Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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??

So from the top then.

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!?!

Andrew1975 wrote:

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 core design objective of the Harrier was to be able to fly from dispersed non-airfield locations such as clearings in the forest.

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.

Albatross wrote:

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.

Wolfstan wrote:So from the top then.

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.

Now here we go. MGS demonstrates "the will" part.

Frazzled wrote:

Wolfstan wrote:So from the top then.

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!

Wolfstan wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Wolfstan wrote:So from the top then.

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.

But then again I could be horribly wrong.

Cheers

Andrew

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.

Aye, especially when that was the fault of 'dictatorship' that was trying to appease an unhappy people.

Surely an apology, lets be friends and forget we had leaders mad enough to pull that, would be better than, 'give us the precious, we wants it!"

Pacific wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:

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.

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.

Completely OT I looked at this thread when I wasn't logged in and the adverts at the top of the page were;

1. 8 day tour of the Falkland Isles
2. Terrain Putty
3. Join the Royal Marines.

Had to laugh!

Cheers

Andrew

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?"

Oh and don't feel so special UK http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beagle_conflict. It seams Argentina really feels they should be a colonial power.

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.

Andrew1975 wrote: Oh and don't feel so special UK http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beagle_conflict. It seams Argentina really feels they should be a colonial power.

The damned fascists.

Perhaps Argentina should become a protectorate of The Empire...

Albatross wrote:
What are you basing that on?

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.

AustonT wrote:

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.

AustonT wrote:

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.

Joey wrote:

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.