New Falklands War Brewing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Westerham, Kent
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I sincerely believe Argentina are losing the plot in that these actions will only reinforce the concerns of many that the Argentinian government have little or no understanding of how to successfully order diplomatic relations. Moreover, their recent posturing on the issue of the Falklands makes them appear immature and possibly even desperate!
A group of British and American banks have been threatened with legal action by the Argentine government for advising and writing research reports about companies involved in the Falkland Islands’ £1.6bn oil industry
Argentina threatens to sue banks helping Falklands oil explorers as trade war with Britain escalates - Telegraph
A group of British and American banks have been threatened with legal action by the Argentine government for advising and writing research reports about companies involved in the Falkland Islands’ £1.6bn oil industry
Argentina threatens to sue banks helping Falklands oil explorers as trade war with Britain escalates - Telegraph
Don't worry it will be sorted soon as the government will see it as another saving for the defence budget by handing the Falklands back (they will also be seen in a good light on the world stage as we do seem to like apologising for our past history and giving things back) and withdraw the forces, negotiate over the oil and give most to Argentina and it's fawning, posturing neighbours and then close Ascension as why would we need that anymore.
They could then reduce the Typhoon future order by 4 as they would have 4 extra + support equipment and a few spares, oh and don't forget all the manpower and support savings.
They could then reduce the Typhoon future order by 4 as they would have 4 extra + support equipment and a few spares, oh and don't forget all the manpower and support savings.
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Royal Leamington Spa
Age: 78
Posts: 440
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exrigger be careful as with that line of thinking you could easily find yourself becoming the hero of Britain's left, possibly even nominated as candidate for leader of the LibDems! 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Behind you all the way!
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Danger Within.
The Islands are more well defended than they were 30 years ago this very afternoon, and the Argies don't have the ability to go after the Islands with what they currently have in their inventories. But...
... it was with alarm that, whilst watching 'Question Time' last thursday noght, I saw the well respected, Left Wing 'Comedian Alexei Sayle' receiving applause from younger sections of the audience for suggesting a negotiated settlement with Argentina, thereby riding roughshod over the democratic rights of the Islanders. Also with another 'Darling of the Left' 'Gorgeous George' Galloway also courting Kirschner with hints of a negotiated solution.
The Argies AREN'T the threat. It's our own appeasing, Liberalist Lefties.
... it was with alarm that, whilst watching 'Question Time' last thursday noght, I saw the well respected, Left Wing 'Comedian Alexei Sayle' receiving applause from younger sections of the audience for suggesting a negotiated settlement with Argentina, thereby riding roughshod over the democratic rights of the Islanders. Also with another 'Darling of the Left' 'Gorgeous George' Galloway also courting Kirschner with hints of a negotiated solution.
The Argies AREN'T the threat. It's our own appeasing, Liberalist Lefties.
Hey, negotiate away. Let's all sit down together. We'll open with our position. The Falklands belong to Britain, the Islanders what to be British, we proved our resolve to keep them so 30 years ago. They will remain British. Now, what would you care to negotiate?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,864
Received 2,816 Likes
on
1,200 Posts
Ex rigger the British Government would never simply hand the Falklands over to Argentina without at least setting up a £1.5 billion trust fund to provide for the islanders, their needs, education and traumatic stress over the whole episode for at least the next 75 years, this would of course be paid to Argentina and administered by them.. 
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
I haven't read the thread as the standard bleet by their lordships is we couldn't retake the Falklands today.
Do they mean that if the status quo ante bellum exisited, ie we only had a couple of dozen RM in Stanley and Argentina staged the 1982 invasion today . . . ?
Or that Argentina stages an invasion today and captures the islands, ie the RAF and Army are defeated in their defence, the air bridge failed, and the invasion was successful?
Which leads me on to a question. While it is true that HM Forces of 2012 are not the same shape that they were in 1982 - they have modern long range well armed interceptors, highly effective fighter bombers, modern highly capable destroyers, battle hardened troops etc etc, just no carriers - what of the potential agressor?
A NATO partner, exercised with other countries including the US and in the Gulf but no carrier, 2 submarines, fewer surface combatants. A reasonable number of modern aircraft but numbers down?
It strikes me that our lordships are beating a holed drum trying to prepare to refight a war of 30 years ago.
Do they mean that if the status quo ante bellum exisited, ie we only had a couple of dozen RM in Stanley and Argentina staged the 1982 invasion today . . . ?
Or that Argentina stages an invasion today and captures the islands, ie the RAF and Army are defeated in their defence, the air bridge failed, and the invasion was successful?
Which leads me on to a question. While it is true that HM Forces of 2012 are not the same shape that they were in 1982 - they have modern long range well armed interceptors, highly effective fighter bombers, modern highly capable destroyers, battle hardened troops etc etc, just no carriers - what of the potential agressor?
A NATO partner, exercised with other countries including the US and in the Gulf but no carrier, 2 submarines, fewer surface combatants. A reasonable number of modern aircraft but numbers down?
It strikes me that our lordships are beating a holed drum trying to prepare to refight a war of 30 years ago.
PN,
BBC Radio 4, as expected, ran a few segments on it. The concensus was that they don't have anything like the capability even to try. Not a single new aircraft since 1982, defence spending slashed (I mean slashed so much that it makes the UK look like a superpower) and only enough money to pay the wages of those servicemen that are left.
One commentator noted that they couldn't even fight Paraguay, let alone the UK. There were also one or two that said they are even losing some support for their diplomatic campaign to gain the Islands.
If the Today Programme is to be believed (which it must be!) the potential aggressor is looking pretty feeble.
BBC Radio 4, as expected, ran a few segments on it. The concensus was that they don't have anything like the capability even to try. Not a single new aircraft since 1982, defence spending slashed (I mean slashed so much that it makes the UK look like a superpower) and only enough money to pay the wages of those servicemen that are left.
One commentator noted that they couldn't even fight Paraguay, let alone the UK. There were also one or two that said they are even losing some support for their diplomatic campaign to gain the Islands.
If the Today Programme is to be believed (which it must be!) the potential aggressor is looking pretty feeble.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
CM, thank you, I saw that their armed forces are only slightly larger than the RAF.
So, is my supposition correct? Their lordships rattling an empty tin?
So, is my supposition correct? Their lordships rattling an empty tin?
PN, depends on the tune they're trying to play!
i'm a pessamist, i'm deeply concerned about the ability if the current Argentine government to back off and accept political defeat over the FI in the face of electoral defeat over economic missmanagement and allegations of corruption - i do not believe they can take the islands (the lack of amphib capability being a big part of that..), but i do believe that they can attack them to some degree or other, i do believe that they can make life unpleasent for the islands CivPop, and i do believe that when faced with the stark choice of certain electoral deafeat, and possible military defeat, Mrs Kirchner will opt for the route that sacrifices the lives of young men on the altar of her political career.
yes any attempt will end in defeat, but it will amost certainly include the deaths of British service personnel and civilians as well as those Argentines unfortunate enough to have this egotistical idiot as their CinC - and in my humble view, the likelyhood of her deciding to take the chance is inversely proportional to the assets she sees on the Islands. i don't really believe she understands the difference between a 45 year old Skyhawk and a Typhoon, nor a SSN and an SSK, or a T45 and a MEKO 360, and i don't think she listens to a word her military advisors say, so i think we should be extremely careful about believing that just because we think she should be detered by the force on the Islands, that she'll view the balance in the same way.
i'm a pessamist, i'm deeply concerned about the ability if the current Argentine government to back off and accept political defeat over the FI in the face of electoral defeat over economic missmanagement and allegations of corruption - i do not believe they can take the islands (the lack of amphib capability being a big part of that..), but i do believe that they can attack them to some degree or other, i do believe that they can make life unpleasent for the islands CivPop, and i do believe that when faced with the stark choice of certain electoral deafeat, and possible military defeat, Mrs Kirchner will opt for the route that sacrifices the lives of young men on the altar of her political career.
yes any attempt will end in defeat, but it will amost certainly include the deaths of British service personnel and civilians as well as those Argentines unfortunate enough to have this egotistical idiot as their CinC - and in my humble view, the likelyhood of her deciding to take the chance is inversely proportional to the assets she sees on the Islands. i don't really believe she understands the difference between a 45 year old Skyhawk and a Typhoon, nor a SSN and an SSK, or a T45 and a MEKO 360, and i don't think she listens to a word her military advisors say, so i think we should be extremely careful about believing that just because we think she should be detered by the force on the Islands, that she'll view the balance in the same way.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
CC, so we could recover all the Harriers, double the forces at MPA etc etc and the string of beans would look no different?
I agree though that sabre rattling with only a dagger in your scabbard is a bit stupid but equally their lordships are playing the wrong tune too. IMHO of course.
I agree though that sabre rattling with only a dagger in your scabbard is a bit stupid but equally their lordships are playing the wrong tune too. IMHO of course.
PN, i think that she can count, and that she sees 4 fast jests, an Inf Coy and 8,000 miles of rather emptier ocean than was the case in 1982 - that the capabilities of those four fast jets means that her AF may as well be flying Sopwith Camels is probably not something that she really understands.
i'm not saying she's dumb, i'm saying that is a subject outside of her universe - i have a PhD, but i'll never really understand what electricity is or how it works until my dying day - i think she has a relationship with her military that hovers between loathing and outright contempt (understandable, given her political history), and that the intricacies of NEZ's, RCS, servicablity and sortie rates etc.. mean as much to her as you saying 'imagine the inside of a star' does to me.
i also think that we have a nasty habit of assuming that our own political decision making process is shared by everyone else - that whats logical or illogical to us will be the same to others - the big one being 'her military will tell her its not a winner, and she'll accept their advice'. i don't believe their dynamic works like that - i think they'll tell her it'd be hard, and that they'd take heavy casualties - but most importantly, unlike here, if her DS resign and go public, she won't fall, she'd probably reach sainthood.
if we want to stop a war taking place, rather than just win one, we have to convince her that its a no hoper from the start - and that, imv, means more than 4 fighters...
i'm not saying she's dumb, i'm saying that is a subject outside of her universe - i have a PhD, but i'll never really understand what electricity is or how it works until my dying day - i think she has a relationship with her military that hovers between loathing and outright contempt (understandable, given her political history), and that the intricacies of NEZ's, RCS, servicablity and sortie rates etc.. mean as much to her as you saying 'imagine the inside of a star' does to me.
i also think that we have a nasty habit of assuming that our own political decision making process is shared by everyone else - that whats logical or illogical to us will be the same to others - the big one being 'her military will tell her its not a winner, and she'll accept their advice'. i don't believe their dynamic works like that - i think they'll tell her it'd be hard, and that they'd take heavy casualties - but most importantly, unlike here, if her DS resign and go public, she won't fall, she'd probably reach sainthood.
if we want to stop a war taking place, rather than just win one, we have to convince her that its a no hoper from the start - and that, imv, means more than 4 fighters...
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Yorkshire
Age: 55
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BBC Radio 4, as expected, ran a few segments on it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17576856
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Empty ocean is what surface ships see
although the do have P3Bs now I guess they don't have too much experience tracking SSNs.The task force took weeks to ship thousands of troops south. Given enough serviceable transports and troops (bit lacking there I know) it could be done in a matter of days.
PN, i know that, and you know that, and i don't doubt her DS know that - but she doesn't, and i don't think she knows or cares that doesn't know that.
which do you think is prefereable: us beating off an attack - and taking casualties doing it - or her staying in her box, gobbing off certainly, but knowing that he'd get a very quick, very hard shoeing long before her forces were able to meet their glorious destiny on 'Las Malvinas'?
the problem is not what will happen, but what she thinks will happen - and to the average civvy, if you put 30 old fighters against 4 new ones, they'd say it would be a nasty, messy fight that would end in the guy with the 30 fighters winning. why should she be any different?
which do you think is prefereable: us beating off an attack - and taking casualties doing it - or her staying in her box, gobbing off certainly, but knowing that he'd get a very quick, very hard shoeing long before her forces were able to meet their glorious destiny on 'Las Malvinas'?
the problem is not what will happen, but what she thinks will happen - and to the average civvy, if you put 30 old fighters against 4 new ones, they'd say it would be a nasty, messy fight that would end in the guy with the 30 fighters winning. why should she be any different?
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apologies if this is too political and I guess I have far too much time on my hands:
I have an intense dislike for people that use history to reinforce their argument. All it tends to do is divide and build up further hatred. If you go back in time, then how far back do we look? Should we all submit to the Romans and accept they once occupied our country? What about America or even Australia? History has its place and we should all be proud of what happened in days of yore but in my World I much prefer the democratic way of life. Let the people of a country decide their future. Why not call the bluff of Argentina and request the United Nations hold a referendum for the people of both the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar. Let the results be recognised and the future of those countries assured. If any nation then attempts an embargo or invasion then that is an act of war against the United Nations and should not be tolerated.
What on earth did the invading forces expect when they occupied a country that did not want them, did not welcome them and most certainly did not want to be a part of a country that talks a different language, has different cultural values and even drives on the wrong side of the road!!
Much respect to the Argentine soldiers, sailors and airmen that took part in that conflict but let’s let democracy do the fighting, let the will of the people be mightier than that bloody sword that ruins the lives of so many brave young men.
If politicians want to fight, then let them, their sons, their daughters do the dirty work and not our sons or our daughters. Yes I am annoyed particularly after seeing the footage of Tony Blair denounce this conflict and pretend to be a left wing pacifist that abhorred the very thought of Great Britain declaring war on any nation!!!....
Yes my wife and I were on one of the bridges that spans the A38 and yes we were proud to wave our Union Jacks as those brave soldiers and sailors made their way back home after showing the World what we were capable of and STILL capable of!
I have an intense dislike for people that use history to reinforce their argument. All it tends to do is divide and build up further hatred. If you go back in time, then how far back do we look? Should we all submit to the Romans and accept they once occupied our country? What about America or even Australia? History has its place and we should all be proud of what happened in days of yore but in my World I much prefer the democratic way of life. Let the people of a country decide their future. Why not call the bluff of Argentina and request the United Nations hold a referendum for the people of both the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar. Let the results be recognised and the future of those countries assured. If any nation then attempts an embargo or invasion then that is an act of war against the United Nations and should not be tolerated.
What on earth did the invading forces expect when they occupied a country that did not want them, did not welcome them and most certainly did not want to be a part of a country that talks a different language, has different cultural values and even drives on the wrong side of the road!!
Much respect to the Argentine soldiers, sailors and airmen that took part in that conflict but let’s let democracy do the fighting, let the will of the people be mightier than that bloody sword that ruins the lives of so many brave young men.
If politicians want to fight, then let them, their sons, their daughters do the dirty work and not our sons or our daughters. Yes I am annoyed particularly after seeing the footage of Tony Blair denounce this conflict and pretend to be a left wing pacifist that abhorred the very thought of Great Britain declaring war on any nation!!!....
Yes my wife and I were on one of the bridges that spans the A38 and yes we were proud to wave our Union Jacks as those brave soldiers and sailors made their way back home after showing the World what we were capable of and STILL capable of!
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
she doesn't . . . knows or cares . . .
which do you think is prefereable: us beating off an attack - and taking casualties doing it - or her staying in her box, gobbing off certainly, but knowing that he'd get a very quick, very hard shoeing long before her forces were able to meet their glorious destiny on 'Las Malvinas'?
which do you think is prefereable: us beating off an attack - and taking casualties doing it - or her staying in her box, gobbing off certainly, but knowing that he'd get a very quick, very hard shoeing long before her forces were able to meet their glorious destiny on 'Las Malvinas'?
. . . what she thinks will happen
That about it?
And 4 Typhoon? 15 shelters and a gocart club could possibly house 32. Would they know if the numbers had been inceased?
PN, they would know if we told them!
what i'm say is there are 3 issues that conflate and produce a picture, and we should be wary about believing that the picture they paint to us is the same picture that Mrs Kirchner sees.
1. the actual, technical correlation of forces.
2. the political, subjective decisions she makes about the capability of our forces in situ, our ability to increace those forces, our willingness to increace those forces, and our willingness to re-inforce without 100% proof that a threat is developing.
3. the political, subjective decisions she makes about her chances political survival without a grand gesture/successful attack.
we also, imv, need to be careful about judging the success of our deterant on the basis that there has not been an attempt to re-take/attack the islands - its possible that there has not been any serious thought since the 1982 war within the Argentine body politic of military action, and so the concept of deterence hasn't really been tested. its also worth rembering that our deterence posture has changed - since 1982 we've said that if you attempt to invade we'll give you a shoeing, and even if you're succesful we'll sail down in our carriers and we'll give you another shoeing and take them back.
now however thats changed - we now say 'certainly we'll give you a shoeing if you try to invade, but if you do succeed, you can keep them'. its worth thinking about.
what i'm say is there are 3 issues that conflate and produce a picture, and we should be wary about believing that the picture they paint to us is the same picture that Mrs Kirchner sees.
1. the actual, technical correlation of forces.
2. the political, subjective decisions she makes about the capability of our forces in situ, our ability to increace those forces, our willingness to increace those forces, and our willingness to re-inforce without 100% proof that a threat is developing.
3. the political, subjective decisions she makes about her chances political survival without a grand gesture/successful attack.
we also, imv, need to be careful about judging the success of our deterant on the basis that there has not been an attempt to re-take/attack the islands - its possible that there has not been any serious thought since the 1982 war within the Argentine body politic of military action, and so the concept of deterence hasn't really been tested. its also worth rembering that our deterence posture has changed - since 1982 we've said that if you attempt to invade we'll give you a shoeing, and even if you're succesful we'll sail down in our carriers and we'll give you another shoeing and take them back.
now however thats changed - we now say 'certainly we'll give you a shoeing if you try to invade, but if you do succeed, you can keep them'. its worth thinking about.