Will Brown give Argentina the Falklands?

[s2art]

james_tigerwoods said:

s2art said:

Los Palmas 7 said:

s2art said:

james_tigerwoods said:

My money's on Argentina taking them - what exactly can we do about it?

Sink all their ships? Blow the aircraft out of the air?

With what?

Subs.

And the aircraft?

And how, exacly, do we project force without carrier based aircraft? And where do we get land based forces from?

The Falkland has a decent airstrip. We can get weapons airlifted in.

[JonRB]

Orb the Impaler said:

All the bks about "we couldn't defend them" aside (which is bks anyway) can you just imagine the public reaction to this - I think that this really would tip over into a riots situation.

Well, perhaps not riots. But I could see him being the equivalent of impeached. It would be political suicide.

[james_tigerwoods]

s2art said:

james_tigerwoods said:

s2art said:

Los Palmas 7 said:

s2art said:

james_tigerwoods said:

My money's on Argentina taking them - what exactly can we do about it?

Sink all their ships? Blow the aircraft out of the air?

With what?

Subs.

And the aircraft?

And how, exacly, do we project force without carrier based aircraft? And where do we get land based forces from?

The Falkland has a decent airstrip. We can get weapons airlifted in.

And if the Falklands are occupied? We can't drop in forces and weapons to such a level so as to effectively defend the island and repel the invaders - tanks and other support vehicles can't be airlifted in - it's just too far. You'd need a base from which to fight which is either landing craft, carriers, etc.

[Jasandjules]

james_tigerwoods said:

And how, exacly, do we project force without carrier based aircraft? And where do we get land based forces from?

Submarines tend to blow land based force carrying ships out of the water.

[s2art]

james_tigerwoods said:

s2art said:

james_tigerwoods said:

s2art said:

Los Palmas 7 said:

s2art said:

james_tigerwoods said:

My money's on Argentina taking them - what exactly can we do about it?

Sink all their ships? Blow the aircraft out of the air?

With what?

Subs.

And the aircraft?

And how, exacly, do we project force without carrier based aircraft? And where do we get land based forces from?

The Falkland has a decent airstrip. We can get weapons airlifted in.

And if the Falklands are occupied? We can't drop in forces and weapons to such a level so as to effectively defend the island and repel the invaders - tanks and other support vehicles can't be airlifted in - it's just too far. You'd need a base from which to fight which is either landing craft, carriers, etc.

And precisely how are the Argies going to manage to occupy the Falklands? No ship will get through.

[colonel c]

james_tigerwoods said:

s2art said:

Los Palmas 7 said:

s2art said:

james_tigerwoods said:

My money's on Argentina taking them - what exactly can we do about it?

Sink all their ships? Blow the aircraft out of the air?

With what?

Subs.

And the aircraft?

And how, exacly, do we project force without carrier based aircraft? And where do we get land based forces from?

The last time the USA gave us some unofficil assistance. I'm not so sure the Obama administration could be relied upon to help out. In fact it wouldn't surprise me if they were somewhat hostile in the event of another conflict.

[james_tigerwoods]

Jasandjules said:

james_tigerwoods said:

And how, exacly, do we project force without carrier based aircraft? And where do we get land based forces from?

Submarines tend to blow land based force carrying ships out of the water.

s2art said:

james_tigerwoods said:

s2art said:

james_tigerwoods said:

s2art said:

Los Palmas 7 said:

s2art said:

james_tigerwoods said:

My money's on Argentina taking them - what exactly can we do about it?

Sink all their ships? Blow the aircraft out of the air?

With what?

Subs.

And the aircraft?

And how, exacly, do we project force without carrier based aircraft? And where do we get land based forces from?

The Falkland has a decent airstrip. We can get weapons airlifted in.

And if the Falklands are occupied? We can't drop in forces and weapons to such a level so as to effectively defend the island and repel the invaders - tanks and other support vehicles can't be airlifted in - it's just too far. You'd need a base from which to fight which is either landing craft, carriers, etc.

And precisely how are the Argies going to manage to occupy the Falklands? No ship will get through.

Given the proximity of Argentina to the Falklands, they'd have a force dug in before we could do anything about it.

Don't get me wrong, if it happened, I'd like to see the force repelled, I'm just not sure we (well, you know who) would have the military or political will to do it.

[odyssey2200]

colonel c said:

james_tigerwoods said:

s2art said:

Los Palmas 7 said:

s2art said:

james_tigerwoods said:

My money's on Argentina taking them - what exactly can we do about it?

Sink all their ships? Blow the aircraft out of the air?

With what?

Subs.

And the aircraft?

And how, exacly, do we project force without carrier based aircraft? And where do we get land based forces from?

The last time the USA gave us some unofficil assistance. I'm not so sure the Obama administration could be relied upon to help out. In fact it wouldn't surprise me if they were somewhat hostile in the event of another conflict.

What ?

After all the sucking up to the US that Bliar and Broon have done in Iraq and Afghanistan?

[Maxf]

I suppose if he gave them to the argies it would at least have the military openly thinking about a coup to remove him.

[This Side Down]

He better f*****g not! Although, nothing that incompetent bafoon does will ever supprise me.

[s2art]

james_tigerwoods said:

Jasandjules said:

james_tigerwoods said:

And how, exacly, do we project force without carrier based aircraft? And where do we get land based forces from?

Submarines tend to blow land based force carrying ships out of the water.

s2art said:

james_tigerwoods said:

s2art said:

james_tigerwoods said:

s2art said:

Los Palmas 7 said:

s2art said:

james_tigerwoods said:

My money's on Argentina taking them - what exactly can we do about it?

Sink all their ships? Blow the aircraft out of the air?

With what?

Subs.

And the aircraft?

And how, exacly, do we project force without carrier based aircraft? And where do we get land based forces from?

The Falkland has a decent airstrip. We can get weapons airlifted in.

And if the Falklands are occupied? We can't drop in forces and weapons to such a level so as to effectively defend the island and repel the invaders - tanks and other support vehicles can't be airlifted in - it's just too far. You'd need a base from which to fight which is either landing craft, carriers, etc.

And precisely how are the Argies going to manage to occupy the Falklands? No ship will get through.

Given the proximity of Argentina to the Falklands, they'd have a force dug in before we could do anything about it.

Don't get me wrong, if it happened, I'd like to see the force repelled, I'm just not sure we (well, you know who) would have the military or political will to do it.

How? Any build up and there will be subs lurking.

[odyssey2200]

james_tigerwoods said:

[
Given the proximity of Argentina to the Falklands, they'd have a force dug in before we could do anything about it.

You think that they didn't last time?

[james_tigerwoods]

s2art said:

How? Any build up and there will be subs lurking.

A "surprise" attack - would be in and there far quicker than we can react. The subs would have to be retasked and they wouldn't be able to do anything about an Argentinian rapid deployment force that was airlifted in. The subs would also have to be given effective ROE - which, I think, would need a declaration of war.

[Alfa_75_Steve]

We still have 2 operational carriers, and Invincible has been mothballed in such a way she could be re-activated if we needed her.

Long range bombing was largely ineffective last time round, so the loss of the Vulcans isn't even an issue.

Ground forces could be an issue - but there again, we'd need less of them these days as the technology gap between us and the Argies has grown to a great extent over the last 25 years - cruise missiles could easily take care of the kind of mission planned for the Vulcans last time.

The airport is now upgraded to a standard needed to operate fast jets - which would give us a considerable advantage over last time, as once we had control of that, we could fly anything we wanted from there.

However, I don't think they'd even try it again - we now have fast jets permanently stationed on the islands - not many, granted, but enough to see off any sea-based attack before it happened - especially as their rather ancient 'fleet' of aircraft are operating right at the outer edge of their capabilities just to reach the islands - leaving them very little chance of hanging around for a proper fight.

In fact, looking at their aerial resources, they'd be buggered before it all kicked off.

Their main attack aircraft is still the Pucara, which was proven to be pretty damned useless against Sea Harriers last time out, their Daggers / Fingers are all mothballed, and only 10 Skyhawks are operational. Given that the Israelis and the Americans wouldn't be providing spares to them for these ancient aircraft, the chances of them risking them to fight us is exceptionally minimal, I'd have thought.

They do, however, have a whole 3 submarines these days......

[james_tigerwoods]

odyssey2200 said:

james_tigerwoods said:

[
Given the proximity of Argentina to the Falklands, they'd have a force dug in before we could do anything about it.

You think that they didn't last time?

There wasn't an Iraqistan going on last time

I don't think that Argentina would though as last time the islands were attacked for home based political reasons - and the fallout from that is, from what I've read, still being felt. They may want the "Islas Malvinas" back, but the fallout from the failure last time might weigh heavy on their memories.

Plus the political fallout from the UK government NOT doing anything would be so huge, they'd have to.

Wouldn't they?

Edited by james_tigerwoods on Wednesday 25th March 18:03

[s2art]

james_tigerwoods said:

s2art said:

How? Any build up and there will be subs lurking.

A "surprise" attack - would be in and there far quicker than we can react. The subs would have to be retasked and they wouldn't be able to do anything about an Argentinian rapid deployment force that was airlifted in. The subs would also have to be given effective ROE - which, I think, would need a declaration of war.

Nonsense. We would get wind of any build up. Airlifted in against the defences already on the Falklands? Pull the other one. Argentina just doesnt have the capability.

[james_tigerwoods]

s2art said:

james_tigerwoods said:

s2art said:

How? Any build up and there will be subs lurking.

A "surprise" attack - would be in and there far quicker than we can react. The subs would have to be retasked and they wouldn't be able to do anything about an Argentinian rapid deployment force that was airlifted in. The subs would also have to be given effective ROE - which, I think, would need a declaration of war.

Nonsense. We would get wind of any build up. Airlifted in against the defences already on the Falklands? Pull the other one. Argentina just doesnt have the capability.

Would we? Are there sufficient intelligence assets in place? Would we be able to organise, plan and have those resources in place before the Argentinians - bearing in mind the airlift capability would have to be retasked from the other theaters of "war" to there - I'm not sure there would be enough aircraft/military war materials to be able to do it.

Well, I think it'd be possible, but it would not be easy.

I'd like to think the US would get involved, but, let's be honest - they wouldn't. Would they?

[Nobody You Know]

Kermit power said:

Nobody You Know said:

At least this is one time were the Labour fkwits can actually blame it on Maggie.... And no doubt they will.

How exactly are they going to do that? It's not as though she colonised them in the first place, is it? All she did was go down there and take them back again.

I was being tongue in cheek, but lady Thatcher's name will be indellibly attached to the Falklands and the Nu-Laour sts will inevitably milk it for all it's worth.

[james_tigerwoods]

Nobody You Know said:

Kermit power said:

Nobody You Know said:

At least this is one time were the Labour fkwits can actually blame it on Maggie.... And no doubt they will.

How exactly are they going to do that? It's not as though she colonised them in the first place, is it? All she did was go down there and take them back again.

I was being tongue in cheek, but lady Thatcher's name will be indellibly attached to the Falklands and the Nu-Laour sts will inevitably milk it for all it's worth.

Ahhh - the old political "blame the last x conservative administrations for everything" reasoning that labour seems to be fond of

[s2art]

james_tigerwoods said:

s2art said:

james_tigerwoods said:

s2art said:

How? Any build up and there will be subs lurking.

A "surprise" attack - would be in and there far quicker than we can react. The subs would have to be retasked and they wouldn't be able to do anything about an Argentinian rapid deployment force that was airlifted in. The subs would also have to be given effective ROE - which, I think, would need a declaration of war.

Nonsense. We would get wind of any build up. Airlifted in against the defences already on the Falklands? Pull the other one. Argentina just doesnt have the capability.

Would we? Are there sufficient intelligence assets in place? Would we be able to organise, plan and have those resources in place before the Argentinians - bearing in mind the airlift capability would have to be retasked from the other theaters of "war" to there - I'm not sure there would be enough aircraft/military war materials to be able to do it.

Well, I think it'd be possible, but it would not be easy.

I'd like to think the US would get involved, but, let's be honest - they wouldn't. Would they?

WE already have Tornados/Typhoons there. Plus missiles, weapons, several hundred men, A VC10 for air to air refuelling, helicopters etc.
And I am very sure we have sufficient intelligence, some from the USA, to detect any build-up.