Falkland Islands: Tensions Rising - Page 9

blackthorn · 06-02-2012, 13:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alan Fry

[/COLOR]We could send some Nulclear Missile Submarines to the Falklands!

You never know, there might be already one down there. As they are a deterrent we are not supposed to know where they are. Although Conquerer got all the limelight, she wasnt the only boat down there at the time.

Alan Fry · 06-02-2012, 14:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh

That may be a little "over-kill", Alan.....

Nuking Buenos Aires in retaliation for a couple of sheep - brings a whole new meaning to "asymmetric warfare"...

It would a Deterrent against a invasion by Argentina!

---------- Post added at 14:13 ---------- Previous post was at 14:12 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Let's at least finish with one war zone before we move onto another..

We will be over the next few years!

**Hugh** · 06-02-2012, 14:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alan Fry

It would a Deterrent against a invasion by Argentina!

So you are proposing incinerating nearly three million people, to deter the invasion of some islands with 3000 people and some sheep - you need to seriously re-evaluate your priorities.....

Alan Fry · 06-02-2012, 14:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh

So you are proposing incinerating nearly three million people, to deter the invasion of some islands with 3000 people and some sheep - you need to seriously re-evaluate your priorities.....

It is very, very, very, very unlikely that we would ever used them, but it is to prevent an invasion of the Falklands, we did spend Billions on this so this is a usful use of nuclear weapons!

The UK have never launched a Nuclear Bomb, only the USA have and that was 1945!

Those 3000 people are subjects of the UK!

06-02-2012, 16:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alan Fry

It is very, very, very, very unlikely that we would ever used them, but it is to prevent an invasion of the Falklands, we did spend Billions on this so this is a usful use of nuclear weapons!

The UK have never launched a Nuclear Bomb, only the USA have and that was 1945!

Those 3000 people are subjects of the UK!

So you think that Argentina will think that we will be prepared to use nuclear weapons to protect 3000 people

Not that i think they ever would invade but we wouldn't use nuclear weapons and Argentina knows that so as a deterrant in this case they are useless

TheDaddy · 06-02-2012, 16:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh

So you are proposing incinerating nearly three million people, to deter the invasion of some islands with 3000 people and some sheep - you need to seriously re-evaluate your priorities.....

Think about all the oil you'd be liberating to...

---------- Post added at 16:11 ---------- Previous post was at 16:10 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alan Fry

The UK have never launched a Nuclear Bomb, only the USA have and that was 1945!

I think you'll find we've launched our share...

DocDutch · 06-02-2012, 18:34

I doubt that the UK would send nuclear ballistic submarines to the falklands but hunter killer subs will already be there 1 for sure as that is standard operations for the royal navy and that will have some sbs troops on boards if they need to be used.

raf mount pleasant can hold at most a squadron of euros anymore and they would be out in the open

Tim Deegan · 06-02-2012, 18:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh

That may be a little "over-kill", Alan.....

Nuking Buenos Aires in retaliation for a couple of sheep - brings a whole new meaning to "asymmetric warfare"...

Well he does have some wild ideas....that are actually very worrying

**Chris** · 06-02-2012, 19:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by DocDutch

I doubt that the UK would send nuclear ballistic submarines to the falklands but hunter killer subs will already be there 1 for sure as that is standard operations for the royal navy and that will have some sbs troops on boards if they need to be used.

raf mount pleasant can hold at most a squadron of euros anymore and they would be out in the open

You're right, we will not be sending our nuclear deterrent to the South Atlantic. The Trident system is a strategic weapon designed to prevent a nuclear assault on the UK's home territory, not sabre-rattling by second division south American republics.

When you hear talk of 'nuclear submarines' heading for the Falklands, 'nuclear' refers to the sub's power plant and is an indication of its ability to remain on station, submerged and undetected, for a very long time.

In 1982, one torpedo from one British submarine was enough to force the entire Argentine navy back into port for the duration of the war. Memories of the General Belgrano will still be sharp within the Argentine military and this weekend's very rare leak about British submarine movements will have been calculated to poke that old wound and give any hawks in their defence ministry pause for thought.

DocDutch · 06-02-2012, 19:30

Yeah nobody likes sending in ships when a couple of nuclear hunter subs roaming about.

**Hugh** · 06-02-2012, 19:41

A Trafalgar-class HK can spoil your day, for sure....

**Maggy** · 06-02-2012, 20:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alan Fry

It would a Deterrent against a invasion by Argentina!

---------- Post added at 14:13 ---------- Previous post was at 14:12 ----------

We will be over the next few years!

Utter Piffle!

Tim Deegan · 06-02-2012, 22:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alan Fry

It would a Deterrent against a invasion by Argentina!

You never fail to amaze us with your rediculous remarks.

Nuclear missiles are not a deterrent against conventional invasion of a group of islands in the south atlantic. They are supposed to be a deterrent against a nuclear attack. As no country would launch a nuclear attack in such a situation.

There are probably two or three submarines in the area, but if they ever did have to launch weapons against Argentina, then they would only be conventional.

---------- Post added at 22:40 ---------- Previous post was at 22:37 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

I think you'll find we've launched our share...

Where did you get that idea from??

DocDutch · 07-02-2012, 06:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan

You never fail to amaze us with your rediculous remarks.

Nuclear missiles are not a deterrent against conventional invasion of a group of islands in the south atlantic. They are supposed to be a deterrent against a nuclear attack. As no country would launch a nuclear attack in such a situation.

There are probably two or three submarines in the area, but if they ever did have to launch weapons against Argentina, then they would only be conventional.

---------- Post added at 22:40 ---------- Previous post was at 22:37 ----------

Where did you get that idea from??

all countries that have nukes have tested their weapons

danielf · 07-02-2012, 10:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris

Memories of the General Belgrano will still be sharp within the Argentine military and this weekend's very rare leak about British submarine movements will have been calculated to poke that old wound and give any hawks in their defence ministry pause for thought.

Indeed. So much so, that they've renamed the Football Competition in her memory.

Quote:

BUENOS AIRES, Argentina (AP) -As tension rises over the 30th anniversary of the deadly war between Britain and Argentina over the Falkland Islands, the Argentine government has named the upcoming football season in honor a naval ship sunk by British torpedoes in the conflict.
The season, which begins Friday, will be the known as the first division "Crucero General Belgrano,'' or Cruiser General Belgrano in English.