More Argie Bargie
Discussion
DonkeyApple said:
NATO are on their side though 
How else would the French et al get the oil or access to sell equipment to them?
Why bother? It's not like the FI Authority is going to exclude Total from the licence auctions, if they want in I expect there's plenty of unlicenced blocks left for the taking. The FI is a far more sensible place to put the service bases anyway as it's nearer the likely prospects.How else would the French et al get the oil or access to sell equipment to them?
hidetheelephants said:
DonkeyApple said:
NATO are on their side though
How else would the French et al get the oil or access to sell equipment to them?
Why bother? It's not like the FI Authority is going to exclude Total from the licence auctions, if they want in I expect there's plenty of unlicenced blocks left for the taking. The FI is a far more sensible place to put the service bases anyway as it's nearer the likely prospects.How else would the French et al get the oil or access to sell equipment to them?
escort90 said:
Now that the german bases are now being closed why not move a batallion of troops down to FI, its ideal training ground with miles and miles of live fire ranges. Plus if the argies ever made a move they would never stand a chance if they where there.
I'd feel for those poor local women, there can only be a handful of young, single women in the falklands.DonkeyApple said:
Olivera said:
If the Falklands were invaded, either by the Argies alone or with help, I wouldn't count on much support for the UK. Obama (or any US president) is relying on the Latin American vote to get elected, and commerce with emerging South American powers such as Brazil to rebuild the economy. The rest of the EU dislikes us as attested by the 26-1 vote at the recent summit. It's also not out-with the realms of possibility that any UN vote condemning or responding to an invasion is vetoed by the Russians. We really would be on our own, not just militarily but also diplomatically.
They won't just not be on our side. Most of them will be against us. Actively. It wouldn't surprise me if the US were to blockade the islands in such an event to prevent us doing anything.
And half of Europe would rush to supply them.
It would be a case of not just 100% alone but everyone against us.
JMGS4 said:
davepoth said:
Let's not forget that the only reason our carriers were so vital in the war was that we didn't have any planes on Falkland in the first place. We've corrected that now - there's no chance of the Argentinians managing a surprise attack again, and they don't have the capability to gain air superiority at such long range, even with the limited number of planes we have.
Corrected that, BUT we've now built a hige airport big enough to take any aircraft so a quick sneak attack by paratroopers could take it and open the air bridge for the args to land a pile more troops. Then we'd be royally fooked as the labour scum scrapped our carriers and we couldn't fly down anything now.We should have kept small independant strips and a much larger force of Harriers flown by the RNAS... but the Brylcreem boys wanted their part of the Falklands action as they did feck all during the conflict (apart from one or two excellent pilots who were posted to the RN during the strife..) not even mentioning a vastly expensive and totally ineffective Vulcan strike (x2) which didn't even hit the target... probably scared a few penguins though!
Against this the Argentines could probably airdrop a company of paratroopers outside of the range of the missiles (several hours march under motor fire). That is if the transport aircraft weren't detected and shot down.
The Argentine Airforce has no precision weapons meaning that its capability to strike at the base is marginal given its massive size and its protection with missiles. Ref how unsucessful the British forces were in taking out Stanley Airfield which was a fraction of the size with considerably greater air power.
If the Argentines want to launch a seabourne invasion the island is about the same distance away from them by sea as it is for us by air. The RAF could deploy a squadron of aircraft their within a day.
In 1982 the UK had several days of warning about the invasion, they were just unable to do anything about it. This time around we would be watching and would move troops and equipment to the island as required.
Jimbeaux said:
A bit off the deep end there my friend.
Not talking about the people, but your leader has shown he's not our ally. Those of us competent in the 80s know what Reagan did to allow to move our fleet to the south Atlantic but it would be foolish to rely on the same backing from the current commander in chief.
I have little doubt that he would act in the opposite manner regardless of what the people may wish.
DonkeyApple said:
Not talking about the people, but your leader has shown he's not our ally.
Those of us competent in the 80s know what Reagan did to allow to move our fleet to the south Atlantic but it would be foolish to rely on the same backing from the current commander in chief.
I have little doubt that he would act in the opposite manner regardless of what the people may wish.
You may be correct. That would sure pThose of us competent in the 80s know what Reagan did to allow to move our fleet to the south Atlantic but it would be foolish to rely on the same backing from the current commander in chief.
I have little doubt that he would act in the opposite manner regardless of what the people may wish.
s off the folks. 
Talksteer said:
British forces have around 1000 personell based around the airbase, on top of that you have a company of local defence forces. The base itself is protected by anti-air aircraft missiles.
Against this the Argentines could probably airdrop a company of paratroopers outside of the range of the missiles (several hours march under motor fire). That is if the transport aircraft weren't detected and shot down.
The Argentine Airforce has no precision weapons meaning that its capability to strike at the base is marginal given its massive size and its protection with missiles. Ref how unsucessful the British forces were in taking out Stanley Airfield which was a fraction of the size with considerably greater air power.
If the Argentines want to launch a seabourne invasion the island is about the same distance away from them by sea as it is for us by air. The RAF could deploy a squadron of aircraft their within a day.
In 1982 the UK had several days of warning about the invasion, they were just unable to do anything about it. This time around we would be watching and would move troops and equipment to the island as required.
And critically we have a powerful radar down there which has enough range to get our Typhoons up well before any enemy plane comes close. Against this the Argentines could probably airdrop a company of paratroopers outside of the range of the missiles (several hours march under motor fire). That is if the transport aircraft weren't detected and shot down.
The Argentine Airforce has no precision weapons meaning that its capability to strike at the base is marginal given its massive size and its protection with missiles. Ref how unsucessful the British forces were in taking out Stanley Airfield which was a fraction of the size with considerably greater air power.
If the Argentines want to launch a seabourne invasion the island is about the same distance away from them by sea as it is for us by air. The RAF could deploy a squadron of aircraft their within a day.
In 1982 the UK had several days of warning about the invasion, they were just unable to do anything about it. This time around we would be watching and would move troops and equipment to the island as required.
jbi said:
Zaxxon said:
The only time we need to worry is if they were backed by Brazil, then we would be pretty screwed. Although I would be surprised if Brazil wanted to suffer global indignation for doing so.
Brazil has a small dated airforce which would not be able to gain air superiority even if they wanted to take part in an invasion (which they would not)Interestingly, all 9 of Brazils frigates (they have no destroyers) are of British origin
It's all talk and bluster
Interesting story in the Telegraph today that will probably fan the flames a bit.
A secret report into the sinking of the General Belgrano proves that she was heading into the exclusion zone at the time of her sinking based on intercepted instructions from the Argentine Naval HQ. The report was never published to prevent the UK's eavesdropping capabilities being discovered.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/896...
A secret report into the sinking of the General Belgrano proves that she was heading into the exclusion zone at the time of her sinking based on intercepted instructions from the Argentine Naval HQ. The report was never published to prevent the UK's eavesdropping capabilities being discovered.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/896...
DonkeyApple said:
Ordinary_Chap said:
DonkeyApple said:
Olivera said:
If the Falklands were invaded, either by the Argies alone or with help, I wouldn't count on much support for the UK. Obama (or any US president) is relying on the Latin American vote to get elected, and commerce with emerging South American powers such as Brazil to rebuild the economy. The rest of the EU dislikes us as attested by the 26-1 vote at the recent summit. It's also not out-with the realms of possibility that any UN vote condemning or responding to an invasion is vetoed by the Russians. We really would be on our own, not just militarily but also diplomatically.
They won't just not be on our side. Most of them will be against us. Actively. It wouldn't surprise me if the US were to blockade the islands in such an event to prevent us doing anything.
And half of Europe would rush to supply them.
It would be a case of not just 100% alone but everyone against us.
Not only would it be illegal for the US to do that but they also need the UK a thousand times more than they need Argentina. I think the American people would revolt if Obama tried to authorise such action, whilst Obama doesn't support us, after living in the US I know the people do so unless he wants to personally break the law of the UN, dismantle NATO, destroy some very important economic ties and have the largest revolt possible on his hands its clearly not going to happen.
Everyone is broke and everyone is up for re-election. This is one of those times when everyone gets very nationalistic and will do what get's them the most votes.
If you recall, America didn't want to get involved last time and it was only because Regan and Thatcher were genuinely friends that America stopped trying to stop us.
Obama is no friend to the UK and will side with the Latin vote. The historic use of British blood in their recent wars will be long forgotten.
The only chance would be if the Republicans were in power but that isn't going to happen this term coming.
Edited by DonkeyApple on Saturday 24th December 12:38
So Obama is going to go against the UN/NATO and the majority of his own voting population to win the minority vote?
Right........
Ordinary_Chap said:
Quite frankly that's an epic level of nonsense.
So Obama is going to go against the UN/NATO and the majority of his own voting population to win the minority vote?
Right........
I fail to see the relevance of the UN or NATO other than as vehicles to prevent us acting. So Obama is going to go against the UN/NATO and the majority of his own voting population to win the minority vote?
Right........
I seem to recal that the only way NATO allowed us to send out fleet last time was because Reagan moved the 6th or 7th fleet into European waters to replace us.
I simply do not see Obama doing anything to help the British. And I see the French as per usual actively working against us.
And I don't think it nonsense to suggest that a political leader who is weakened and up for re election will do whatever is needed to retain votes. Those who would support the British aren't his voters so there is no concern over their views.
The world is broke and the various leaders only concerns are staying in power and retaining the local vote.
Besides, much of the Argie posturing is really just to secure a stronger deal that ensures any oil passes through BA and they can take their cut rather than it being shipped to Brazil or the Gulf. That's the importance of getting Brazil to sign up on this.
I think it very niaive to think that any country outside out own borders will support us actively. And this is long before we have dealt with our own people who will argue that we should surrender the islands. The usual appeasers.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff