Falkland Islands: Tensions Rising

[Tim Deegan]

Originally Posted by Kymmy

Yet we won.. and since then their capability hasn't changed yet ours has... We might have lost our carrier base but this time I don't think they'll get to the island never mind occupy it..

AS I keep saying...never under estimate the enemy. It can come back and bite you.

---------- Post added at 21:40 ---------- Previous post was at 21:38 ----------

Originally Posted by Osem

Nobody thinks it'd be easy - but it isn't the same as last time and we're better placed now than we/they were then despite the lack of carriers.

I really do hope you are right. But it could cost the lives of many British soldiers to find out.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan

I really do hope you are right. But it could cost the lives of many British soldiers to find out.

Sad but true. As is the case in every confilct. Let's hope the Argentinians don't buy their leaders' rhetoric en masse......

[Tim Deegan]

Originally Posted by Osem

It's also possible that submarine lauched missiles could target Argentinian airbases but that would be upping the stakes somewhat.

You are right, it would be upping the stakes. Remember last time there was a top secret SAS mission to take out aircraft on Argentinian soil.

Also last time we had full backing from America. This time we don't.

[Kymmy]

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan

Also last time we had full backing from America. This time we don't.

We had partial backing from the USA.. full support would have meant a US task force There's no reason as to why we wouldn't get the same support

[Tim Deegan]

Originally Posted by Kymmy

We had partial backing from the USA.. full support would have meant a US task force There's no reason as to why we wouldn't get the same support

Ok, partial backing. But this time they aren't backing us....there is oil involved this time.

Since nothing is actually happening, besides rhetoric, there is nothing to back....

[chris9991]

If I can put my crazy hat for one moment; what about China? I could see there being an interest in China into who controlled the islands if there is oil. China would like to increase its own oil supply to meet domestic demand and it may try to do a deal with Argentina in supplying military capability. This might seem far fetched but China have been buying a lot of influence in South America so that it could gain access to the raw materials. China might also be interested to test its military capability against a highly defended island and see what lessons it could learn in what it takes to do so.

I don't think China would want to rock the boat but it is capable on going it's own way - just look at the veto in the security council at the UN with regards to Syria

[Kymmy]

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan

Ok, partial backing. But this time they aren't backing us....there is oil involved this time.

Did a friendly policeman tell you that as well

Oil is very likely to get the US involved, they'd rather deal with the UK over any resources than a South American country.. They've taken that route before and severely regretted South American involvement

[Tim Deegan]

Originally Posted by chris9991

If I can put my crazy hat for one moment; what about China? I could see there being an interest in China into who controlled the islands if there is oil. China would like to increase its own oil supply to meet domestic demand and it may try to do a deal with Argentina in supplying military capability. This might seem far fetched but China have been buying a lot of influence in South America so that it could gain access to the raw materials. China might also be interested to test its military capability against a highly defended island and see what lessons it could learn in what it takes to do so.

I don't think China would want to rock the boat but it is capable on going it's own way - just look at the veto in the security council at the UN with regards to Syria

Steady, we hadn't even thought of that one...lol

[chris9991]

I did say it was my crazy hat

[Alan Fry]

Originally Posted by Hugh

LMAO.

You want to put "what remains of the British Armed forces (after Afg(h)anistan) to be based at the RAF base!".

OK, and I know this may hurt, but how about Mr Reality coming to visit, just this once.

RAF Mount Pleasant can currently hold between 1000 and 2000 personnel, and the current Falkland Islands population (not including the visiting servicepeople) is approx 3000.

Won't it get a bit crowded with 90,000 army personnel, 30,000 TA, 30,000 Navy personnel, 35,000 RAF personnel, 1000 aircraft, 97 active service ships, and all the tanks and artillery?

I meant enough to protect the islands from a full scale invasion from Argentina, RAF Mount Pleasant might a have to be expanded as well

---------- Post added at 10:21 ---------- Previous post was at 10:17 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

If all concerned actually read the history rather than tub-thumping over the bits of it that support their cause, Uruguay's status as a sovereign nation would be up for debate as well. After all, at the same time as the Falklands were part of the Viceroyalty of the River Plate, so was the territory north and east of the river estuary where Uruguay is now established.

Perhaps we should do as the Argentines argue, and ask the aboriginal peoples of that area what they think of Argentina and Uruguay. Mustn't ask the ethnic Europeans though, they're non-native and therefore they don't count.

I guessing that Argentina will now claim Uruguay, Paraguay and Bolivia as well then!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viceroy...Do_de_la_Plata

---------- Post added at 10:23 ---------- Previous post was at 10:21 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

We could mount a very effective defence of the islands with the hardware at our disposal but invasion of hostile territory would be incredibly difficult without carrier-borne aircraft.

If Argentina were to successfully invade, and maintain Mount Pleasant airfield in operational condition, they would have air supremacy over the islands, making an amphibious assault all but impossible.

There would still be options, mind you; the new Daring Class (Type 45) destroyers could set up an aerial defence blockade while our submarine force could set up a picket and deny access to the islands from the sea. But what we would then have would be a siege situation, and one which the Argentines would be better placed to ride out than we would given the inconvenient geography.

We could send a lot of the RAF and Navy to the Falklands, along with the Eurofighters!

---------- Post added at 10:25 ---------- Previous post was at 10:23 ----------

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan

But they will have air superiority, which is all they need to fly troops and equipment in, and to launch air attacks on our ships.

Without the carriers we wouldn't have won last time.

We could also use the P&O and Cunard ships to send in the Army in large numbers!

---------- Post added at 10:26 ---------- Previous post was at 10:25 ----------

We could send some Nulclear Missile Submarines to the Falklands!

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"...

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Nuking Buenos Aires in retaliation for a couple of sheep

Yeah, but if it works, we could then do it to Cardiff.

Good point, well made....

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