More Argie Bargie
Discussion
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.
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.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.
Olivera 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.
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.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.
Also its really in the realms of fantasy to suggest the UN would not support our right to retaliation against any Argentine invasion.
I do agree Obama has proven himself not only to hate the UK but also to be completely useless as a president so it would make sense to not expect anything from him.
Falklands defence vote 1982: 60 RM bootys with rifles, gimpys, grenades and a dose of bulldog spirit, FIDF armed with not very much, an unsurfaced airfield only just big enough for a C130, and no naval presence at all.
Falklands defence vote 2012: an augmented battalion with engineer and artillery attachments, radar equipped rapier sections, FIDF with light recon equipment, Mount Pleasant Airfield; a fortified airfield suitable for fast jets, 4 Typhoons with a VC10 tanker, a C130 and 3 SAR choppers, the T23 frigate HMS Montrose, possibly a sleek black bringer of death but as usual it's a secret, and the FI standing patrol ship HMS Clyde.
The Argies aren't getting in without a bloody fight, and it's a fight I believe they would lose.
Falklands defence vote 2012: an augmented battalion with engineer and artillery attachments, radar equipped rapier sections, FIDF with light recon equipment, Mount Pleasant Airfield; a fortified airfield suitable for fast jets, 4 Typhoons with a VC10 tanker, a C130 and 3 SAR choppers, the T23 frigate HMS Montrose, possibly a sleek black bringer of death but as usual it's a secret, and the FI standing patrol ship HMS Clyde.
The Argies aren't getting in without a bloody fight, and it's a fight I believe they would lose.
hidetheelephants said:
Falklands defence vote 1982: 60 RM bootys with rifles, gimpys, grenades and a dose of bulldog spirit, FIDF armed with not very much, an unsurfaced airfield only just big enough for a C130, and no naval presence at all.
Falklands defence vote 2012: an augmented battalion with engineer and artillery attachments, radar equipped rapier sections, FIDF with light recon equipment, Mount Pleasant Airfield; a fortified airfield suitable for fast jets, 4 Typhoons with a VC10 tanker, a C130 and 3 SAR choppers, the T23 frigate HMS Montrose, possibly a sleek black bringer of death but as usual it's a secret, and the FI standing patrol ship HMS Clyde.
The Argies aren't getting in without a bloody fight, and it's a fight I believe they would lose.
Dont forget all the landmines spread around the place to make it even more difficult for any Argies to land. It was rather thoughtful of them last time round.Falklands defence vote 2012: an augmented battalion with engineer and artillery attachments, radar equipped rapier sections, FIDF with light recon equipment, Mount Pleasant Airfield; a fortified airfield suitable for fast jets, 4 Typhoons with a VC10 tanker, a C130 and 3 SAR choppers, the T23 frigate HMS Montrose, possibly a sleek black bringer of death but as usual it's a secret, and the FI standing patrol ship HMS Clyde.
The Argies aren't getting in without a bloody fight, and it's a fight I believe they would lose.
Mr Dave said:
hidetheelephants said:
Falklands defence vote 1982: 60 RM bootys with rifles, gimpys, grenades and a dose of bulldog spirit, FIDF armed with not very much, an unsurfaced airfield only just big enough for a C130, and no naval presence at all.
Falklands defence vote 2012: an augmented battalion with engineer and artillery attachments, radar equipped rapier sections, FIDF with light recon equipment, Mount Pleasant Airfield; a fortified airfield suitable for fast jets, 4 Typhoons with a VC10 tanker, a C130 and 3 SAR choppers, the T23 frigate HMS Montrose, possibly a sleek black bringer of death but as usual it's a secret, and the FI standing patrol ship HMS Clyde.
The Argies aren't getting in without a bloody fight, and it's a fight I believe they would lose.
Dont forget all the landmines spread around the place to make it even more difficult for any Argies to land. It was rather thoughtful of them last time round.Falklands defence vote 2012: an augmented battalion with engineer and artillery attachments, radar equipped rapier sections, FIDF with light recon equipment, Mount Pleasant Airfield; a fortified airfield suitable for fast jets, 4 Typhoons with a VC10 tanker, a C130 and 3 SAR choppers, the T23 frigate HMS Montrose, possibly a sleek black bringer of death but as usual it's a secret, and the FI standing patrol ship HMS Clyde.
The Argies aren't getting in without a bloody fight, and it's a fight I believe they would lose.
swamp said:
Mr Dave said:
hidetheelephants said:
Falklands defence vote 1982: 60 RM bootys with rifles, gimpys, grenades and a dose of bulldog spirit, FIDF armed with not very much, an unsurfaced airfield only just big enough for a C130, and no naval presence at all.
Falklands defence vote 2012: an augmented battalion with engineer and artillery attachments, radar equipped rapier sections, FIDF with light recon equipment, Mount Pleasant Airfield; a fortified airfield suitable for fast jets, 4 Typhoons with a VC10 tanker, a C130 and 3 SAR choppers, the T23 frigate HMS Montrose, possibly a sleek black bringer of death but as usual it's a secret, and the FI standing patrol ship HMS Clyde.
The Argies aren't getting in without a bloody fight, and it's a fight I believe they would lose.
Dont forget all the landmines spread around the place to make it even more difficult for any Argies to land. It was rather thoughtful of them last time round.Falklands defence vote 2012: an augmented battalion with engineer and artillery attachments, radar equipped rapier sections, FIDF with light recon equipment, Mount Pleasant Airfield; a fortified airfield suitable for fast jets, 4 Typhoons with a VC10 tanker, a C130 and 3 SAR choppers, the T23 frigate HMS Montrose, possibly a sleek black bringer of death but as usual it's a secret, and the FI standing patrol ship HMS Clyde.
The Argies aren't getting in without a bloody fight, and it's a fight I believe they would lose.
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.
Our best hope would be to make sure that our intelligence is good enough that we have some advanced notice of their invasion and could fly a battalion of infantry and a few more fast jets down there in a hurry to reinforce the islands, I would hope that the MOD have a plan drawn up for this possibility. Hopefully that would be enough to make Argentina think twice and avoid a conflict. If Argentina managed to successfully take the Falklands then I think the situation would get very messy, we don't really have the means to fight at that distance from a fixed airbase and we wouldn't be able to rely on any of our "allies", we could see a bloody war of attrition where the Argentines have a bridgehead somewhere but we continue to hold Stanley and/or Mount Pleasant.
hidetheelephants said:
Falklands defence vote 1982: 60 RM bootys with rifles, gimpys, grenades and a dose of bulldog spirit, FIDF armed with not very much, an unsurfaced airfield only just big enough for a C130, and no naval presence at all.
Falklands defence vote 2012: an augmented battalion with engineer and artillery attachments, radar equipped rapier sections, FIDF with light recon equipment, Mount Pleasant Airfield; a fortified airfield suitable for fast jets, 4 Typhoons with a VC10 tanker, a C130 and 3 SAR choppers, the T23 frigate HMS Montrose, possibly a sleek black bringer of death but as usual it's a secret, and the FI standing patrol ship HMS Clyde.
The Argies aren't getting in without a bloody fight, and it's a fight I believe they would lose.
The danger isn't Argentina as such it's the unified desire for OIL from the South American continent, OIL that appears to be on their doorstep.Falklands defence vote 2012: an augmented battalion with engineer and artillery attachments, radar equipped rapier sections, FIDF with light recon equipment, Mount Pleasant Airfield; a fortified airfield suitable for fast jets, 4 Typhoons with a VC10 tanker, a C130 and 3 SAR choppers, the T23 frigate HMS Montrose, possibly a sleek black bringer of death but as usual it's a secret, and the FI standing patrol ship HMS Clyde.
The Argies aren't getting in without a bloody fight, and it's a fight I believe they would lose.
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.
Olivera said:
...The rest of the EU dislikes us as attested by the 26-1 vote at the recent summit. ...
With respect, you have this arse about face. The vote isn't testimony that they hate us. We voted against THEIR stupidity.They may hate us following that. But is that really a bad thing if what they were proposing is stupid (and it is very much is stupid)?
Also...there are a number of countries out of the 26 who haven't accepted the vote with no strings attached. If they subsequently kick it out, will they be hated and will everyone kick up the same fuss?
Personally I'm starting to wonder whether being "alone" is any bad thing. If the alternative is collaboration with idiots...
I cannot see anyone vetoing self defence following a premeditated strike by a foreign power. And I cannot see the likes of the US blockading or assisting in a strike against us (who the hell would they rely on in their next crusade in the Middle East if they did. The French? My arse).
I also tend to agree with the other posts on Argentina and Brazil. Neither are really that much of a threat no matter what parlous state our govt have put our armed forces in.
What I can see is IF any oil is found, the government doing some sort of deal with various foreign powers on it. And screwing us all in the process.
Mojocvh said:
The danger isn't Argentina as such it's the unified desire for OIL from the South American continent, OIL that appears to be on their doorstep.
That's the most absurd part of it; there was a bilateral oil agreement between us and the Argies but they tore it up. They don't seem to be going out of their way to issue drilling licences for their bit of the South Atlantic, so I have to conclude that they have their heads firmly inserted rectally; they don't actually want the oil, they either 1)don't want the FI populace to do a Norway on them and/or 2)Just enjoy shouting the odds for the benefit of the proles who don't know any better.Inkyfingers said:
Our best hope would be to make sure that our intelligence is good enough that we have some advanced notice of their invasion and could fly a battalion of infantry and a few more fast jets down there in a hurry to reinforce the islands, I would hope that the MOD have a plan drawn up for this possibility. Hopefully that would be enough to make Argentina think twice and avoid a conflict. If Argentina managed to successfully take the Falklands then I think the situation would get very messy, we don't really have the means to fight at that distance from a fixed airbase and we wouldn't be able to rely on any of our "allies", we could see a bloody war of attrition where the Argentines have a bridgehead somewhere but we continue to hold Stanley and/or Mount Pleasant.
Spearhead Lead Element. An infantry battalion on 48 hour notice to deploy anywhere in the world. In addition, 16 Airborne Bridge and 3 Commando Brigade have both more or less completed their last Herrick tours and are returning to the contingency role.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
The Argentine government has nationalised the production of the paper used to make newspapers.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-1631...
Obviously this is with the aim of shutting down dissident voices in the press. I get the feeling that things are going a similar way internally in Argentina as they did 30 years ago - starting a war to try and smooth over the domestic cracks.
While Mercosur supports the blockade, I very much doubt they'll want to get involved in an expeditionary war against a NATO territory.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-1631...
Obviously this is with the aim of shutting down dissident voices in the press. I get the feeling that things are going a similar way internally in Argentina as they did 30 years ago - starting a war to try and smooth over the domestic cracks.
While Mercosur supports the blockade, I very much doubt they'll want to get involved in an expeditionary war against a NATO territory.
Cristina Fernandez is trying to do a 'Chavez' in Argentina and close down all oppostion press. She's already raided ordered a Police raid on a newspaper that criticised her. Now getting control of newsprint. She'll be ordering changes to the constitution soon so she can become President for life. When the Argentinian economy goes even further down the pan, she may well decide that sacrificing a few hundred members of her armed forces is worth it to whip up a bit of national hysteria.
davepoth said:
The Argentine government has nationalised the production of the paper used to make newspapers.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-1631...
Obviously this is with the aim of shutting down dissident voices in the press. I get the feeling that things are going a similar way internally in Argentina as they did 30 years ago - starting a war to try and smooth over the domestic cracks.
While Mercosur supports the blockade, I very much doubt they'll want to get involved in an expeditionary war against a NATO territory.
NATO are on their side though http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-1631...
Obviously this is with the aim of shutting down dissident voices in the press. I get the feeling that things are going a similar way internally in Argentina as they did 30 years ago - starting a war to try and smooth over the domestic cracks.
While Mercosur supports the blockade, I very much doubt they'll want to get involved in an expeditionary war against a NATO territory.
How else would the French et al get the oil or access to sell equipment to them?
davepoth said:
The Argentine government has nationalised the production of the paper used to make newspapers.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-1631...
Obviously this is with the aim of shutting down dissident voices in the press. I get the feeling that things are going a similar way internally in Argentina as they did 30 years ago - starting a war to try and smooth over the domestic cracks.
While Mercosur supports the blockade, I very much doubt they'll want to get involved in an expeditionary war against a NATO territory.
NATO are on their side though http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-1631...
Obviously this is with the aim of shutting down dissident voices in the press. I get the feeling that things are going a similar way internally in Argentina as they did 30 years ago - starting a war to try and smooth over the domestic cracks.
While Mercosur supports the blockade, I very much doubt they'll want to get involved in an expeditionary war against a NATO territory.
How else would the French et al get the oil or access to sell equipment to them?
DonkeyApple said:
Obama is no friend to the UK and will side with the Latin vote.
I don't think he will. I think that the US will remain fairly neutral, or possibly slightly edge towards Argentina, but there's absolutely no way that the US would actively support Argentina. Obama might not be our greatest fan, but I'm sure he recognises the value of having a strong European ally.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff