There is oil in the Falklands, krill oil.
Printable View
There is oil in the Falklands, krill oil.
The US never intervenes were it's own national interest contradicts British historical attachments.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Last time out the US was at best cool about the idea of UK invading, now it's even more in the US interest to court Argentina.
The strategic thing and most likey thing ANY current or potential US president will do is absolutely nothing.
US is thinking long term on this one with regard to the millitary, economic and naval situation in the South Atlantic.
The UK on the other hand may need may need to come to a monetary accomadation or politically risk a lot for little return.(there doesnt need to be a war for this to hurt Britain in the future)
http://www.spike.com/video-clips/t5l...n-penn-on-iraq
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Get all assets out of Afghanistan for starters and set up a lot of them in the Falklands. Let's protect people who want to be British rather than get shot at by those who clearly want nothing to do with us.
The Argentinians would have a difficult task taking the Falklands. The UK would have a nearly impossible task to retake it with no aircraft.
~:smoking:
We have a 2 year window between the decomission of the Illustrious and the launch of Elizabeth, way I see it if argentina invades we'll just rush Elizabeth into service and retake the island when it's ready, war has no time limit right?
No one wants to give a foe that sort of time to dig in. And it is the complete lack of planes that is the main problem - there aren't any in service that can be used.
~:smoking:
just nuke the damn place and be done with it.
Simply incorporate Falklands as part of Britain. Problem solved. Any subsequent attack against Falklands will be considered a direct attack against a NATO nation with all the consequences (i.e. Argentina will never even *think* about doing it).Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
Very neat. Just to make things nice and democratic, hold it to a vote in the Falklands which will pass by something like a 98% majority. Whether NATO would help might be more of an issue... but it would put a lot more pressure on America - if the alliance does nothing when challenged, what use is it?Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
~:smoking:
The Falklands it too small to be fully incorporated, even so Argentinia would be attacking 1200 NATO troops, but they attacked 60 last time and the US sat on it's hands, though Reagan did convince the Pentagon to provide SigInt, Satelite and logistical support, eventually.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
The Argentinians would face a pitched battle to take Mount Pleasant, so the arriving UK force would most likely be reliving the garrison, not having to establish a new beachheadQuote:
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy
That depends, can the Argies knock out all the Rapier missiles and the Airstrip before the RAF can get a Eurofighter squadron to Mount Pleasent? The Airbase is huge, and largely empty but a lot of heavier gear is in stores and you just need to fly out the men to use it.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
The Argentinians took the place last time without causing a single casualty to the garrison. In essence, they were able to walk in.
If they were to try again they are well aware that there is going to be a fight on their hands, so it's all or nothing. The garrison might be brave, highly trained and relatively well equipped, but they would be pummelled from the sea, air and ground. The airstrip would be out of action about 10 minutes after the attack starts, with one hole in the centre of the runway, as it is key. That's flights in prevented. Bringing in gear to repair it isn't that tough, especially if you know it's required.
Rapiers are good systems, especially if they're upgraded. They are relatively mobile, but I imagine they'd be bracketed relatively quickly. Even when they're active they might be able to prevent any fighters getting close to the islands, but I still doubt that the UK could safely get transport planes in, especially with no cover.
The British surface fleet, although small, is pretty modern, but how many missiles before it is crippled? They'd need to be destroyed first, else they'd cause carnage amongst the Argentinian fleet. Last time out, very few exocet missiles were deadly.
Any UK submarines in the area would be another problem. How good are Argentinian anti-sub weaponry? I imagine the sub would be difficult to find as long as it remained inactive which rather negates their utility.
~:smoking:
Last time around Britain and Argentina were not actually in a state of war, which is why NATO's hands were tied: Argentina was "liberating its territory" while Britain was protecting its dependency. If Falklands are incorporated directly into the UK, it would be a whole different ballgame.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
The last time you had 70 troops which was twice the usual number, 1 ship, and that was about it. The Argentinian army was reasonably close to state of the art, parts of their forces were very good (well trained) for the time, they had air superiority, and their commando's landed undetected. The Argentinian army was in fact under orders to take the place without killing anybody. Also, nobody believed the Argentinians would do it, Britain might well have just relinquished the islands after some more negotiations.
By contrast, today you have a proper airbase, AA installations, planes, more than 1000 men, a few more ships and the Argentinian army hasn't kept up with the times ...
A great badpipe march came out of the Falklands War, perhaps my favourite pipe tune: Crags of Tumbledown.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeOjERmbWyE
Everyone keeps saying that but is it even true and if it were is it even relevant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios
How soon before all the islands equipment is used up can they last a month?? of contious fighting.
Also other South American governments seem keen on backing Argentina (this is the real strategic problem for UK and even the USA)
If Brazil decided to back Argentina which looks likely could a UK Naval task force even reach the island? to relieve the garrison.
As usual this will not be solved by pointing to weaponary and saying the question is beyond debate.
A bigger question is would Britain risk it's own ability to defend itself with submarines to liberate the Falklands.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
The loss of one Astute class could cripple you strategic plans for decade and for little back, it a bit like how the Americans dont like risking the B2 in real combat cos it's too advanced and too exspensive.
Quite. Our forces are so limited, and our ability for regeneration is so pathetic that entering any conflict where there is a realistic chance of material losses of key assets is just not possible.
~:smoking:
So you're all for abandoning your fellow citizens?
won't have any planes to fly of her until 2020.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
-----------------------------------------
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2012/0...kland-islands/
I'm personally up for hardening the island with decent batteries of ground to air and ground to ship missiles which are effective, have relatively low running costs and are purely a defensive weapon. If one can decimate their aircraft and slaughter amphibious landing craft / warships it will make the odds of an attack much lower. Static gun emplacements and mine fields would be OTT, and increasing the size of the garrison would be extremely expensive as well as increase the logistical difficulty of resupply.
Holding a referendum to see whether the Islanders would like to be made effectively a county of Blighty also seems sensible as then there is an increased chance that NATO would have to do something other than pursue "active defence" in Afghanistan in the event of an attack. France has at least decided to have both carriers as well as planes at the same time.
~:smoking:
Emotion has it's place in this debate but don't make the mistake of relying on it to defend you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hosakawa Tito
There might be a problem here since NATO is specifically set up too defend the Europe or North America the South Atlantic is outside it's remit.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
The operation in Afghanistan was the only ocassion where article 5 was invoked and that was because of september 11th.
I would not be surprised to see a veto from Germany or France on operations in the South Atlantic.
Frankly, NATO is "America plus extras". Britain would invoke Article 5 and then meaningfully glare at America - "we jumped into an out of state mission which has gone nowhere and was a mess from the start, how about you help defend territory that is defined as part of our mainland".
The threat of the USA getting involved would be both another reason for Argentina to think twice, and a reason for the USA to apply a lot more diplomatic pressure, lest they get dragged into something they'd really rather not be, or else appear to be an ally of little value unless it is in their own interests which will loose them a fair amount of prestige / influence.
~:smoking:
Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Now thats more like it frankly, this is a senario I could believe if the Falklands were made a county.
However this all hinges on the Argentina been mad and invading, whereas the diplomatic areana frankly favours Argentina.
Quote:
or else appear to be an ally of little value unless it is in their own interests which will loose them a fair amount of prestige / influence.
And yet they would gain diplomatically in South America a region that will grow in importance for America as it pivots to Asia. South America has access to the Pacific which means it is a part of the wider Asian strategic plan for the USA.
They would only loose face with Britain who quite frankly would just have to suck it up as Britains strategic plan does not involve cutting itself of from America over the Falklands.
So unfortunately this means I dont expect to see the Falklands being made a county, in fact I bet Sir Humphrey types will never let it happen.
I wonder.
That conflict was long ago, Britain won, why are both parties still angry at eachother every year?
Why is there a date to get angry at eachother, does that even make sense?
And the only way I understood what this guy said was that people should stop being angry at eachother and start to talk about a lasting solution and making peace.
Then everybody hates him and talks about making more war. Sounds like Israel and Palestine to me but then I'm not very knowledgeable about the Falklands history.
Does "talking" mean "raise white flag and surrender" in Britain or am I having another misconception?
The problem as the British see it is that this question is settled, the island is in there eyes British.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Talks would mean some kind of compromise would have to at least be available, unfortunately how can you compromise to Argentinas favour without giving them the island.
This is why the debate quickly enters the who has bigger guns phase quickly into the discussion.
As long as Argentina does not invade then Britain is stuck with a very annoying diplomatic problem.
Here is the equation
Argentina wants the island but Britain does not need to accept this request as the islanders want to stay where they are.
Invasion favours Britain as long as Argentina is alone in the enterprise, if South American powers join or give aid to Argentina then Britains job is much much harder.
Britain needs the USA to back it, but the USA is weary and wary of being dragged into what they would view a colonial conflict.
The USA also needs South America for it's future plans, politcally therefore overt support of Britain is out of the question.(some covert help is ok though)
Solution prevent the problem escalating to actual conflict, let Argentina shout and roar all they want (buy them off with money later)
Talking would be like entering into discussions about returning the German estates that used to be ruled by the Georges. Germany probably has no intention of ever doing so, thinks the reasoning is deeply flawed and nonsensical - and the people want to stay German as they have been for decades and they all speak German. Why enter discussions on a subject that isn't going to to anywhere from the start?
Would the USA listen if Mexico wanted back the territory that was annexed?
Entering into talks implies that there is some legitimacy in doing so. Perhaps the UK should state that we'll enter more general talks about ownership of the Falklands and a large swathe of Argentina's territory, if countries feel they can demand such things, why not?
~:smoking:
talking means that the principle of self-determination is a negotiable commodity, and new labour already got a thorough fisting for trying the same thing with gibralter, so the coalition won't be keen to repeat the experience.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Precisely.
Should we all hand over territory which hasn't been ours since the foundation of our nations? Against the wishes of the current occupants?
Should France demand Louisiana back on the basis that the modern French government believes that the Purchase can now been seen as illegitmate? In the event of a failed occupation within living memory should they then, with no real change in circumstances, be enabled to attempt a diplomatic effort to take the territory and be expected to have any chance of success despite the principle of self determination counting against them?
Edit:
As regards the male chicken who is the subject of the OP it must be said that a private individual is welcome to hold any opinion he or she wants. However, just because that chicken is a Hollywood actor there is no need to give his views extra legitimacy by broadcasting them.
I watched that press conference where Argentina showed all the ships, planes and communications systems available to the various naval and air bases Britain has in the South Atlantic I half expected him to shout "Dont wait for the translation"
Regardless of the reality it showed Britain as an aggressive power in the South Atlantic, there point that it is the only ocean Britain can claim to influence was well made. (leading to questions of why naturally)