Cicero Posted February 12, 2010 Share Posted February 12, 2010 http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hdiJk0I3PvmHUj3BTCewpI_bplPg Given the state of the UK's finances and weakened defences, would the Argies dare to reprise some unfinished business? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pilchardthecat Posted February 12, 2010 Share Posted February 12, 2010 http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hdiJk0I3PvmHUj3BTCewpI_bplPg Given the state of the UK's finances and weakened defences, would the Argies dare to reprise some unfinished business? I thought they changed their constitution after the last one to prevent military conflict? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warwick-Watcher Posted February 12, 2010 Share Posted February 12, 2010 I thought they changed their constitution after the last one to prevent military conflict? Have they become a French colony then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pilchardthecat Posted February 12, 2010 Share Posted February 12, 2010 We really should have stolen their oil in the latter half of the 1980s, and left a bit more under the north sea. I can't see how we can get away with it now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toilet-Currency Posted February 12, 2010 Share Posted February 12, 2010 As bad as the situation is in the UK, there are a lot of big problems brewing at the moment in Argentina. It is very weak. The politics are as fractious as ever, there is vicious food price inflation (a life or death issue in this country, with its veneration for eating large amounts of beef) and shenanigans over the resignation of the head of the central bank and the appropriation of the bank's dollar reserves by the government. Plus fears of yet another devaluation (denied, of course). "Las Malvinas" is as sure a way now as it was 30 years ago to unify the political class and distract the less well educated (stereotypically, the hard core football hooligans). But it's very unlikely to come to war. They treated the veterans of the last conflict (mostly conscripts) like sh!t and the average person here isnt going to want to sign up to fight for a piece of rock in the south atlantic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cicero Posted February 12, 2010 Author Share Posted February 12, 2010 We really should have stolen their oil in the latter half of the 1980s, and left a bit more under the north sea. I can't see how we can get away with it now Precisely. I am not sure that the Falkland Islands garrison would be enough of a deterrent. Reinforcing that would prove difficult in an emergency, given the rundown of the Navy to de facto flotilla status. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deflation Posted February 12, 2010 Share Posted February 12, 2010 Wasn't the airport and runway improved after the falklands War? Transport planes and even passenger jets fly there now so I don't think a 'Task Force' woud be needed, just a squadron of Tornadoes based there. Of course, if they attacked on a bank holiday... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si1 Posted February 12, 2010 Share Posted February 12, 2010 Precisely. I am not sure that the Falkland Islands garrison would be enough of a deterrent. Reinforcing that would prove difficult in an emergency, given the rundown of the Navy to de facto flotilla status. thje Falklands are noe armed to the teeth with marine-attack tornados and eurofighters in hardened bunkers, not the soft target they used to be Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cicero Posted February 12, 2010 Author Share Posted February 12, 2010 Wasn't the airport and runway improved after the falklands War? Transport planes and even passenger jets fly there now so I don't think a 'Task Force' woud be needed, just a squadron of Tornadoes based there. Of course, if they attacked on a bank holiday... Indeed so. Problem is that the bulk of the RAF's tanker fleet / strategic airlifts are working to capacity in Afghanistan. Our armed forces are more thinly stretched than ever, and perhaps the Argies are cognisant of the opportunity that might present itself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pilchardthecat Posted February 12, 2010 Share Posted February 12, 2010 thje Falklands are noe armed to the teeth with marine-attack tornados and eurofighters in hardened bunkers, not the soft target they used to be Really? Awesome. We need a bit of old-empire style resource theft to get the corks popping again. Much easier than, say, becoming more productive, or sorting out our endless structural problems....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rxe Posted February 12, 2010 Share Posted February 12, 2010 Given the state of the UK's finances and weakened defences, would the Argies dare to reprise some unfinished business? Well, we've got a load of Trident boats that are getting close to their sell by date. They may be old, but they'd turn Buenos Aries to glass in short order. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cicero Posted February 12, 2010 Author Share Posted February 12, 2010 (edited) Well, we've got a load of Trident boats that are getting close to their sell by date. They may be old, but they'd turn Buenos Aries to glass in short order. We also had Polaris and a much larger nuclear weapon inventory (WE177 freefall bombs) back in 1982, but that didn't deter the Argies. It didn't deter them then, so why should it deter them now? Edited February 12, 2010 by urban commando Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cicero Posted February 12, 2010 Author Share Posted February 12, 2010 thje Falklands are noe armed to the teeth with marine-attack tornados and eurofighters in hardened bunkers, not the soft target they used to be Agreed that the Island's military presence is nominally better than it was in 1982 (RAF base, 4 x Eurofighters, 1 x VC10 tanker now compared to local "Dad's Army" detachment and an unarmed ice patrol ship then). Problem now is that black gold is too tempting a prospect not to fight over, and our weakened refinforcement capabilities (smaller armed forces compared to 1982, huge committment to Afghanistan, economic weakness) will not have gone unnoticed in Buenos Aires. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toilet-Currency Posted February 12, 2010 Share Posted February 12, 2010 We also had Polaris and a much larger nuclear weapon inventory (WE177 freefall bombs) back in 1982, but that didn't deter the Argies. It didn't deter them then, so why should it deter them now? But the key point in 1982 was the Argentine dictatorship started a war knowing full well they could win only if Britain let the matter drop & didnt fight for the islands. The dictatorship was that desperate , its hold on power very tenuous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'Bart' Posted February 12, 2010 Share Posted February 12, 2010 Any chance of the Cod War starting up again? I think we need revenge for our battering last time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swissy_fit Posted February 12, 2010 Share Posted February 12, 2010 But the key point in 1982 was the Argentine dictatorship started a war knowing full well they could win only if Britain let the matter drop & didnt fight for the islands. The dictatorship was that desperate , its hold on power very tenuous. 1982 was a put-up job on both sides. They were told point-blank by the Americans not to do it, that the Brits would send hardened paratroopers aided by US support against their conscripts and that they would lose many lives. The American negotiator concerned was on the radio recently. They went ahead anyway. On top of that, Thatcher was warned and could easily have headed them off by stationing a couple of subs down there with orders to sink anything coming too close. The war suited her, helped her win the election. The one urban myth which I think has never been confirmed is that Thatcher demanded some codes from the French president which would help counter the Exocets, threatening to nuke Buenos Aires if they weren't forthcoming. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/nov/22/books.france Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toilet-Currency Posted February 12, 2010 Share Posted February 12, 2010 The one urban myth which I think has never been confirmed is that Thatcher demanded some codes from the French president which would help counter the Exocets, threatening to nuke Buenos Aires if they weren't forthcoming. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/nov/22/books.france Yeah I saw that report a while back. Almost all Argentines I've met think the war was absolutely crazy, but I don't think it is commonly realised in Argentina how reckless the dictatorship were in exposing the people to a nuclear war. Lucky we've now got someone much more sane with his finger on the nuke button someone who doesnt need to boost his popularity ahead of an election..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saver Posted February 12, 2010 Share Posted February 12, 2010 We also had Polaris and a much larger nuclear weapon inventory (WE177 freefall bombs) back in 1982, but that didn't deter the Argies. It didn't deter them then, so why should it deter them now? Well maybe this time if they invade an example can be made of Buenos Aries....I bet they soon retreat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cicero Posted February 12, 2010 Author Share Posted February 12, 2010 1982 was a put-up job on both sides. They were told point-blank by the Americans not to do it, that the Brits would send hardened paratroopers aided by US support against their conscripts and that they would lose many lives. The American negotiator concerned was on the radio recently. They went ahead anyway. On top of that, Thatcher was warned and could easily have headed them off by stationing a couple of subs down there with orders to sink anything coming too close. The war suited her, helped her win the election. The one urban myth which I think has never been confirmed is that Thatcher demanded some codes from the French president which would help counter the Exocets, threatening to nuke Buenos Aires if they weren't forthcoming. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/nov/22/books.france Quite. Years ago, an undergraduate colleague of mine had worked for GCHQ prior to the War. I recall an anecdotal, in which he claimed that the government had been well aware of the Argies' intentions two months prior to the invasion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gigantic Purple Slug Posted February 12, 2010 Share Posted February 12, 2010 The entire Argentine air force is no match for 4 eurofighters and a tanker, plus the advanced radar stations that are no doubt in place. They would lose the whole lot. That is assuming they would ever be able to launch it, because now the UK has got cruise missles equipped with convential warheads. As for trident being old, the only reason they are talking about replacing it now is because it takes 15 or so years to sort out a replacement. The trident missles are amongst the most modern in the world, and the most effective. Not that they would ever be used. Maybe in a convential strike. I did hear that there were talks on replacing some of the nukes with conventional warheads, but it would be a messy business for all sorts of reasons. Probably better to use the tomahawks. The technological gulf between the UK and argentinian forces has widened significantly since the last war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheCountOfNowhere Posted February 12, 2010 Share Posted February 12, 2010 As bad as the situation is in the UK, there are a lot of big problems brewing at the moment in Argentina. It is very weak. The politics are as fractious as ever, there is vicious food price inflation (a life or death issue in this country, with its veneration for eating large amounts of beef) and shenanigans over the resignation of the head of the central bank and the appropriation of the bank's dollar reserves by the government. Plus fears of yet another devaluation (denied, of course). "Las Malvinas" is as sure a way now as it was 30 years ago to unify the political class and distract the less well educated (stereotypically, the hard core football hooligans). But it's very unlikely to come to war. They treated the veterans of the last conflict (mostly conscripts) like sh!t and the average person here isnt going to want to sign up to fight for a piece of rock in the south atlantic. They have a decent football team though, and I hear that their center back hasn't shagged any of the team-mates wives...just one of their mothers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rxe Posted February 12, 2010 Share Posted February 12, 2010 We also had Polaris and a much larger nuclear weapon inventory (WE177 freefall bombs) back in 1982, but that didn't deter the Argies. It didn't deter them then, so why should it deter them now? I'm not talking about deterrence, I'm talking about giving them a good twatting if they have a go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cicero Posted February 12, 2010 Author Share Posted February 12, 2010 (edited) The entire Argentine air force is no match for 4 eurofighters[/b] and a tanker, plus the advanced radar stations that are no doubt in place. They would lose the whole lot. That is assuming they would ever be able to launch it, because now the UK has got cruise missles equipped with convential warheads. As for trident being old, the only reason they are talking about replacing it now is because it takes 15 or so years to sort out a replacement. The trident missles are amongst the most modern in the world, and the most effective. Not that they would ever be used. Maybe in a convential strike. I did hear that there were talks on replacing some of the nukes with conventional warheads, but it would be a messy business for all sorts of reasons. Probably better to use the tomahawks. The technological gulf between the UK and argentinian forces has widened significantly since the last war. Good point. However, does technological superiority make up for our armed forces being smaller now than they were in 1982? To put it another way, would a salvo of tomahawks and four eurofighters be enough to thwart an invasion this time around? Perhaps, but surely a larger deterrent force (say a full squadron of eurofighters, permanent patrol of Tomahawk armed SSBNs with an Invicible class carrier) would be better. Is "just enough" deterrence sufficient? Edited February 12, 2010 by urban commando Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Number79 Posted February 12, 2010 Share Posted February 12, 2010 . Is "just enough" deterrence sufficient? er...yes...otherwise it would be no detterant at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairies Wear Boots Posted February 12, 2010 Share Posted February 12, 2010 We really should have stolen their oil in the latter half of the 1980s, and left a bit more under the north sea. I can't see how we can get away with it now We have just recently invaded a country of 24 million people with our "friends" the americans. We surely have more claim to the Falklands. Argentinian continental shelf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.