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.

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.

Why does Argentina even want the Falklands? There's NOTHING there! At least when Iraq invades a giant sandbox there was oil around XD

Pacific wrote:I really hope not. The last one was a waste of lives, all over a tiny little island

this is exactly the attitude the Argentinians are hoping for.

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.

Also this.

I suggest we release the fully armed and operational battle sheep.

If we can't have the Falklands, no-one can!

Wouldn't you have to borrow them from New Zealand?

Argentina has a pretty sizable military, and I'm sure they're itching to try out some of their toys..

Why the hell do they really want the falklands though? They're hardly relevant. Just seems like rabble-rousing.

Do the french still own corsica? This wold be as silly as the italians trying to take that back from them. Just get over it.

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.

Avatar 720 wrote:

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.

biccat wrote:

Avatar 720 wrote:

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.

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

Actually it looks like there may be quite a bit of oil there.

She purdy

No, she was puffy now she's a haggard old witch.

dogma wrote:

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

Actually it looks like there may be quite a bit of oil there.

I did wonder but i thought i might have been mistaken...

Why are people talking like we don't have an aircraft carrier any more? Has everyone forgotten the HMS Illustrious?

If we absolutely needed to, we could do a speed refit in a matter of weeks(maybe even days), and plonk aircraft on her again.

The real problem Ketara is that no aviators are rated to fly ONTO her.

AustonT wrote:The real problem Ketara is that no aviators are rated to fly ONTO her.

Expansion on this please?

Haven't we officially spread our nuclear umbrella over the Falklands?

Ketara wrote:

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...

Those thinking that the US would support the UK might want to read this......

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/06/10/obama-administration-backs-argentina-over-uk-on-falkland-dispute/

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".

That article is a little sketchy as Obama hasn't said a word and the US delegation mere made consent. A statement from his lips is required.

I don't get why people are trying to negotiate it...

Because politicians are asinine pricks who are only trying to get rich, get reelected, and slay trim.

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."

Problem solved.

I'm not even sure we need to get Matty drunk or get him a letter from LizzieII before he'll run along the seabed to the Falklands.

Just give him a weapon of some form and point him at the bad people.

I like to think of him as a "Fire-and-Forget-Whatever-You-Aimed-Him-At-Existed" weapon.