They have lots of stuff we can only dream of...

But in answer to your question you will find former counter terrorism chief of M16 is now a senior adviser to BP so why not just control the information internally.

MI6 agent joined disgraced BP boss in secret meetings with Gaddafi

CIA have form for overthrowing Govt's to ensure Oil is looked after.

Pious Pilot wrote

The partners agreed a few years ago to delay it until 2015. France is expecting it in service in 2018 on Rafale.

France Purchases 200 Meteor Missiles - Defense News

TJ

The Intelligence Services?

Actually they are a pretty average bunch of incompetents - they never forecast the Arab risings, the fall of the USSR and most other major events

mainly their function is to be photographed by Russian TV hiding stuff under stones in Moscow parks

mainly people who went to minor public school and not bright enough to get a job in the City

Heathrow Harry
 

;)

A bit like those banker wankers then.

.
Britain; A 'crude colonial power in decline': Argentinian President

Argentinian President Cristina Kirchner has referred to Britain as a 'crude colonial power in decline' and suggested that Argentina and Britain should 'negotiate over the South Atlantic islands'.

The response came after Mr Cameron told the Commons on Wednesday: "I would say this: as long as the Falkland Islands want to be a sovereign British territory, they should remain a sovereign British territory - full stop, end of story."

She branded Mr Cameron "arrogant" and said his remarks were an expression of "mediocrity and stupidity".

More tosh here

I'd take that as a compliment coming from an expert.

Britian a colonial power in decline would appear to be a fact beyond dispute since 100 years ago we were the most powerful nation on Earth and today we cannot even bribe/bully a bunch of said colonials into giving us the world cup...an we haven't won the Eurovision Song contest for years.

As for Cameron, he looks like an arrogant, dim-witted ar*e to me, but maybe that is because I'm a bit bitter that he sh1t canned Coastal Command after eight decades of loyal service to this maritime nation.

All in all I reckon I reckon she is spot on...even if she is a self-serving Argie political :mad:.

PS

I take exception to the :mad: calling us crude though.

Well the Americans consider cyber attacks an act of war so surely this must qualify?

Proportionate (nuclear) response anyone? :}

Given suggestions on sites that Arsenals are getting low because of the continued campaign in Libya and the overall stretch that forces are under there must be concern that if Argentina decides to ratchet up a campaign there is nothing to stop them.

Personally think it would have been better to send the Harriers and all the kit to the Islands while placing numerous dispersal points that could be used quickly as that would have kept them battle ready and provided a deterrent.

OK, here we go again . . .

Right, as I've said SOo many times before.

Give every Falkland Islander a million quid and a Spanish dictionary. Then listen to the deafening silence.

We'd save a fortune, improve relations, stop stretching our resources beyond breaking point and so on.

. . . then someone mentioned oil.

If the USA are not going to support us (and it looks like they won't), Sandy Woodward has got it right, we're stuffed.

Save a few billion and perhaps Lyneham could stay open (if they haven't sold the land for development yet).

Having done a tour down in the Falklands, I am inclined to agree - I wasn't overly impressed with the Bennies then and I remain unimpressed now. Nevertheless, the place is not completely undefended and could be reinforced quickly, but we do not have enough infantry down there and rely upon the FIDF for land-based recce. A bigger bunch of yahoos in HM Forces I have yet to encounter. I cannot see the Army being in a position to provide a Regular battalion constantly, but it would be an ideal role for a TA battalion with a revised ORBAT of the RIC (Reg) and Bn HQ and Rifle Coy plus (TA) and the FIDF as the third manoeuvre sub-unit. The FIDF should become a TA unit with a similar status to the Royal Gibraltar Regiment and the Bermuda Regiment, equipped with standard issue British Military equipment instead of walting-it-up gear purchased from Silvermans/Arktis and wherever else they wish to spend their fishing licence revenue. And while I am at it, there shoul be a full RAF Regiment Field Sqn deployed at MPA too - its unique mix of ISTAR/81mm mortars/GPMG SF/WMIK make it a force to be reckoned with as dismounted close combat specialists. It could even be added to the putative Battlegroup as a fourth manoeuvre sub-unit. That would easily be sufficient to defeat any Argentinian landing force. ;)

Don't be silly Racedo, that would be logical and, therefore, totally out of keeping with current defence policy!

Earl

oops sorry as that wouldn't go down well as it doesn't involve lots of spurious trips for the procurement teams in plush hotels.

How could there be a war involving the UK if we can't get there?

You can't get there....but you have nothing to transport....and when it is all said and done....you are no longer in decline....but more like in a supine posture gazing at the heavens wondering what happened to you.:uhoh:

The UK along with its NATO allies are stuffed in dealing with a tinpot dictator in Tripoli....yet some of you think you can repeat the Falkland War with far less gear than you had last time....oh..my...indeed!:sad:

Most wars are won or lost by logistics...no matter how sharp the Troops are.

You/ve lost this one already in my view unless the Argies are in a similar situation militarily as the UK appears to be.:=

Respectfully disagree, SASless.

Let us suppose an armed SSN on patrol with a permissive RoE. This creates a considerably different set up for the Argentine occupation plans.

I noted earlier how you foil an invasion. Seaborne and airborne invasions are non trivial exercises in power projection. With a prepared and warned force, a modest force (with kit as I describe above) can make the invasion cost prohibitive.

I suppose it IS interesting that the UK is currently employing it's armed forces to defend a bunch of folk who really don't want us there anymore, whilst there are a bunch of our own citizens who are coming under apparently more threats and danger to their basic freedoms [there the yanks will like that bit] and we don't seem to want to do anything about it.

How bizarre.:(

If the Argentinians started anything serious they would have to contend with a rather different Falklands Islands defence than the last time, are they up to this?

What is the Argentinians anti-submarine capability? Are they up to dealing with ground based anti-aircraft missile batteries?

Any sea borne invasion would risk running the gauntlet of submarine defences and an airborne assault would be shot out of the sky, wouldn't it?

They could do it, but it would be costly.
I would also think that to do it, it would have to be done quickly (as in try to do it with surprise) using Airborne and Sea landings.
And I don't think they would be able to take everything in one go so they would be contending with a resourceful BTL force.

And would they be prepared for the UK to attack mainland Argentina
and would the UK do it ?

Since we only have one free resource remaining I'd suggest that nuclear retaliation to the invasion of sovereign territory is appropriate...

Sorry... I forgot the ;)

A few Tomahawk's lobbed from a sub into a few into a few Military installations
might make the Argies sit up and take notice with the promise of a few more to follow if certain actions are not carried out.

.

Bit rich coming from a country founded by Spanish colonials and later supplemented by fugitives from Nazi Germany's demise.

Even with the UK SDSR in place the Argentines would have no chance in a conflict. They're only after a UN resolution over the matter.

Likelihood of UNSCR on the Falklands? Absolutely no chance - UK has the veto. As for the Argentine President harping on about the UK ignoring General Assembly resolutions, she might wish to consider her own country,s behaviour in this respect!

And do you think they give a flying F?

Once the South American coalition gets up and running the Argentines will take the rather large ticket of OIL to the bargaining table, then watch out.

South America backs Falklands claim - Defence Management

BBC News - Argentina rallies regional support over Falklands

and most importantly

Argentina's president stokes up claim to the Falklands - Telegraph

stoking the fires.

Fascinating thread. I am neither an Argentine nor UK citizen but have visited both countries, so it is interesting to see the arguements. It was interesting to read how many times the Falklands/Islas Malvinas have changed hands.

It seems that Kirschner is using nationalist sentiments to draw attention away from (red herring) her own domestic problems in Argentina. This was a tactic of the military dictatorship during the early 1980's. What they didn't recon with was the resolve of Thatcher who, herself, was having her own set of problems at home. Argentina's military defeat caused great humiliation to the dictatorship in Argentina, probably helped lead to its demise, and helped raise approvals of the "Iron Lady" at home.

I see political stir-ups being used as effective tools to divert attention away from "real" difficult domestic problems by countries as diverse as the United States, China, Nicaragua, Bahrain, Pakistan, Cuba, North Korea . . . really an endless list probably encompassing most of the World's countries.

What is interesting is that numerous Latin Americans, during the 1980's, believed (perhaps naively) that a supposedly idealistic and law-abiding United States would actually back Argentina, rather than the United Kingdom, on the Falkland Crisis, based on the Monroe Doctrine, which was used as justification by the United States to fend off Soviet and Eastern Block involvment in Latin America.

It is also to see that a sometimes irrational fancy for "the confetti of empire" still exists in many parts of the World.

PJ...like most of what you say....objective viewpoints always help. Not sure about the imperial confetti comment though? BTW...I feel sure the Monroe Doctrine was put together to prevent further imperial adventures into South America, minimise the extant colonial powers influence in the region, not least by the UK...and ensure the southern security of US birders.....it predated Cold War politics by some way!

What capability do the Argies have to accomplish their goal this time?

Are they better off or not?

What lessons did they learn from the last go at taking the Falklands?

I am sure the British have some idea of what did not work and what might be a much better way to deal with the situation.

Surely the "what didn't work last time" was the defence of the Falklands in the first place.

The Royal Marines of NP8901, for all their efforts, were not up to the task of defending the FIs against such odds.

Things are a little different down there now days and whilst some may pour scorn on there being 'only' four Typhoons they are a hell of a lot more suitable to the task in hand than the assortment of elderly, short-legged and poorly supported a/c the Argentinians can through at the islands. Of course their is also the advanced warning that forces based on the islands would have of an approaching Argentine force, something not available back in 1982.

The Argentine military is in a far worse position than the British. Whilst the British military has been cutback in numbers the technology of those forces that are available far outweighs that available to the Argentines, much of their forces still being equipped with that which wasn't sent across the sea to later be destoryed or captured by the British.

I don't believe any changing of 'ownership' of the Falklands will happen as a result of military action, rather more likely it will take a political form. But of course the UN would never force the population of lands to accept governing by another nation against their right to self-determination would they?

Give me a sub for a day and only 3 missiles (the non nuclear variety) and I reckon I could have the Argentinians screaming for an end to any war. The smoke that the 15 million odd citizens of Buenos Aires would see billowing from the military sector at Aeroparque Jorge Newberry (Cristina could see that one from her balcony in the Casa Rosada), El Palomar Air Base and Mariano Moreno Air Base would see a retreat quicker than you could say 'General Belgrano'!

Seriously though, if you talk to any educated Argentinian you will realise that they don't give a rats about the Falklands much less entertain any thoughts about retaking them. Their armed force have had the second lowest defence expenditure in South America for the past 20+ years and have no new kit - certainly no match for a Typhoon with ASRAAM and AMRAAM!
Presidents (particularly the Peronists) will however continue to appeal to the uneducated by merely mentioning Las Malvinas, we just need to ignore it as such.

having been to the Falklands a few times I think it is safe to say that you could offer the Islanders a million each to change nationality and would politely get told to FO by the very vast majority and rightly so. Old plastic face is acting, like most argie politicians do, like a spoilt child saying I want all the time expecting to get. Any argie government will be very wary of putting too much money into their armed forces because of their habit of turning around and overthrowing those in charge. It is purely an election year in argentina and it is always a vote winning topic.

Everybody always assumes next war fought will be the same as the last.

A deal done with another neighbouring country or a faraway one (famous for its food after the pub) to supply some of the muscle to aid Argentina and get oil leases as a repayment is another way of looking at what could happen.

I enjoyed it 29 years ago. Bring em on.

Do you think those left behind in Falklands graves, or buried at sea, enjoyed it as much as you did ?:rolleyes:

What's wrong with enjoying your job? Last year there were over 1,000 fatalities in aircraft accidents worldwide and over 200,000 deaths and injuries on British roads. Does that mean no one should be allowed to enjoy flying or driving?

First falklander gets argie nationality
 

BBC News - Falkland man chooses Argentine citizenship

This guy is a traitor as far as I'm concerned. I would revoke his british citizenship never to return it to him.

Does he not realise he has been used as a pawn in very carefully staged politcal propaganda.:mad:

I for one am proud to be British.

10W are you really a "Moderator". Better get some real time in if you are.
A bit like we're doing in Libya against another third world dictator?:rolleyes:

The neighbours probably couldn't muster much better equipment than Argentina at the moment, then there is the little problem of motivating other South Americans to go and give their lives for the Falklands. Personally I can't see China openly supporting a South American offensive and effectively taking on the rest of the civilised world.

An airborne assault? Four Typhoons and ground based anti-aircraft missile batteries could make an awful mess of transport aircraft positioning for a mass drop. A sea borne assault? - submarines.

How would Argentina neutralise these defences?

Bit snotty to ask such a question of those who have seen the Dragon don't you think 10W?

When folks go to War....some folks die in the process. Those that stay at home safe should take their hat off to those that went and those who were lost protecting other folk's freedom.

I assume you will be offering an apology for the tone of your post seeing as how you are a Moderator and all. Mod's are supposed to stay out of the fuss so I have heard.....not provoke one.

We all took the Queen's shilling and we knew the risks. I lost mates, but we would do it again if we had to.

I cannot see them jeopardising their export trade either; not for the sake of a supply originating halfway around the world.