, and formally deny the use of brazilian waters/airspace to UK assets, Red Cross aside.
AndrewC wrote:So who is the current 'bogey man' for the US?
It's been China for nearly a a decade now. I identify the beginning when the Navy started shopping the Littoral Combat Ship in the early 2000's. That's when they went from a theoretical enemy to the focus of our offensive combat force. It's no coincidence that the LCS is a class of blue water ship(s) capable of navigating the Yangtze.
If the people wish to be British. Then they are British.
I don't think it will come to war; the President has renounced that as an option.
And I don't think Argentina's case is strong enough that there'll be any real international movement to change sovereignty.
And I agree with Cameron referring to it as 'colonialism'; here is an island on which the inhabitants overwhelmingly wish to be retained as part of the United Kingdom and yet a foreign power wishes to annex them to heal some wounded national pride.
Oh don't get it wrong the Harrier WAS great for it's time, it's just shown it's age. It was never meant to go toe to toe with the best fighters even at the time. The problem now comes from the proliferation of advanced Soviet and US fighters that have been sold to the rest of the world. When the Harrier was designed it was not meant to go up against a f-16 or a fulcrum which can be bought for almost nothing now. It could handle the Mirages and Jaguars of it's time just fine though.
I read a really interesting book about how the Harrier pilots combated the French Mirages they were up against in the Falklands, it was used by one pilot in an air-air situation who then informed the others about it after his success. The Mirages were much faster than the Harrier, which is always a massive advantage in dogfighting, and were also similar in terms of manoeuvrability. When a Mirage got onto the tail of one Harrier, the Harrier pilot let the aircraft drift, changed the angles of the jets so they were pointing vertically (usually used when in VTOL mode) then re-applied thrust and 'jumped' the aircraft. This simultaneously slowed down the aircraft significantly and moved it onto a much higher trajectory, so the Mirage shot past with a pilot who was presumably very surprised and right in the target reticule of the Harrier.
I believe that not a single Harrier was lost in an air-air combat situation with the Mirages, although most of this was down to superior tactics being employed rather than any out and out advantage the Harrier had over the Mirage (it didn't). Some aircraft were lost to mechanical faults and I believe one was lost in bad weather, but that has been the situation with any use in a wartime situation and regardless of type of aircraft.
It was never designed to be used in just air-air roles, in the same way that British commanders in Iraq bemoaned that it was never that effective in an air-ground role when compared to the A10 which is specifically designed for such a purpose. However, like the Concorde*, it was a marvellous piece of engineering, there was nothing else like it at the time it was made, and the thing is bloody loud if you ever get to see flying in VTOL mode.
* Yes, I know the Concorde was a joint project with the French.
They used to call the original Harriers "Widowmakers" not because they were lethal to the enemy so much, but because it was such a hard aircraft to control that it had a reputation for killing pilots. Harrier pilots were trained in a number of interesting air to air tactics that took advantage of their thrust vectoring abilities, toe to toe the were never going to beat a fast fighter using standard tactics. They used those to great effect in Argentina.
As for the US response to these claims,I don't see it as taking sides, more like just stepping aside, I see it as letting Argentina have it's moment in the spotlight. The only claim I have seen is that the state department feels that the two should have talks, not that the US agrees with Argentina's claims. There is nothing really wrong with letting the two major players handle the situation. We know full well the UK will not surrender the Islands, but we can let Argentina let off some steam to make them happy if that is what they want. I have no doubt that if the UK needed our help with issues like mid air refueling and such the US would provide it.
If it were 3000 Texans on the island, Washington wouldn't be acting so wishy-washy with regards to the rights of the islanders. Britain lost a lot of friends/respect when they backed GW Bush over Iraq. At the very least, Washington could throw us a bone.
As for Chinese involvement, I never meant they would get directly involved, rather they would back Argentina in the UN, send them stinger missles, train up the mujahaideen etc etc
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:If it were 3000 Texans on the island, Washington wouldn't be acting so wishy-washy with regards to the rights of the islanders. Britain lost a lot of friends/respect when they backed GW Bush over Iraq. At the very least, Washington could throw us a bone.
As for Chinese involvement, I never meant they would get directly involved, rather they would back Argentina in the UN, send them stinger missles, train up the mujahaideen etc etc
There's not much of a mujahideen to train on the Falklands.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:If it were 3000 Texans on the island, Washington wouldn't be acting so wishy-washy with regards to the rights of the islanders. Britain lost a lot of friends/respect when they backed GW Bush over Iraq. At the very least, Washington could throw us a bone.
As for Chinese involvement, I never meant they would get directly involved, rather they would back Argentina in the UN, send them stinger missles, train up the mujahaideen etc etc
I don't really think you need a bone thrown your way though. The logic behind the legitimacy of the Falkland islands is pretty rock solid. There is realistically no way that Argentina get them, none. So why should the US waste political clout on it, when it isn't even a real issue. All the state department said was that they feel that the UK should at least talk to Argentina about the situation, just hear them out, let them feel like they have a voice that actually matter to anyone, then you can tell them to F off if you want.
This is not about ownership of the islands, this is about a politician looking strong to their people and standing up to their colonial oppressor. It's called grandstanding. It's BS and the US does not want to play into it. That's all, there is no betrayal here.
AndrewC wrote:The UK is always happy to talk about the FI. They just don't want the precondition of the talks to be that the FI get handed back to Argentina.
I mean there is nothing wrong with satisfying their political agenda by having the talk. I see it like this.
"We are here to talk about the Falkland Islands."
"That's great, thanks for coming. You can't have them. Go home tell your people that we had the discussion and the bad white man doesn't recognize your claims. That ought to get you reelected. If you want you can say it was a tough fight and the negotiations went on for days, enjoy London gentlemen, be sure to stop by Buck House it's beautiful this time of year. Are there any other issues or is it time for tea?"
The point is that to hold the talks under the heading of "Las Malvinas should be under Argentinean sovereignty" would be to table the possibility. This is not acceptable to the UK, the Argies will not sit at the table unless it is worded such/similar. Wording is quite important in these things.
Interesting fact that I like to bring up every time we discuss this (for it is quite often): the Belgrano (Argie Cruiser bulls eyed in the last conflict) was previously an American ship and the only one in the whole of WW2 to go from start to finish unscathed I think?
If this did kick off again (and it won't assuming something of Red Dawn proportions doesnt happen!), I would guess that the US Govt would not publicly support us but possibly secret material and or intelligence, like last time (Ronny came good with Sidewinders, part of the reason the harriers were so successful against faster craft).
This time I would expect that the US public would sway their Govt into action though. Obama wont do jack unless he has to not being much of an Anglophile.
I don't know, let them call the talks anything they want, who cares. It doesn't set a precedent or make the outcome a precondition of the talks, that's why they are talks. Let them table a possibility in their minds. Three times in the past 1947, 1949 and 1951 I believe, the UK told Argentina to go get an international ruling, they never followed through knowing that their claims would be denied by the international courts. The one time the did go to the courts was over the Beagle Islands, their claims were rejected. They of course did not recognize the courts ruling.
The basic situation is that Argentina wants the Falklands, and the only thing stopping them from acquiring them is being, essentially, a British protectorate.
As such, if Britain ever decides they don't want to, or can't afford to, protect the Falklands they will become Argentinian territory. A similar situation will develop if the Falklands decide they would rather be Argentinian territory, or if Argentina decides to be more flexible about what "territory" entails (Basically, allows the island to be a protectorate.).
In essence, there are more scenarios that favor Islas Malvinas, than favor the Falkland Islands.
AndrewC wrote:So who is the current 'bogey man' for the US?
It's been China for nearly a a decade now.
Well, personally, my bogeyman is the actual bogeyman. He lives in my closet.
When it's all said and done, barring any kind of massive global problems the likes of which we haven't seen since possibly WWII, the Falkland Islands will (and should for the reasons Mattyrm and MGS have outlined) stay British.
notprop wrote:The point is that to hold the talks under the heading of "Las Malvinas should be under Argentinean sovereignty" would be to table the possibility. This is not acceptable to the UK, the Argies will not sit at the table unless it is worded such/similar. Wording is quite important in these things.
Its much less important to the people at the table, than the people watching them.
AndrewC wrote:So who is the current 'bogey man' for the US?
It's been China for nearly a a decade now. I identify the beginning when the Navy started shopping the Littoral Combat Ship in the early 2000's. That's when they went from a theoretical enemy to the focus of our offensive combat force. It's no coincidence that the LCS is a class of blue water ship(s) capable of navigating the Yangtze.
I can see Russia stepping back into this role, especially as they are regularly trying to prevent the expansion of NATO into their backyard. The Red Bear may be gone, but the old battle-lines are being redrawn.
I think there is far too much of a symbiotic relationship, in terms of the economy, between the China and the US (and Europe for that matter). China is getting it's economic hooks into everywhere, but we aren't seeing the clash of ideologies and frontiers of Imperialism that happened between the US and Russia after WW2. There is the token mention of human rights any time East and West meet to tick the box with the plebeians back home , Mr. Inscrutable no. 17 from China shrugs and they both shake hands. Another half million LCD TVs go on a boat so we can buy them for $400 and watch the Superbowl on it, while drinking beer with cans made from metals recycled in Chinese factories. Both sides understand that any kind of conflict would be utter madness, and both sides would suffer massively from it - I don't think 'collapse of entire world economy, and a depth of recession not seen since the Wall St. Crash' would be too far a stretch of the consequences, especially when you consider the amount of American dollars being held in banks in Shanghai.
Andrew1975 wrote:I don't know, let them call the talks anything they want, who cares. It doesn't set a precedent or make the outcome a precondition of the talks, that's why they are talks. Let them table a possibility in their minds. Three times in the past 1947, 1949 and 1951 I believe, the UK told Argentina to go get an international ruling, they never followed through knowing that their claims would be denied by the international courts. The one time the did go to the courts was over the Beagle Islands, their claims were rejected. They of course did not recognize the courts ruling.
Would the USA be open to talks with Mexico about the sovereignty of the Southern States? Of course not.
Those lands are British and they will be for as long as the Royal Navy is in the water.
Andrew1975 wrote:I don't know, let them call the talks anything they want, who cares. It doesn't set a precedent or make the outcome a precondition of the talks, that's why they are talks. Let them table a possibility in their minds. Three times in the past 1947, 1949 and 1951 I believe, the UK told Argentina to go get an international ruling, they never followed through knowing that their claims would be denied by the international courts. The one time the did go to the courts was over the Beagle Islands, their claims were rejected. They of course did not recognize the courts ruling.
Would the USA be open to talks with Mexico about the sovereignty of the Southern States? Of course not.
Those lands are British and they will be for as long as the Royal Navy is in the water.
I'd have those talks it would go like this.
"We want Texas"
"You can have these completely useless and uninhabitable parts here and here, you just have to take back all the illegal immigrants.
Lets say someone wanted Guam. Well didn't want them so much but was using them as a political pawn. I would be fine with having the talks just to shut them up and show them how stupid their ideas are and to let them know that they can't have it.
That is all that is happening. Argentina knows full well that the UK will never give them the islands. They are using the fact that the UK will not even talk to them about it to beat the drums and garner support. They are also using this issue to deflect a lot of their own internal issues.
I think it's funny how Argentina are now trying to paint themselves as the reasonable side who wants to negotiate. The fact is Argentina walked away from previous negotiations, claiming the islands were theirs unquestionably. The UK even offered to submit the matter to international court, and again Argentina refused, saying that they would not respect the decision of the court. Britain even offered to relinquish the islands, but the Islanders themselves don't want to be part of Argentina. Then Argentina invaded the island and tried to take it by force.
The UK's position on all their former colonies (including Northern Ireland), is that so long as the majority of inhabitants want to remain part of Britain, they are welcome to remain. They are also free to opt out of being British any time they like, by the same measure. The Falkland islanders are fiercely loyal, and proud of their Britishness. The chance of them choosing to be part of Argentina is pretty much zero.
I should hope that the UK will not dignify Argentina's claim by entering further negotiations. The only people who have any claim to the islands are the islanders, and the islanders are resolute that they want to remain British. I would also hope that the UK will continue to defend the Islanders right to be British (by force if necessary).
I'm quite sickened by the Obama camp coming out in possible support of Argentina. Way to choose the wrong side, forget who your friends are, and invalidate the Islander's democratic rights, all in one fell swoop.
Argentina is asking for talks repeatedly, and getting support because the UK is not agreeing to 'talks'. Hillary Clinton offered to mediate on 'talks'. why appear so unreasonable and not have talks?
1. The UK offered to take the sovereignty issue up with the Hague courts, Argentina refused. in a court self-determination would likely be the deciding factor.
2. The UK and Argentina had open ended talks, which came to 'nothing' on the fate of the islands. Though the lack of resolution is an Argentine perspective, as far as the islanders and the Uk were concerned the matter was resolved, the Islands are not Argentine. Some progress on other issues like fishing rights were forthcoming. the talks lasted from 1965(?) to 1981.
3. After the talks came an invasion.
4. UN Resolutions have called for talks before and after the invasion, however prior resolutions which the UK complied with included the following wording:
16 December 1965
The General Assembly,
Having examined the question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas),
Taking into account the chapters of the reports of the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples relating to the Falkland Islands (Malvinas), and in particular the conclusions and recommendations adopted by the Committee with reference to that Territory,
Considering that its resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 was prompted by the cherished aim of bringing to an end everywhere colonialism in all its forms, one of which covers the case of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas),
Noting the existence of a dispute between the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland concerning sovereignty over the said Islands,
1. Invites the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to proceed without delay with the negotiations recommended by the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples with a view to finding a peaceful solution to the problem, bearing in mind the provisions and objectives of the Charter of the United Nations and of General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) and the interests of the population of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas);
2. Requests the two Governments to report to the Special Committee and to the General Assembly at its twenty-first session on the results of the negotiations.
Source: www.un.org/documents
Later wording appears like this:
UN Resolutions
Resolution 43/25
Question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas)
7 November 1988
The General Assembly,
Having considered the question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas) and having received the report of the Secretary-General,
Aware of the interest of the international community in the peaceful and definitive settlement by the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland of all their differences, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations,
Taking note of the interest repeatedly expressed by both parties in normalising their relations,
Convinced that such purpose would be facilitated by a global negotiation between both Governments that will allow them to rebuild mutual confidence on a solid basis and to resolve the pending problems, including all aspects on the future of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas),
1. Requests the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to initiate negotiations with a view to finding the means to resolve peacefully and definitively the problems pending between both countries, including all aspects on the future of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas), in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations;
2. Requests the Secretary-General to continue his renewed mission of good offices in order to assist the parties in complying with the request made in paragraph 1 above, and to take the necessary measures to that end:
3. Requests the Secretary-General to submit to the General Assembly at its forty-fourth session a report on the progress made in the implementation of the present resolution;
4. Decides to include in the provisional agenda of its forty-fourth session the item entitled "Question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas)".
Source: www.un.org/documents
The main difference is that both are expected to agree to binding talks, but later resolutions do not include the interests of the islanders into account. All highlighted in bold. The above were brought to the General Assembly by Argentina.
Talks would be possible if self-determination was restored as a keystone issue. The talks would lead 'nowhere' of course, but that is to be expected.
Orlanth wrote:
Talks would be possible if self-determination was restored as a keystone issue. The talks would lead 'nowhere' of course, but that is to be expected.
Talks are possible without it, as the UK can simply walk away from the table, citing the absence of concern for the islanders.
There is, generally, very little reason for the more powerful nation to avoid holding talks, unless the politicians of said nation would lose public support at home.
They only want mineral rights, it is traditionally their land. International law says so. We settled it illegally when Argentina had just become an independent state and could not enforce their claim to the islands.
However, theirs or not, there are British citizens there and they deserve to be protected against invasion and defended in the event of one.
Orlanth wrote:
Talks would be possible if self-determination was restored as a keystone issue. The talks would lead 'nowhere' of course, but that is to be expected.
Talks are possible without it, as the UK can simply walk away from the table, citing the absence of concern for the islanders.
There is, generally, very little reason for the more powerful nation to avoid holding talks, unless the politicians of said nation would lose public support at home.
Well, what is there to discus? We're not breaking the law. The Islanders are happy.
The UK doesn't need the US's explicit support, but if the UN supported the UK (which it would) the yanks would probably enforce it via sea/naval power. It wouldn't be another Afghanistan, it'd be a blockade of Argentinian trade.
Orlanth wrote:
Talks would be possible if self-determination was restored as a keystone issue. The talks would lead 'nowhere' of course, but that is to be expected.
Talks are possible without it, as the UK can simply walk away from the table, citing the absence of concern for the islanders.
There is, generally, very little reason for the more powerful nation to avoid holding talks, unless the politicians of said nation would lose public support at home.
Well, what is there to discus? We're not breaking the law. The Islanders are happy.
The UK doesn't need the US's explicit support, but if the UN supported the UK (which it would) the yanks would probably enforce it via sea/naval power. It wouldn't be another Afghanistan, it'd be a blockade of Argentinian trade.
There isn't much to discuss at all. But you can satisfy their vanity by just siting at a table and shutting them up. Not allowing the talks is making the UK look like the bad guys. There is a whole generation that wasn't even alive during the Falklands war, so they have no idea what this is about. All most anyone under 30 knows is that a former colonial power has control of some islands that are halfway around the world from England and a hop skip and a jump from Argentina.
England can always just make one of the preconditions to the talks that Argentina agrees to let the matter be settled by an international court and agrees to abide by the ruling. England is sure to win that argument (case law, precedent and past history are on England's side) and then you can put the issue away forever.
Orlanth wrote:
Talks would be possible if self-determination was restored as a keystone issue. The talks would lead 'nowhere' of course, but that is to be expected.
Talks are possible without it, as the UK can simply walk away from the table, citing the absence of concern for the islanders.
There is, generally, very little reason for the more powerful nation to avoid holding talks, unless the politicians of said nation would lose public support at home.
Well, what is there to discus? We're not breaking the law. The Islanders are happy.
The UK doesn't need the US's explicit support, but if the UN supported the UK (which it would) the yanks would probably enforce it via sea/naval power. It wouldn't be another Afghanistan, it'd be a blockade of Argentinian trade.
There isn't much to discuss at all. But you can satisfy their vanity by just siting at a table and shutting them up. Not allowing the talks is making the UK look like the bad guys. There is a whole generation that wasn't even alive during the Falklands war, so they have no idea what this is about. All most anyone under 30 knows is that a former colonial power has control of some islands that are halfway around the world from England and a hop skip and a jump from Argentina.
England can always just make one of the preconditions to the talks that Argentina agrees to let the matter be settled by an international court and agrees to abide by the ruling. England is sure to win that argument (case law, precedent and past history are on England's side) and then you can put the issue away forever.
The Argentinians wouldn't agree to those preconditions.
Orlanth wrote:
Talks would be possible if self-determination was restored as a keystone issue. The talks would lead 'nowhere' of course, but that is to be expected.
Talks are possible without it, as the UK can simply walk away from the table, citing the absence of concern for the islanders.
There is, generally, very little reason for the more powerful nation to avoid holding talks, unless the politicians of said nation would lose public support at home.
Well, what is there to discus? We're not breaking the law. The Islanders are happy.
The UK doesn't need the US's explicit support, but if the UN supported the UK (which it would) the yanks would probably enforce it via sea/naval power. It wouldn't be another Afghanistan, it'd be a blockade of Argentinian trade.
There isn't much to discuss at all. But you can satisfy their vanity by just siting at a table and shutting them up. Not allowing the talks is making the UK look like the bad guys. There is a whole generation that wasn't even alive during the Falklands war, so they have no idea what this is about. All most anyone under 30 knows is that a former colonial power has control of some islands that are halfway around the world from England and a hop skip and a jump from Argentina.
England can always just make one of the preconditions to the talks that Argentina agrees to let the matter be settled by an international court and agrees to abide by the ruling. England is sure to win that argument (case law, precedent and past history are on England's side) and then you can put the issue away forever.
The Argentinians wouldn't agree to those preconditions.
Then they would be the ones unwilling to have talks at that point and the problem is solved.
It's OK though, we are sending Prince William there next month. Do Argentina still have a Royal family? They could send one of their own future monarchs, both would be dropped onto the island and have to create weapons using the natural resources on the island, whoever wins keeps the island. Simple.
Maybe we should have talks with Argentina. Just to laugh at them and say no. Thats all that needs to be done. There cannot be any discussion about this issue.
Talks are a "trap" because they give legitimacy to the Argentinean issue that the Falklands are up for question. Anyone who cares about the right to self-determination can see that they aren't, because the Falklanders have made up their mind.
Argentina can only muster support for this among the Third World or tyrants like Assad/Ahmadinejad. Dictators whose only means of legitimizing themselves comes with tired old "anti-colonialism" speeches. I wouldn't worry much.
I'm for one am glad my country (Israel) has halted arms exports to Argentina over their stupidity over the whole issue and how it has brought them into embrace with Arab dictators.
Orlanth wrote:Talks would be possible if self-determination was restored as a keystone issue. The talks would lead 'nowhere' of course, but that is to be expected.
Talks are possible without it, as the UK can simply walk away from the table, citing the absence of concern for the islanders.
There is, generally, very little reason for the more powerful nation to avoid holding talks, unless the politicians of said nation would lose public support at home.
This. Can't really hurt. And in pointing out that the preference of the islanders is what matters, the UK reinforces that they're the good guys.
Harriticus wrote:Talks are a "trap" because they give legitimacy to the Argentinean issue that the Falklands are up for question.
And refusing the talks plays into the hands of the Argentinian claim.
If the UK can't benefit from talks, then they deserve to lose their claim by way of incompetence.
Harriticus wrote:
Anyone who cares about the right to self-determination can see that they aren't, because the Falklanders have made up their mind.
The only people who care about self-determination are people that don't decide issues relevant to self-determination.
Harriticus wrote:
Argentina can only muster support for this among the Third World or tyrants like Assad/Ahmadinejad.
...and the better part of South America, which isn't a place noted for its dictatorial states.
Well, except by ignorant "observers" from Western nations.
Harriticus wrote:
I'm for one am glad my country (Israel) has halted arms exports to Argentina over their stupidity over the whole issue and how it has brought them into embrace with Arab dictators.
Israel halted arms exports after Argentina recognized Palestine as an independent state.
If the issue is truly the Falkland Islanders right to be citizens of the crown, then the solution seems obvious: agree to give the Falkland Islands back to Argentina under the conditions that the Islanders be allowed to retain their British citizenship and their full rights thus concerned, but also be given full rights as citizens of Argentina. There, problem solved. The Argentinians get the land they so desperately want, the Islanders get to be British nationals/expats but will still be treated fairly by the Argentinian government. Caso cerrado.
I have to say there has been an incredible amount of weird and wonderful claims in 7 pages.
1. The Europeans wont help us due to Cameron giving them a Big F*** off recently. = Completely wrong, he just prevented the Incredibly lazy and corrupt Italians, Greeks and Spanish from getting £52 billion of Uk cash every year from the proposed EU tax on City Trading. (80% of all transactions are done in London).
2. We would be the same if we had an island or such next to us in the same position. = We have and we did protect it. (Northern Ireland anyone?). However lets not start a debate on the Murky world of Pan Anglo / Irish Politics.
3. Brazil is sticking its nose in due to the fact it is loving its status as a Top 10 Player in world econmics and the Oil around the Falklands would most certainly help sustain and reinforce that position. This is a Mirror image of the Russian threat a few years back when they thought they could do anything as they controlled the Oil flow from Russia to Europe and if Europe intervened in any of their affairs they would switch it off. What happened next was Ukraine turned it off instead and basically said to Russia, "oh look, we can turn it off too, so stop bullying our neighbours".
4. People are surprised Obama and the US are apparently coming out in support of the Argentines, why? - The Yanks are not stupid, they know that a relationship with South American countries will be far more prosperous in a few years than a relationship with Englistan. Our tolerance of the Hate Mongers and Flag Burners and potential threats has sealed our fate on future "special" relations with the US.
The bottom line is this.
Argentina walked away years ago and decided naked aggression was the way forward. They were wrong. They thought the UK would not be able to sustain a fight so far away. They were probably correct but what they were wrong about was the fact the UK has the finest army, navy and air force on the planet bar none so the conflict was not going to be a sustained one.
Cristina Fernández de Kirchner is quite simply trying to follow the Maggie Thatcher persona as she is the first elected female premier of Argentina, however i doubt very much she has the balls that the Iron Lady had and her actions are so transparent that hopefully David Cameron will just fly to Argentina, grab her, bend her over and give her one to ease the ladies apparent frustrations.
GBDarkAngel wrote:I have to say there has been an incredible amount of weird and wonderful claims in 7 pages.
1. The Europeans wont help us due to Cameron giving them a Big F*** off recently. = Completely wrong, he just prevented the Incredibly lazy and corrupt Italians, Greeks and Spanish from getting £52 billion of Uk cash every year from the proposed EU tax on City Trading. (80% of all transactions are done in London).
No, the proposed transaction tax revenues would have gone to the national government.
GBDarkAngel wrote:They were probably correct but what they were wrong about was the fact the UK has the finest army, navy and air force on the planet bar none so the conflict was not going to be a sustained one.
This made me ROFL so hard, thanks for the pick me up
GBDarkAngel wrote:They were probably correct but what they were wrong about was the fact the UK has the finest army, navy and air force on the planet bar none so the conflict was not going to be a sustained one.
This made me ROFL so hard, thanks for the pick me up
I have to say, I think you're being quite rude there. Though our armed forces may be a lot smaller than the USA's, man for man they are certainly the equal of any in the world, and in fact much better than the vast majority, without question.
Is it rude to say you laughed at an arrogant statement? While Matty might be a superman, to claim that your army, navy, and air force are the best in the world brings in a great deal more factors than just the quality of your best personnel. I mean, when comparing technology, total equipment and manpower, your forces would more or less have to be ENTIRELY comprised of clones of Matty to be the best in the world, wouldn't they?
Joey wrote:Seems that things are hotting up in the Falklands.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1346094/Brazil-sides-Argentina-Britain-Falklands-warship-turned-away-Rio.html The Brazilians are re-affirming their support for the Argentine cause, and today's National Security Council meeting was entirely on the matter of the Falkland Isles (they most often dicuss multiple matters).
Britain is currently lacking an aircraft carrier, but with two large carriers on the way Argentina's best chance would be to strike sooner rather than later.
British navy at present is still pretty effective, with a few of the higher tech type 45 destroyers and missiles. Argentinia's navy is considerably smaller, though they'd be able to lauch sorties from the mainland in a conflict.
Do people think a conflict in the near future is likely?
nah.
the casus beli of Falkland war was solely Argentinian politics, by then the brits aren't hostile towards Args.
Remember that by the time of the Falkland war. Argentina was ruled by a group of military despots. for this kind of government. which it was about to crumble. so what will you do. if it is clear that witch huntings rally the folks into the opposition's banner instead of scaring them?
you need WAR to reunite people under your banner.
so whoever 'weaks' enough falls victim to the war.
today Argentina rules differently. i don't think that the president will rally the folks with the war agaisnt 'common enemy'.
Dont discount the influence from the bottom at the top... if the Argentinian people feel that the Malvinas should truly be under the Argentinian banner, then popular support for the idea could influence the president to go to war rather than the other way around. Especially with the British military strength currently waning, popular opinion could lead them to believe it is time to strike once more.
chaos0xomega wrote:Especially with the British military strength currently waning, popular opinion could lead them to believe it is time to strike once more.
Where on earth does this idea that our strength is waning come from? We're as capable as we've been at any point since the dissolution of Empire. Probably moreso, thanks to technological advancement.
Joey wrote:Seems that things are hotting up in the Falklands.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1346094/Brazil-sides-Argentina-Britain-Falklands-warship-turned-away-Rio.html The Brazilians are re-affirming their support for the Argentine cause, and today's National Security Council meeting was entirely on the matter of the Falkland Isles (they most often dicuss multiple matters).
Britain is currently lacking an aircraft carrier, but with two large carriers on the way Argentina's best chance would be to strike sooner rather than later.
British navy at present is still pretty effective, with a few of the higher tech type 45 destroyers and missiles. Argentinia's navy is considerably smaller, though they'd be able to lauch sorties from the mainland in a conflict.
Do people think a conflict in the near future is likely?
nah.
the casus beli of Falkland war was solely Argentinian politics, by then the brits aren't hostile towards Args.
Remember that by the time of the Falkland war. Argentina was ruled by a group of military despots. for this kind of government. which it was about to crumble. so what will you do. if it is clear that witch huntings rally the folks into the opposition's banner instead of scaring them?
you need WAR to reunite people under your banner.
so whoever 'weaks' enough falls victim to the war.
today Argentina rules differently. i don't think that the president will rally the folks with the war agaisnt 'common enemy'.
I'd believe this but considering the apparent popular support for talks at the very least i'd say that war is a possibility if it isn't likely.
There is still the matter that you have no reliable way to project airpower to the Falklands in the event that the 4 Eurofighters based there are destroyed. Without airpower any campaign to take back the islands is likely to fail, or cost more in terms of blood than the British military/government/people would be willing to sustain.
Also keep in mind that i'm rather well read (compared to the average person) in regards to global military activities, etc. If I think the British military is on the decline, then the average Argentinian will no doubt think its hit rock-bottom.
chaos0xomega wrote:There is still the matter that you have no reliable way to project airpower to the Falklands in the event that the 4 Eurofighters based there are destroyed. Without airpower any campaign to take back the islands is likely to fail, or cost more in terms of blood than the British military/government/people would be willing to sustain.
I would honestly question that air projection in this specific case is entirely relevant. There's been much debate in strategic circles of late over the value of the Carrier in different types of operations. Now I'm not a purist who claims that Carriers are essential to any kind of operation, or that they're on the way out in the same way as the battleship.
However, I do find that insisting that any kind of operation HAS to be supported by a Carrier is a mark of arrested strategic development.
Considering the capabilities of the Argenine Airforce, the ability to get aircraft over there via in flight refueling, and the upgraded aerial defence capabilities of the Type 45, and British ground forces, it would be my educated opinion that air power/superiority would not play the kind of role in a new conflict that it did in the last one. It would not be nearly so decisive. Important? Yes. The deciding factor? Far from it. I believe that the factors listed above would come into play enough, that the air combat would be more of a sideline conflict (assuming the 4 jets on the ground are destroyed by some covert means).
chaos0xomega wrote:There is still the matter that you have no reliable way to project airpower to the Falklands in the event that the 4 Eurofighters based there are destroyed. Without airpower any campaign to take back the islands is likely to fail, or cost more in terms of blood than the British military/government/people would be willing to sustain.
Also keep in mind that i'm rather well read (compared to the average person) in regards to global military activities, etc. If I think the British military is on the decline, then the average Argentinian will no doubt think its hit rock-bottom.
but before the Args declare war against the declining UK.
let's check who backs who?
1. what will the U.S. of America do about this?
2. will China and Russia backs Args to further crippling the UK once more? if China believes that the UK should be tied in another losing war so they can consolidate its power in far-east ,Indochina, and Africa?
chaos0xomega wrote:There is still the matter that you have no reliable way to project airpower to the Falklands in the event that the 4 Eurofighters based there are destroyed. Without airpower any campaign to take back the islands is likely to fail, or cost more in terms of blood than the British military/government/people would be willing to sustain.
Also keep in mind that i'm rather well read (compared to the average person) in regards to global military activities, etc. If I think the British military is on the decline, then the average Argentinian will no doubt think its hit rock-bottom.
but before the Args declare war against the declining UK.
let's check who backs who?
1. what will the U.S. of America do about this?
2. will China and Russia backs Args to further crippling the UK once more? if China believes that the UK should be tied in another losing war so they can consolidate its power in far-east ,Indochina, and Africa?
The US didn't do a lot about the previous one...
Why would Russia care? Many have said that China probably will not assist Argentina though i don't see why it's apparently the UK stopping China from doing that...
I'm going to talk with some of the Argintinians I work with about this to see what "the man on the street" from there, so to speak, thinks about the whole deal.
One of the guys I know from there is blonde haired and blue eyed, and said he put up with a bunch of crap during the war in the 80's because he so resembled a Brit.
In my own opinion I say we stand by Britain or our stated friendship isn't worth crap. Britain has stood with us on more than one occasion when it wasn't convenient.
chaos0xomega wrote:There is still the matter that you have no reliable way to project airpower to the Falklands in the event that the 4 Eurofighters based there are destroyed. Without airpower any campaign to take back the islands is likely to fail, or cost more in terms of blood than the British military/government/people would be willing to sustain.
Also keep in mind that i'm rather well read (compared to the average person) in regards to global military activities, etc. If I think the British military is on the decline, then the average Argentinian will no doubt think its hit rock-bottom.
Why do you need a carrier when you have island based air fields and in-flight refueling? Not to mention the best air defense system ever created will destroy those 1960's era rust buckets the Argentinians are flying. Yes they did well in the first war, but that will not happen this time as the Argentinian air force has gotten older, while the UK air defense is now state of the art. Yes they may not be able to project the same kind of air power that the US can, but they can certainly project enough to stop Argentina.
It's one thing to think they have hit rock bottom when you have a good military. It's another to think that the UK's current "Rock Bottom" is not enough to handle Argentina. Michael Jordan has probably hit rock bottom so far as basketball performance, he is still probably going to wipe the floor with me in a pick up game.
Relapse wrote:I'm going to talk with some of the Argintinians I work with about this to see what "the man on the street" from there, so to speak, thinks about the whole deal.
One of the guys I know from there is blonde haired and blue eyed, and said he put up with a bunch of crap during the war in the 80's because he so resembled a Brit.
In my own opinion I say we stand by Britain or our stated friendship isn't worth crap. Britain has stood with us on more than one occasion when it wasn't convenient.
does the 'piece of crap' he speaks of refers to that "The Argentinian despot of that time wants war to save them" . right?
chaos0xomega wrote:There is still the matter that you have no reliable way to project airpower to the Falklands in the event that the 4 Eurofighters based there are destroyed.
Aegis (or whatever the British equivalent is) cruisers are wonderful things.
do Args have AEGIS cruiser if in the next war, they're expected to fight an evenmore advanced aircraft? of someone here said that Args SAM systems aren't upgraded since then ??
Relapse wrote:I'm going to talk with some of the Argintinians I work with about this to see what "the man on the street" from there, so to speak, thinks about the whole deal.
One of the guys I know from there is blonde haired and blue eyed, and said he put up with a bunch of crap during the war in the 80's because he so resembled a Brit.
In my own opinion I say we stand by Britain or our stated friendship isn't worth crap. Britain has stood with us on more than one occasion when it wasn't convenient.
does the 'piece of crap' he speaks of refers to that "The Argentinian despot of that time wants war to save them" . right?
No the 'crap he had to put up with' more likely refers to the abuse he recieved because he looked British in a time where the country was at war with Britain...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lone Cat wrote:do Args have AEGIS cruiser if in the next war, they're expected to fight an evenmore advanced aircraft? of someone here said that Args SAM systems aren't upgraded since then ??
We (Britain) have it...
Argentina haven't upgraded their military (AFAIK) since the last war.
chaos0xomega wrote:There is still the matter that you have no reliable way to project airpower to the Falklands in the event that the 4 Eurofighters based there are destroyed. Without airpower any campaign to take back the islands is likely to fail, or cost more in terms of blood than the British military/government/people would be willing to sustain.
I would honestly question that air projection in this specific case is entirely relevant. There's been much debate in strategic circles of late over the value of the Carrier in different types of operations. Now I'm not a purist who claims that Carriers are essential to any kind of operation, or that they're on the way out in the same way as the battleship.
However, I do find that insisting that any kind of operation HAS to be supported by a Carrier is a mark of arrested strategic development.
Considering the capabilities of the Argenine Airforce, the ability to get aircraft over there via in flight refueling, and the upgraded aerial defence capabilities of the Type 45, and British ground forces, it would be my educated opinion that air power/superiority would not play the kind of role in a new conflict that it did in the last one. It would not be nearly so decisive. Important? Yes. The deciding factor? Far from it. I believe that the factors listed above would come into play enough, that the air combat would be more of a sideline conflict (assuming the 4 jets on the ground are destroyed by some covert means).
I'll be the first to say I think the carrier age is largely coming to a close, but that doesn't change the fact that you need air-cover. If the Argentines launch a ground assault with naval support they won't need to put their own Air Force in danger, they can very easily storm the island if they land in sizable numbers, and if they dont capture/destroy the planes on the ground, they can and will take the airfield while the planes are up leaving the pilots two options: land the planes and be captured or ditch over open water and most likely commit suicide in the process. Yes, Argie losses will be heavy, but once they have the island, it will be very difficult for the Brits to take it back. The RAF is not going to be launching combat sorties from 4,000 miles away (Ascension Island). Most people dont realize it but a ~10 hour long flight (guesstimating) in a fighter jet is extremely phyiscally demanding and rather exhausting. Its also abhorrently expensive. The average combat sortie for the USAF lasts about 4 hours. There are stories about pilots conducting 8+ hour combat sorties and having to be literally pulled out of the cockpit and carried to bed by the ground crew because they were too physically exhausted to walk. Not to mention the physicaly wear-and-tear on the airframe, it takes x number of hours of maintenance for every hour that a plane is in the air, a 10 hour sortie means about 50 hours of maintenance per plane. At that point, even legacy platforms like the A-4 will make a difference, and the RAF most likely won't be able to maintain a high enough ops tempo to provide top cover for helo-CAS missions. Its simply an unfeasible situation in which to wage a war. I'm not saying that British crews aren't excellently trained and that they wont be able to conduct such ridiculous operations, but the human body has its limits and the RAF has a finite number of planes and aircrews, and if its like the USAF/USN then it has an 8 hour "crew rest" policy, meaning for every 24 hour period aircrew must spend approx 8 hours sleeping/resting. The logistics of simply conducting these operations are unrealistic unless theres a carrier involved or the RAF finds a nice rock somewhere to build an airfield on.
Simply put, the Royal Marines/Royal Army are not going to be able to land on the islands without close air support, it will be a slaughter. The Royal whatever cannot provide close air support without top-cover to protect the vulnerable helicopters from (ancient) jet fighters. Top cover cannot be provided if there isn't an air base nearby (the 6000km to Ascension does not qualify as 'nearby') or a carrier capable of launching jet aircraft in the area. Needless to say its a very difficult situation, of course I am going out on a limb and assuming that the Argentines can successfully launch an invasion in the first place, let alone taking the entirety of the islands before a military response occurs.
'ey. remember WW2 Finale? when Germany falls. many Germans left towards Argentina to avoid getting caught and persecuted by the victorius Allies. so I don't think 'White' args are uncommon.
i guess he might descent from the German immigrants.
chaos0xomega wrote:There is still the matter that you have no reliable way to project airpower to the Falklands in the event that the 4 Eurofighters based there are destroyed. Without airpower any campaign to take back the islands is likely to fail, or cost more in terms of blood than the British military/government/people would be willing to sustain.
I would honestly question that air projection in this specific case is entirely relevant. There's been much debate in strategic circles of late over the value of the Carrier in different types of operations. Now I'm not a purist who claims that Carriers are essential to any kind of operation, or that they're on the way out in the same way as the battleship.
However, I do find that insisting that any kind of operation HAS to be supported by a Carrier is a mark of arrested strategic development.
Considering the capabilities of the Argenine Airforce, the ability to get aircraft over there via in flight refueling, and the upgraded aerial defence capabilities of the Type 45, and British ground forces, it would be my educated opinion that air power/superiority would not play the kind of role in a new conflict that it did in the last one. It would not be nearly so decisive. Important? Yes. The deciding factor? Far from it. I believe that the factors listed above would come into play enough, that the air combat would be more of a sideline conflict (assuming the 4 jets on the ground are destroyed by some covert means).
I'll be the first to say I think the carrier age is largely coming to a close, but that doesn't change the fact that you need air-cover. If the Argentines launch a ground assault with naval support they won't need to put their own Air Force in danger, they can very easily storm the island if they land in sizable numbers, and if they dont capture/destroy the planes on the ground, they can and will take the airfield while the planes are up leaving the pilots two options: land the planes and be captured or ditch over open water and most likely commit suicide in the process. Yes, Argie losses will be heavy, but once they have the island, it will be very difficult for the Brits to take it back. The RAF is not going to be launching combat sorties from 4,000 miles away (Ascension Island). Most people dont realize it but a ~10 hour long flight (guesstimating) in a fighter jet is extremely phyiscally demanding and rather exhausting. Its also abhorrently expensive. The average combat sortie for the USAF lasts about 4 hours. There are stories about pilots conducting 8+ hour combat sorties and having to be literally pulled out of the cockpit and carried to bed by the ground crew because they were too physically exhausted to walk. Not to mention the physicaly wear-and-tear on the airframe, it takes x number of hours of maintenance for every hour that a plane is in the air, a 10 hour sortie means about 50 hours of maintenance per plane. At that point, even legacy platforms like the A-4 will make a difference, and the RAF most likely won't be able to maintain a high enough ops tempo to provide top cover for helo-CAS missions. Its simply an unfeasible situation in which to wage a war. I'm not saying that British crews aren't excellently trained and that they wont be able to conduct such ridiculous operations, but the human body has its limits and the RAF has a finite number of planes and aircrews, and if its like the USAF/USN then it has an 8 hour "crew rest" policy, meaning for every 24 hour period aircrew must spend approx 8 hours sleeping/resting. The logistics of simply conducting these operations are unrealistic unless theres a carrier involved or the RAF finds a nice rock somewhere to build an airfield on.
Simply put, the Royal Marines/Royal Army are not going to be able to land on the islands without close air support, it will be a slaughter. The Royal whatever cannot provide close air support without top-cover to protect the vulnerable helicopters from (ancient) jet fighters. Top cover cannot be provided if there isn't an air base nearby (the 6000km to Ascension does not qualify as 'nearby') or a carrier capable of launching jet aircraft in the area. Needless to say its a very difficult situation, of course I am going out on a limb and assuming that the Argentines can successfully launch an invasion in the first place, let alone taking the entirety of the islands before a military response occurs.
The new Royal Navy type 45 Destroyers have one of the most advanced anti-air systems about...
Would they not be able to do it?
It really just depends on how ready the UK is at the time if Argentina chooses to attack. If they catch England with their pants down then I say they have a chance. If England gets even some decent naval assets and and one of it's latest anti aircraft cruisers in position first, then Argentina would be at an incredible disadvantage.
Argentina has a military in name only. Yes it may be enough to handle threats that come from South America, but they are in no ways ready to fight a real military power, and yes the UK is still a real military power.
chaos0xomega wrote:If the issue is truly the Falkland Islanders right to be citizens of the crown, then the solution seems obvious: agree to give the Falkland Islands back to Argentina under the conditions that the Islanders be allowed to retain their British citizenship and their full rights thus concerned, but also be given full rights as citizens of Argentina. There, problem solved. The Argentinians get the land they so desperately want, the Islanders get to be British nationals/expats but will still be treated fairly by the Argentinian government. Caso cerrado.
I take issue with the term "give it back" since that implies that the Falklands used to belong to Argentina, which they never did. There was a British colony on the Falkland islands before Argentina ever existed as a country. Back then there was a Spanish colony in Buenos Aires. The Spanish colony declared independence from Spain and formed their own country, which eventually became Argentina. Ever since then They have been claiming that the Falkland Islands is part of their country. But clearly they have no more right to govern the Falkland Islands, than the Falkland Islands have a right to govern Argentina.
Also the issue is not just about the Islanders having British citizenship, it is about them being independent. At the moment they are dependant on Britain for their defence and such, but are otherwise free to govern themselves. Why should they give that up to be dictated to by Argentina?
chaos0xomega wrote:
I'll be the first to say I think the carrier age is largely coming to a close, but that doesn't change the fact that you need air-cover.
This is ultimately the tripping block in your thinking here to me. Why do you need air cover? Sounds nonsensical to you probably, but allow me to extrapolate.
You need air cover for two reasons essentially. To defend your own soldiers/equipment from airborne attack. And to attack the enemy from the air. In a nutshell. (reconnaisance is a third possibility, but with GPS, helicopters, and various sensory devices, I'll leave that out here).
If we're examining a scenario whereby the airfield there has already been taken, the odds are that the Argentine airforce will already have taken some pretty severe losses, damaging their capability. However, if we assume worst case scenario, and some covert means delivers the base to them without a single aircraft loss, things are still not so simple. The Argentinan airforce is rendered relatively impotent at attacking the British fleet (due to the Type 45 being advanced enough to have the effect on 50 year old planes that machine guns did on soldiers crossing No Mans Land in WW1). Land based portable anti-air has undergone upgrade as well (Starstreak is infinitely more advanced than the classic stinger missiles and blowpipe). In short, the British have sufficiently upgraded quality AA to deter any kind of assault on their forces.
The second category was remote strike capability. Now British Tomahawk Missiles provide remote strike capability the Argentines can only dream of. In short, the British can launch aerial attacks on the foe, whilst remaining relatively secure against Argentine reprisals. Whilst aerial superiority wouold not be gained, the deterrence would be enough to render the Argentine airforce fairly impotent, resulting in a stalemate.
If the Argentines launch a ground assault with naval support they won't need to put their own Air Force in danger, they can very easily storm the island if they land in sizable numbers,
Fortunately, a submarine lurking in the area, and infinitely superior sensory capabilities mean the Argenine's might not have much luck landing any sizeable force (due to torpedoes and Tomahawk missiles being nasty things when they hit landing craft and troop transports). The second they leave port for the Falklands, we'll know. And once we stick a few more subs in the area, good luck with resupply. You can have all the troops in the world, if you can't get them where they need to be, or keep them supplied and reinforced, its all relatively irrelevant. The second we stick a blockade on that island, the Argentine's aren't going anywhere, or doing anything.
Bare in mind part of the reason I bought this up now was Britain's current lack of capital ships.
Our technology advantage now is nothing to what it will be when we have two Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers and another half dozen type 45s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Elizabeth_class_aircraft_carrier Those things will be beasts.
I dont know what the range is on the Type 45s anti-air missiles are, but I would assume that it is not sufficient enough to project anti-air capability over the islands themselves (unless you're parking a destroyer on the beach...), which is where the airpower would matter as the Argentines don't need to strike at British ships, they merely need to threaten ground forces and their airborne assets (in the form of helo's).
You are right against tomahawks being a potent threat against ground targets, however against landing craft and troop transports, last I checked the upgraded version capable of striking moving ships was still being developed/tested, not sure if that has hit the USN/RN yet. Also, torpedoes against landing craft is unlikely, they are rather small fastmoving targets, troop transports are another story, but we are of course assuming that the initial landings arent in the form of a surprise attack to begin with (again...). Also, since WW2 there have only been a few instances of submarines successfully attacking surface shipping with torpedoes. The last time that it occurred was in fact the sinking of the Belgrano during the last conflict there... then again, that means that if anyone is going to do it again, the Royal Navy is the most likely to have some sort of crew somewhere with some sort of experience with it (doubtful considering its been almost 30 years, but it should still be a point of pride).
chaos0xomega wrote:I dont know what the range is on the Type 45s anti-air missiles are, but I would assume that it is not sufficient enough to project anti-air capability over the islands themselves (unless you're parking a destroyer on the beach...), which is where the airpower would matter as the Argentines don't need to strike at British ships, they merely need to threaten ground forces and their airborne assets (in the form of helo's).
Which is why any naval anti-air assets would be placed between the Falklands and the mainland.
And, yes, Argentina would need to target the Type 45s, or any similar ship, if they meant to land on the Islands themselves.
chaos0xomega wrote:I dont know what the range is on the Type 45s anti-air missiles are, but I would assume that it is not sufficient enough to project anti-air capability over the islands themselves (unless you're parking a destroyer on the beach...), which is where the airpower would matter as the Argentines don't need to strike at British ships, they merely need to threaten ground forces and their airborne assets (in the form of helo's).
The range doesn't actually need to be sufficient to cover the entire island, simply cover the fleet, and ground forces in the local vicinity of the fleet. The Falklands being comprised of a multitude of islands however, and ships being portable, redeployment in accordance to cover major pushes would be more than feasible. All that needs to be provided is localised anti-air defence cover after all. You also have to take into account the capability of British ground AA, which should be capable of downing Pucaras and the like with relative ease.
You are right against tomahawks being a potent threat against ground targets, however against landing craft and troop transports, last I checked the upgraded version capable of striking moving ships was still being developed/tested, not sure if that has hit the USN/RN yet. Also, torpedoes against landing craft is unlikely, they are rather small fastmoving targets, troop transports are another story, but we are of course assuming that the initial landings arent in the form of a surprise attack to begin with (again...).
I didn't intend to imply that Tomahawks should be used against Argentine naval assets, my apologies if that's what you got. I meant Tomahawks for softening up and eliminating ground assets deployed on the islands, in place of bomber craft or strafing runs, reduce the requirement for having your own aircraft operating locally.
As to the submarines, if there is a substantial force embarked, I'm pretty sure the Royal Navy will have a field day with that one. Hitting landing craft themselves may be a challenge, but lumbering troop transports? The newest British submarines are quite possibly the most advanced in the world, I'm not even sure Argentine naval assets are capable of detecting them with the application of the new stealth hulls and whatnot.
Joey wrote:Bare in mind part of the reason I bought this up now was Britain's current lack of capital ships.
Our technology advantage now is nothing to what it will be when we have two Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers and another half dozen type 45s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Elizabeth_class_aircraft_carrier Those things will be beasts.
Only if the f-35 proves to be a worthy air craft........which is really up in the air.
As of note, it has failed every carrier landing simulation, this appears to be a issue and has to do with the frame not being strong enough and the engine not leaving enough room for a proper arresting hook. Leaving those carriers with nothing to carry.
chaos0xomega wrote:
You are right against tomahawks being a potent threat against ground targets, however against landing craft and troop transports, last I checked the upgraded version capable of striking moving ships was still being developed/tested, not sure if that has hit the USN/RN yet.
The Harpoon would be the more likely weapon of choice.
dogma wrote:Tasmania contains more than 1 island, but I don't think its inclusive of Australia and New Zealand.
Maybe they were referred to that way back in the day?
Australia has six states, New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania. Tasmania is the smallest of these states, but is just as much a state as any of the others. It puts six senators in the Australia Upper House, like all the others.
Joey wrote:Bare in mind part of the reason I bought this up now was Britain's current lack of capital ships.
Our technology advantage now is nothing to what it will be when we have two Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers and another half dozen type 45s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Elizabeth_class_aircraft_carrier Those things will be beasts.
Only if the f-35 proves to be a worthy air craft........which is really up in the air.
The liberty of billions of people relies it on it being so.
Frazzled wrote:Blah blah. If you have more guns than the other guy and the will to use them then you're right. If not, you're wrong. Its Ceasar's legions that make the law legal.
In the case of a powerful empire that can and wants to make the world just like itself, you’re totally correct. But we don’t live in that world.
We live in a world where international trade is a vital element of any nation’s prosperity, and that trade is underpinned by the rule of law. Every country will try to slink around those laws where it might help them, but none will straight up ignore them and just declare might makes their position right, because no nation is capable of using might makes right in every subsequent trade position.
Basically, no-one has enough legions to run the whole world, so instead we have negotiated rules of law.
dogma wrote:The basic situation is that Argentina wants the Falklands, and the only thing stopping them from acquiring them is being, essentially, a British protectorate.
As such, if Britain ever decides they don't want to, or can't afford to, protect the Falklands they will become Argentinian territory. A similar situation will develop if the Falklands decide they would rather be Argentinian territory, or if Argentina decides to be more flexible about what "territory" entails (Basically, allows the island to be a protectorate.).
In essence, there are more scenarios that favor Islas Malvinas, than favor the Falkland Islands.
But you can’t just list the events and count them up and declare a winner. You have to give each of those events a probability (however rough). The likelihood of the people there deciding they’d rather be Argentinian is near impossible, I mean, who would decide they’d rather be affiliated with poor South American country over a wealthy British country that they have direct cultural ties with? And why would Britain decide they don’t want to, or can’t afford to defend the Falklands when they were already willing to fight for it once, when no natural resources were discovered there?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Pacific wrote:I can see Russia stepping back into this role, especially as they are regularly trying to prevent the expansion of NATO into their backyard. The Red Bear may be gone, but the old battle-lines are being redrawn.
Russia has a GDP smaller than Spain. No matter how much they might like to be the nemesis of the USA once again, they’re just not capable of it.
I agree with you on China. They are too intertwined with the USA and Europe to ever break into open military conflict. They will, however, be the primary economic opponent for both Europe and the US for the foreseeable future.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Harriticus wrote:Talks are a "trap" because they give legitimacy to the Argentinean issue that the Falklands are up for question. Anyone who cares about the right to self-determination can see that they aren't, because the Falklanders have made up their mind.
Definitely. There would have been some argument for talks as a measured diplomatic response, before Argentina invaded the islands. But they've done that now, so going back to the table now would just look weak.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
chaos0xomega wrote:Dont discount the influence from the bottom at the top... if the Argentinian people feel that the Malvinas should truly be under the Argentinian banner, then popular support for the idea could influence the president to go to war rather than the other way around. Especially with the British military strength currently waning, popular opinion could lead them to believe it is time to strike once more.
Never doubt the impact of global recession to make people want stupid things, like islands owned by much richer countries.
Joey wrote:Bare in mind part of the reason I bought this up now was Britain's current lack of capital ships.
Our technology advantage now is nothing to what it will be when we have two Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers and another half dozen type 45s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Elizabeth_class_aircraft_carrier Those things will be beasts.
Only if the f-35 proves to be a worthy air craft........which is really up in the air.
The liberty of billions of people relies it on it being so.
As of note, it has failed every carrier landing simulation, this appears to be a issue and has to do with the frame not being strong enough and the engine not leaving enough room for a proper arresting hook. Leaving those carriers with nothing to carry.
sebster wrote:
Australia has six states, New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania. Tasmania is the smallest of these states, but is just as much a state as any of the others. It puts six senators in the Australia Upper House, like all the others.
And it's really just one big island.
There's a couple small ones as well.
I could also go all archaic and claim that, really, Australia is just the largest of the Tasmanian Islands.
Mannahnin wrote:
Harpoon? Are we discussing wargames now? I played that at a convention once.
Precisely, the storied history of British wargaming will allow them to prevail against the Latin menace.
sebster wrote:
But you can’t just list the events and count them up and declare a winner. You have to give each of those events a probability (however rough).
I've done that before as part of a grad school assignment, the post I made was just a short form of the conclusion.
sebster wrote:
The likelihood of the people there deciding they’d rather be Argentinian is near impossible, I mean, who would decide they’d rather be affiliated with poor South American country over a wealthy British country that they have direct cultural ties with?
The cultural ties aren't as strong as you would think, and similar analogues exist between the culture of the Falkland Islands and that of Argentina. Indeed, one could argue that the Falklands have more in common, culturally, with Argentina than they do with Britain and that the main reason that they want to be affiliated with Britain is that Britain gave them a better deal (read: self-determination).
sebster wrote:
And why would Britain decide they don’t want to, or can’t afford to defend the Falklands when they were already willing to fight for it once, when no natural resources were discovered there?
chaos0xomega wrote:I dont know what the range is on the Type 45s anti-air missiles are, but I would assume that it is not sufficient enough to project anti-air capability over the islands themselves (unless you're parking a destroyer on the beach...), which is where the airpower would matter as the Argentines don't need to strike at British ships, they merely need to threaten ground forces and their airborne assets (in the form of helo's).
Which is why any naval anti-air assets would be placed between the Falklands and the mainland.
And, yes, Argentina would need to target the Type 45s, or any similar ship, if they meant to land on the Islands themselves.
The biggest worry will be the RN submarine force. For a start Argentina is calling any movement at all in the region 'military escalation', submarines can happily sit off the coast while leaving it apparently undefended. Secondly Argentina has not got the assets to deal with submarines, nor the assets to launch an entirely airborne assault, they will need to transport heavy equipment by sea or get more heavy transport aircraft. Even so submarines have a limited AAW capacity, more than enough to blow away enough transport aircraft to make the invasion iffy and bloody.
Type 45's are very advanced, apparently stealthy, however the Argies will still be able to find them by buying satellite data from (in all likelihood) China. After that is a 'missile test' and plenty of nations will sell Argentina the anti-ship weapons because a live test makes for good sales later, as what happened with Exocet.
The UK would not want to place any assets other than submarines between the Falklands and the mainland, and the Argies would be advised to to field any surface assets at all, other than an initial transport fleet and escort, and then only for the initial assault - with surprise, retiring to port immediately afterwards. Argentina does not have a surface fleet to speak of, as with the Uk they used to have capital ships, but do not at present. In the last war the British carrier fleet deployed to the East of the Falklands a decent AAW destroyer should do same. Forward deployment for both sides would be be achieved by submarines.
chaos0xomega wrote:There is still the matter that you have no reliable way to project airpower to the Falklands in the event that the 4 Eurofighters based there are destroyed.
Aegis (or whatever the British equivalent is) cruisers are wonderful things.
The SAMSON radar system installed on type 45's is supposed to be significantly better than Aegis' SPY-1, something like tracking a ping pong ball from a 100 nautical miles away. All told Sea Viper probably portends the next system that will be used in the USN, much as Aegis was the stepping stone that the Brits used.
dogma wrote:
chaos0xomega wrote:
You are right against tomahawks being a potent threat against ground targets, however against landing craft and troop transports, last I checked the upgraded version capable of striking moving ships was still being developed/tested, not sure if that has hit the USN/RN yet.
The Harpoon would be the more likely weapon of choice.
Which would normally be true but I see on the all knowing wiki says the Type 45s were fittied "for but not with" Harpoons which means they are either in storage or need to be purchased.
dogma wrote:I've done that before as part of a grad school assignment, the post I made was just a short form of the conclusion.
dogma wrote:The cultural ties aren't as strong as you would think, and similar analogues exist between the culture of the Falkland Islands and that of Argentina. Indeed, one could argue that the Falklands have more in common, culturally, with Argentina than they do with Britain and that the main reason that they want to be affiliated with Britain is that Britain gave them a better deal (read: self-determination).
Orlanth wrote:
Type 45's are very advanced, apparently stealthy, however the Argies will still be able to find them by buying satellite data from (in all likelihood) China. After that is a 'missile test' and plenty of nations will sell Argentina the anti-ship weapons because a live test makes for good sales later, as what happened with Exocet.
I'm unaware of any anti-ship missile that can be guided by live satellite feeds, let alone purchased satellite information.
While the Type 45s are stealthy, they aren't invisible. Their radar signature is smaller than it should be, given the size of the vessel, but they still appear on radar. The trouble is in determining which of a number of small signatures is your target, relevant even with satellite information, and then hitting this target of essentially unknown size with anti-shipping missile that must also overcome active and inactive countermeasures.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AndrewC wrote:
Really? Do you honestly think so?
Yes, I think one could make that argument.
Of course, when I say "culture" I mean "Things that cannot be defined any other way".
Having something approaching a common currency is not a component of culture, for example.
Orlanth wrote:
The biggest worry will be the RN submarine force. For a start Argentina is calling any movement at all in the region 'military escalation', submarines can happily sit off the coast while leaving it apparently undefended. Secondly Argentina has not got the assets to deal with submarines, nor the assets to launch an entirely airborne assault, they will need to transport heavy equipment by sea or get more heavy transport aircraft. Even so submarines have a limited AAW capacity, more than enough to blow away enough transport aircraft to make the invasion iffy and bloody.
Argentina has P-3 Orions and they train jointly with the US Navy to operate them (as well as to maintain the readiness of their carrier air wing (they dont have a carrier)), P-3s are rather effective sub-hunters, or at least that is what I have been led to believe by some friends that fly/operate equipment on board them...
Which would normally be true but I see on the all knowing wiki says the Type 45s were fittied "for but not with" Harpoons which means they are either in storage or need to be purchased.
If the RN is anything like the USN, the ships are rarely if ever equipped with Harpoons for general operations/cruise because the likelihood of their use is slim to none. In the event of hostilities Type 45s would either pull into port (if not already there) to be fitted with Harpoons (which should presumably not take too long), or would proceed to the area of operations directly without them (most likely as a stop-gap until they could be relieved by other vessels properly equipped for the mission).
I could also go all archaic and claim that, really, Australia is just the largest of the Tasmanian Islands.
That's probably about as archaic as claiming Tasmania is more than one island
I've done that before as part of a grad school assignment, the post I made was just a short form of the conclusion.
Fair enough if it was just a summary.
The cultural ties aren't as strong as you would think, and similar analogues exist between the culture of the Falkland Islands and that of Argentina. Indeed, one could argue that the Falklands have more in common, culturally, with Argentina than they do with Britain and that the main reason that they want to be affiliated with Britain is that Britain gave them a better deal (read: self-determination).
Sure thing, but what matters to the British is that self-determination, and that translates into overwhelming support for the Falklands to remain British.
Because Maggie Thatcher isn't in power.
Right, because Thatcher was the hard lady of British politics and all that... but look at the support among the British for defending the Falklands. Look at the complete absence of British posters who've come in here and said 'feth it there's miles away let the Argies have them'.
Far from needing a strong PM to defend the Falklands, it'd take an incredibly strong PM to act against overwhelming public support and walk away from them.
sebster wrote:
Sure thing, but what matters to the British is that self-determination, and that translates into overwhelming support for the Falklands to remain British.
Well, I think what matters to them (now) is the mineral assets, with self-determination being an issue of public opinion. But then, I'm a cynical bastard who wouldn't, put in that position, care about the self-determination of a nearly random group of people.
sebster wrote:
Far from needing a strong PM to defend the Falklands, it'd take an incredibly strong PM to act against overwhelming public support and walk away from them.
I think that may change in the coming years of austerity, and especially following them.
But, as I've said before, I'm not nationalistic in any way, so understanding nationalism is, for me, an intellectual exercise.
I understand nationalism pretty well I think, and I could say if the FI were an American possession I would be arguing in favor of holding them as well. But of course, this is coming from someone that thinks Puerto Rico should be admitted as the 51st State, the US various pacific island territories as the 52nd, and wishes that the idea that we gave the Panama Canal back to Panama is really just a bad dream... amongst other things...
dogma wrote:Well, I think what matters to them (now) is the mineral assets, with self-determination being an issue of public opinion. But then, I'm a cynical bastard who wouldn't, put in that position, care about the self-determination of a nearly random group of people.
I suspect what really matters is that the British beat the Argies once before, and to just hand over the Falklands after that would be like ignoring what those troops had done.
I think that may change in the coming years of austerity, and especially following them.
I can’t see any government failing to defend its territory because it’d cost too much to undertake. I could see a government cutting back on force projection to the point where, when an issue like the Falklands comes it can no longer commit the troops needed to resolve the issue, but even then I doubt it, as austerity is really just the buzzword for the solution to the euro-crisis right now – I can’t see it leading to the sustained cuts needed to make Britain incapable of defending the Falklands.
But, as I've said before, I'm not nationalistic in any way, so understanding nationalism is, for me, an intellectual exercise.
I’m not particularly nationalistic either, but I don’t think it’s that hard to understand it in others.
sebster wrote:
I suspect what really matters is that the British beat the Argies once before, and to just hand over the Falklands after that would be like ignoring what those troops had done.
In terms of public opinion, sure.
sebster wrote:
I can’t see any government failing to defend its territory because it’d cost too much to undertake.
Well, they might not justify it that way, but the British Empire basically ceased to exist due to cost concerns.
And on an issue with as a high a profile as the Falklands, public opinion straight up dictates policy. Ignoring it would sink any government.
Well, they might not justify it that way, but the British Empire basically ceased to exist due to cost concerns.
A mass of colonies stretching right across the globe, demanding the maintenance and constant deployment of a navy ready to take on any rival power, and deployment of troops to quell increasingly active resistance movements is really not the same thing as 3,000 people on some islands that want to be part of Britain, that some third tier local power wants.
dogma wrote:
Yes, I think one could make that argument.
Of course, when I say "culture" I mean "Things that cannot be defined any other way".
Having something approaching a common currency is not a component of culture, for example.
And you could not be so completely wrong. This is a common mistake from many people who have not visited or lived on the islands. For the last 30 Years there has been no contact between Argentina and the Falkland Isles. If you were to suggest that they, the Islanders have more in common with an Argentinian you would be lucky to escape permanent physical injury.
The current generation has never seen any culture other than their own or the UK. The fact that you seem to think that physical locality makes it so is very disheartning for both the insular, and patronising, stance that many so called experts have on the entire affair.
Argentina abused the local populace for the 74 days in which they were in command. They looted and terrorised the islanders with arbitrary arrests and detainments. Stole vital supplies and ignored the Geneva convention. A sizeable portion of land, even today, is still unusable due to unmapped minefields. The local population does not forget and in no way shape or form are the quasi Argentinian.
Now before you decide to say that I have no better knowledge, I suggest strongly that you look carefully to the left of this post and note the location and flag. And no it's not NZ. That just shows your general lack of awareness
Next time be careful of your audience.
I'll come back later when I've calmed down, I have no wish to be suspended.
Orlanth wrote:
Type 45's are very advanced, apparently stealthy, however the Argies will still be able to find them by buying satellite data from (in all likelihood) China. After that is a 'missile test' and plenty of nations will sell Argentina the anti-ship weapons because a live test makes for good sales later, as what happened with Exocet.
I'm unaware of any anti-ship missile that can be guided by live satellite feeds, let alone purchased satellite information.
I wouldn't put it past current technology to do this, but direct feed is not what I am talking about. Satellites find the destroyers, missiles/aircraft carrying missiles are sent towards the location. Terminal guidance either way is up to the missiles avionics, stealth retards detection it cannot as easily prevent a lock when the missile knows where to look.
dogma wrote:
While the Type 45s are stealthy, they aren't invisible. Their radar signature is smaller than it should be, given the size of the vessel, but they still appear on radar. The trouble is in determining which of a number of small signatures is your target, relevant even with satellite information, and then hitting this target of essentially unknown size with anti-shipping missile that must also overcome active and inactive countermeasures.
Agreed. However anti ship missile battles are about saturation. What if the Argies buy these:
The missile is fired from a mobile truck-mounted launcher into the atmosphere, with over-the-horizon radar, satellite tracking and possibly unmanned aerial vehicles each providing guidance. It also incorporates a manoeuvrable warhead to help find its target. Such a device would be instrumental in striking a vessel in the open ocean or denying access to a potential opponent in transiting to a conflict zone. An August 2011 report by Taiwan’s Ministry of National Defense declared: ‘A small quantity of the missiles [was] produced and deployed in 2010, increasing the difficulty of military manoeuvres in the region for the US Army’.
And it looks like they satellite track also.
Might China sell equipment like this in return for good oil contract options?
No. Why would China risk relations with a wealthy and powerful nation that ALREADY possesses the islands in order to sell a few missiles to a backwater nation that has a very slim chance of winning them militarily? It's a pessimistic fantasy.
I agree entirely, but then that situation makes much more sense than what the UK has done in the past; selling weapons and equipment to countries and then instigating a military action against them at a later date (Iraq - Afghanistan)
Albatross wrote:No. Why would China risk relations with a wealthy and powerful nation that ALREADY possesses the islands in order to sell a few missiles to a backwater nation that has a very slim chance of winning them militarily? It's a pessimistic fantasy.
Handled properly there is a concern Argentina could win. China could veto any motions against the invasion in the UN security council and the entirity of South America will back Argentina up, at least for a while and on this issue. China and Argentina already have reciprocal agreements on the Falklands and Tibet, as with South American 'trading partners' of the UK we just suck it up, not else we can do.
Also selling weapons and 'risking relations' are two different things. To China its a business transaction, no Chinese soldiers in situ, and after all we still deal with France and they sold Exocet during the Falklands war.
If China trades the technology to Argentina there isn't too much that can be done about that except strengthen existing defences.
China will not back Argentina in any substantive way. With the UK set to become a haven for the Yuan, and other economic factors, good relations with us are far more important than some spontaneous weapons testing. They would stand to lose far too much.
dogma wrote:
Yes, I think one could make that argument.
Of course, when I say "culture" I mean "Things that cannot be defined any other way".
Having something approaching a common currency is not a component of culture, for example.
And you could not be so completely wrong. This is a common mistake from many people who have not visited or lived on the islands. For the last 30 Years there has been no contact between Argentina and the Falkland Isles. If you were to suggest that they, the Islanders have more in common with an Argentinian you would be lucky to escape permanent physical injury.
The current generation has never seen any culture other than their own or the UK. The fact that you seem to think that physical locality makes it so is very disheartning for both the insular, and patronising, stance that many so called experts have on the entire affair.
Argentina abused the local populace for the 74 days in which they were in command. They looted and terrorised the islanders with arbitrary arrests and detainments. Stole vital supplies and ignored the Geneva convention. A sizeable portion of land, even today, is still unusable due to unmapped minefields. The local population does not forget and in no way shape or form are the quasi Argentinian.
Now before you decide to say that I have no better knowledge, I suggest strongly that you look carefully to the left of this post and note the location and flag. And no it's not NZ. That just shows your general lack of awareness
Next time be careful of your audience.
I'll come back later when I've calmed down, I have no wish to be suspended.
Andrew
Before Andrew posted this I was just about to mention that the Islanders are fiercely patriotic..
I know this because my old sergeant major was stationed there. He span me some great dits about the place, and one of them was that a Royal Marines WO and a RM major are stationed down there to act as training staff for the volunteer force privately paid for by the islanders.
As well as the stuff funded by the UK government.
The islanders are aggressively patriotic to the point that they have formed a small militia to fight the Argies if they ever come back. I think that's proof enough of their thoughts on the matter!
I've been to Gibraltar plenty as well, and they don't want to be Spanish. Don't ask me why, but the English speaking nations seem to have an inherent arrogance and a thick patriotic streak in general. The British and the Americans both seem to have a "we are the best" complex which i have always found amusing. I find patriotism to be foolish, but i definitely understand it.
Personally i like to live off my own merits, but it's understandable why we're the way we are. If I was a fat accountant who never left Kentucky I would like to endlessly tell people how tough my great grandad was as well!
If Argentina invaded and was opposed militarily -- which clearly it would be -- the best that China could do in the Security Council would be to veto a UK motion to condemn Argentina's aggression.
The vote would be meaningless as we actually won the war.
Which would normally be true but I see on the all knowing wiki says the Type 45s were fittied "for but not with" Harpoons which means they are either in storage or need to be purchased.
If the RN is anything like the USN, the ships are rarely if ever equipped with Harpoons for general operations/cruise because the likelihood of their use is slim to none. In the event of hostilities Type 45s would either pull into port (if not already there) to be fitted with Harpoons (which should presumably not take too long), or would proceed to the area of operations directly without them (most likely as a stop-gap until they could be relieved by other vessels properly equipped for the mission).
My understanding of the "for but not with" concept is that none of the associated systems are installed on the type 45s I don't have first hand knowledge of how Harpoons are fired anymore, they may be compatible with the VLS in the ship or require their own mounting. In any case I am under the impression it's more than a case of loading the missiles themselves but not much more; as the full Harpoon system is fitted on the type 20-something frigates and in active use in the RN. I would guess if they wanted the system right away they could fly in what they needed and fit at sea, while waiting for the aforementioned frigates; I've always thought the concept of an Air Defense Destroyer (Cruiser) was a little odd for the RN, being as they are virtually defenseless against other ships of equivalent tonnage which are almost uniformly guided missile destroyers (cruisers) that carry air defense systems.I suppose the RN has some sort of master plan I just don't see.
Wee_Tam wrote:this happens every 5 years or so.... nothing ever comes of it
If it does this time, its hard not to see a repeat of last time
Except much, much worse. In terms of hardware the Argens were much closer in the 80's; although the Navy was pretty much absent the fight ships of the same class from the same builder were on both sides. This time the next generation of equipment, largely you know minus the rifles, helicopters, etc that really haven't needed replacing, is on one side and the same old same old on the other. All in total the UK is down a command carrier and S/VTOL fighters and up pure air defense destroyers an LHD, and 2 amphibian assault ships. Basically the RN as it is was BUILT to fight the Argies...and those morons want to stir the pot.
I read on Wikipedia that the Argentinian A4s have been upgraded with the avionics from F16s.
I'm not sure what difference that makes. The F16's fly-by-wire control system simply doesn't apply to an A4. Presumably it means the radar and fire control.
Kilkrazy wrote:I read on Wikipedia that the Argentinian A4s have been upgraded with the avionics from F16s.
I'm not sure what difference that makes. The F16's fly-by-wire control system simply doesn't apply to an A4. Presumably it means the radar and fire control.
Analog primary flight indicators replaced by a glass cockpit, new radar, jammers. Probably most importantly they can be networked together to share targeting data. They may actually be fly by wire based on the upgrade notes on wiki, they were basically totally rebuilt flight controls were likely a part of that, and the 1533B bus is an integral part of the FBW system.
Albatross wrote:No. Why would China risk relations with a wealthy and powerful nation that ALREADY possesses the islands in order to sell a few missiles to a backwater nation that has a very slim chance of winning them militarily? It's a pessimistic fantasy.
Don't forget... the possibility of double dealings.
didn't the U.S. did the same double dealings in the flakland wars (80s) before??
AndrewC wrote:
Next time be careful of your audience.
I knew exactly where you were from.
Which I'm sure will further annoy you.
AndrewC wrote:
This is a common mistake from many people who have not visited or lived on the islands.
Its also common for people who have developed a dislike, or hatred, of another group of people that have influenced them to fervently deny the influence of that people, and attempt to remove it wherever they recognize it.
One of things that's important when you're going to claim expertise (I don't claim this by the way, many of my graduate assignments were completed by way of devil's advocacy.) is knowing that you never trust a primary, or any, source.
mattyrm wrote:
The islanders are aggressively patriotic to the point that they have formed a small militia to fight the Argies if they ever come back. I think that's proof enough of their thoughts on the matter!
I have a friend (Who lives in Chicago.) that despises the Green Bay Packers, and by extension all of Wisconsin. He insists that he doesn't like anything from the state, and would never be caught enjoying anything originating from there.
He eats at Culver's (A Wisconsin chain.) every other day.
Yes, he is quite fat.
sebster wrote:
A mass of colonies stretching right across the globe, demanding the maintenance and constant deployment of a navy ready to take on any rival power, and deployment of troops to quell increasingly active resistance movements is really not the same thing as 3,000 people on some islands that want to be part of Britain, that some third tier local power wants.
Sure, but the principle is similar. When something becomes too costly, or even just too annoying, to defend the governing body simply lets it go.
Granted, oil changes the equation greatly, but I don't see a resolution to the problem that isn't "Argentina has authority over the Falkland Islands."
I found out while looking at something else that the USS Boxer, an LHD in the USN that operates Harriers was lent to the Germans temporarily, which implies there is SOME precedent to a carrier being lent between NATO nations, but not for direct combat. I know this was like 5 pages ago...but i like to share.
it depends on the folk's attitude over their master.
for Americans (13 colonies... remember?) Irish and Indians. they believed that the brits oppressed them so hard (for americans. the main casus beli was a taxation without a representative from the 13 colonies). and their lives will be better w/o the Union Jack collars on 'em.
for many smaller isle folks (Many inhabited isles that lies within the continent of America still belongs to the U.K.), they've saw that the brits are the benefactors and they should stay, not sure if they saw the political meltdown in sub sahara africa before ???
Lone Cat wrote:it depends on the folk's attitude over their master.
for Americans (13 colonies... remember?) Irish and Indians. they believed that the brits oppressed them so hard (for americans. the main casus beli was a taxation without a representative from the 13 colonies). and their lives will be better w/o the Union Jack collars on 'em.
for many smaller isle folks (Many inhabited isles that lies within the continent of America still belongs to the U.K.), they've saw that the brits are the benefactors and they should stay, not sure if they saw the political meltdown in sub sahara africa before ???
The UK isn't their 'master'.
The Falklands Islands are a protectorate of the United Kingdom.
Albatross wrote:No. Why would China risk relations with a wealthy and powerful nation that ALREADY possesses the islands in order to sell a few missiles to a backwater nation that has a very slim chance of winning them militarily? It's a pessimistic fantasy.
Don't forget... the possibility of double dealings.
didn't the U.S. did the same double dealings in the flakland wars (80s) before??
Not really, the US remained neutral in the conflict and was at the centermof attempsts to broker a peaceful settlement (remember those!).
But Ronny Raygun ever the nice chap allowed the supply of intelligence (naval disposition) and the ever so handy sidewinder missiles that did such a sterling job on the Argie airforce.
As to those that are trying to make sense of the ever pedantic points made by Dogma. His Raison d'être seems to take contrary points on any British related topic and drive the conversation in new and boring directions. The last time the Falklands came up he kept dismissing it as an irrelevant little non conflict. He's the worst sort of troll, he doesn't realise he's doing it.
Orlanth wrote:
And it looks like they satellite track also.
Satellite tracking depends on live access to the satellite in question, which the Chinese will not grant to the Argentinians for various reasons.
The Argies have their own domestic space program and are capable of launching their own satellites... just saying... they might need to purchase satellites from the Chinese, but they are technologically capable of operating such a system, although financially...
Orlanth wrote:
And it looks like they satellite track also.
Satellite tracking depends on live access to the satellite in question, which the Chinese will not grant to the Argentinians for various reasons.
I dont see the problem. Live access can be cold. That is to say during the relevant portion of the satellites sweep data is transmitted two ways to China and Argentina, or more likely a live relay comes on. Officially Argentina 'only gets what it pays for', portions of sweeps over the islands and surrounding waters, with live transmission coverage over China et al not being for sale.
Satellites do not hover over one spot unless they are in geosynch. Geosynch is for comms sats and some science, weather stats spy sats etc all need to be closer, for a start its the only way to get non equatorial cover, second the lower you are the better the resolution and the more passes per day.
Its a simple software matter to take take the live satellite feed and get it to automatically delay data to a client on certain parts of its passage, you could also arrange intermittent direct feed. All it requires is an extra set of comms channels and an on/off switch. Compared to what else you need to code to run a satellite its like a kids crayon drawing in the Louvre.
if data is relayed from a third party communications set, probably another satellite, you wouldnt need any more programming than a communications satellite normally holds. to the comms sat its just another phone call.
chaos0xomega wrote:
The Argies have their own domestic space program and are capable of launching their own satellites... just saying... they might need to purchase satellites from the Chinese, but they are technologically capable of operating such a system, although financially...
NASA (among others) pays for a good portion of CONAE, the question isn't one of funding, but resolution.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orlanth wrote:
I dont see the problem. Live access can be cold.
It can be, but there are numerous reasons why it wouldn't be.
Of course, when I say "live access" I mean "Access to the satellite itself." not "Access to a secondary stream of satellite data.
Orlanth wrote:
That is to say during the relevant portion of the satellites sweep data is transmitted two ways to China and Argentina, or more likely a live relay comes on.
No government in the world would allow another government direct access to live data sent directly from its spy/targeting satellites. It gives away their position, and makes it that much easier to tamper with telemetry.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orlanth wrote:
if data is relayed from a third party communications set, probably another satellite, you wouldnt need any more programming than a communications satellite normally holds. to the comms sat its just another phone call.
But it delays receipt of the data, which is the inherent problem.
Orlanth wrote:
I dont see the problem. Live access can be cold.
It can be, but there are numerous reasons why it wouldn't be.
Of course, when I say "live access" I mean "Access to the satellite itself." not "Access to a secondary stream of satellite data.
China doesnt need to share control to share data
dogma wrote:
Orlanth wrote:
That is to say during the relevant portion of the satellites sweep data is transmitted two ways to China and Argentina, or more likely a live relay comes on.
No government in the world would allow another government direct access to live data sent directly from its spy/targeting satellites. It gives away their position, and makes it that much easier to tamper with telemetry.
To tamper with a stallite you need to know its control codes, not just its location. Satellites can and are tracked with pinpoint accuracy anyway. Hell Jodrell Bank can still do that and thats early 50's tech.
dogma wrote:
Orlanth wrote:
if data is relayed from a third party communications set, probably another satellite, you wouldnt need any more programming than a communications satellite normally holds. to the comms sat its just another phone call.
But it delays receipt of the data, which is the inherent problem.
Why is that a problem? You think even the US uses direct feed? No they dont its fed into data centre in Langley etc and then fed back to units in situ. The delay is microseconds and only really noticable with advanced measuring tools. Satellites make regular course adjustments because of it, military hardware has allowances for that sort of delay included as standard. You are sweating the small stuff.
Its as if you are saying you cannot build usable warships because salt water corrodes and waves create an unstable firing platform. Synchronising relaying for space technology is like a small incoming wave to a ship, anything but the unexpected.
This all discounts another option that Argentina gets reasonably timely support fast enough to act on but not split second that gives Chinese handlers a few minutes grace to sanitise. In the case of anti ship warfare a firm fix that is a minute or so old is considered a firm fix, not an estimate. The ocean is open and flat and ships travel only so fast, if the data is updated intermittently it is still valuable as a beacon for missiles and ungodly accurate with terms of ship vs ship intel..
Orlanth wrote:
To tamper with a stallite you need to know its control codes, not just its location.
The location, in this case, is less important than having access to the satellite's data stream.
At the end of the day, a satellite is a computer with a wireless connection, and gaining access to it is roughly similar.
Orlanth wrote:
Why is that a problem?
For satellite guided missiles?
Really?
I'll mail you a picture of myself with coordinates and a time stamp, you're free to shoot a missile at me if you think you can hit me. Hell, I'll upload it a file-sharing service, and let you take a guess.
Orlanth wrote:
To tamper with a stallite you need to know its control codes, not just its location.
The location, in this case, is less important than having access to the satellite's data stream.
At the end of the day, a satellite is a computer with a wireless connection, and gaining access to it is roughly similar.
You are mistakenly thinking a third party client can upload data beyond a cofirmation signal and even that may be parsed by secondary means.
dogma wrote:
Orlanth wrote:
Why is that a problem?
For satellite guided missiles?
Really?
I'll mail you a picture of myself with coordinates and a time stamp, you're free to shoot a missile at me if you think you can hit me. Hell, I'll upload it a file-sharing service, and let you take a guess.
You have just described how naval combat actually works, riding a painted target all the way is a luxury even today. Missile, air to ground anti ship or anti air cope with less. With anti ship technology it gets easier, the data need not be frequent. Terminal guidance should always be handled by onboard software lest the missile be jammed by the target. Expecting constant feed is actually worse than giving secure updates and letting the missile home on on its own for the final correction for impact. If constant feed is interrupted what does your missile do and the closer it gets to a hostile warship the greater chance the warship can generate a stronger jamming signal than its guiding signal.
Missile have a terminal guidance radius when its onboard computer can metaphorically say 'ok I can handle it from here on in'. You need to get the missiles in that bubble. Now if you are bombing Iraq or caves in Afghanistan and the target has no EW technology to speak of and has immobile targets then you can launch long range missiles at leasure and guide them all the way in, by hand if you like. But you wouldnt want to be actively guiding a missile approaching a modern warship with a modern EW suite, that would just be idiocy. Modern missiles, have hardened electronics and fairly good tracking software and hardware to do the job themselves, even not so modern missiles have that, its 80's tech, 70's if you are feeling generous.
Orlanth wrote:
You are mistakenly thinking a third party client can upload data beyond a cofirmation signal and even that may be parsed by secondary means.
If you're talking about a direct feed, then you aren't talking about a third party client. A third party client is the client that receives data from a Chinese earthbound stream. To illustrate:
Satellite -> China -> Argentina.
Orlanth wrote:
You have just described how naval combat actually works, riding a painted target all the way is a luxury even today.
I've described to you why satellite tracking missiles will not work, or at least will be significantly less effective, with data that has been delayed.
The important thing is, the 3,000 or so inhabitants of the Falklands have an inalienable right to self determination.
Shame about those 5,000,000 or so Scots, eh, David?
Not a shame at all. I and the majority of Englismen can't wait for our bigoted racist, endlessly whinging n eighbours to feth off frankly. I just wish that fat bloke with the dress on would hurry the process along a bit.
The important thing is, the 3,000 or so inhabitants of the Falklands have an inalienable right to self determination.
Shame about those 5,000,000 or so Scots, eh, David?
Not a shame at all. I and the majority of Englismen can't wait for our bigoted racist, endlessly whinging n eighbours to feth off frankly. I just wish that fat bloke with the dress on would hurry the process along a bit.
But that's another thread of it's own.
By similar reckoning the 7.8 Million Virginians and who cares how many other former confederate states should petition the UN eh?
To be honest humans are tribal creatures.. you could even say the same of places in England. Cornwall has a separatist movement!
Automatically Appended Next Post: In a nutshell people are stupid and patriotism is stupid, but that doesn't mean i have time for the Scots and I've explained several times why that is.
It's childish and it's dumb. But i prefer to meet their gak attitude head on rather than ignore it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:
mattyrm wrote:...fat bloke...
He looks uncannily like Alex Salmond .. i like him a little bit more
chaos0xomega wrote:Someone care to fill me in on the Scottish national sovereignty debate? I didnt think there was much going on these days in that department.
chaos0xomega wrote:Someone care to fill me in on the Scottish national sovereignty debate? I didnt think there was much going on these days in that department.
It's gone real quiet since they found out they can't keep the Pound and have to adopt the Euro.
It';s nice to see a politician getting lambasted for actually keeping his election promise for once.
To be fair to the SNP, they did say the vote would be at the end of their term and not before. 'SuperDave' was the one who was trying to force the issue of an early referendum.
And I look forward to many more years of winding up mattyrm with all his hard earned tax heading north of the border. (Smile Matty, you know you want to. If we wern't here who would you have to complain about.
Dogma, I just do not know what to say to you at this point in time. If you really believe in what you say, I will have to leave you in your own, for want of a better word, ignorance.
. Their steaks are awesome.
