Ologhai Jones Posted May 16, 2010 Share Posted May 16, 2010 (edited) In some respects, we seem to be right back in 1979: - A new Conservative (-ish) government. - Lots of 'nasty' fiscal stuff to do in order to try to undo the mess we're in. - Tensions over the Falkland Islands. BBC News: Argentina's president says Falklands should be theirs. Google News: Argentina urges Cameron to halt Falklands oil exploration. EDITED to add: I decided to put this here (rather than in Off-topic) just because of the economic tone (oil, fiscal policy), but if Off-topic seems more appropriate, feel free to move it! Thanks. Edited May 16, 2010 by Ologhai Jones Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan B'Stard MP Posted May 16, 2010 Share Posted May 16, 2010 Except this time it would be a walk in the park. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tin Foil Hat Posted May 16, 2010 Share Posted May 16, 2010 Except this time it would be a walk in the park. Why? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deadman Posted May 16, 2010 Share Posted May 16, 2010 ...here we go again... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan B'Stard MP Posted May 16, 2010 Share Posted May 16, 2010 Why? Well not being an authority on the topic but I imagine the argentian forces are not the forces they once were. The UK already have theatre experienced troops - and much greater technology. The islands are already well defended - and this time we have the economic reasons to retain the islands. Do you think we would have trouble bombing the runaway at Port Stanley this time around? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indirectapproach Posted May 16, 2010 Share Posted May 16, 2010 Last time the Argentine army had been running Argentina for 30+ years putting the interests of the army at the forefront. This time it hasn't and it hasn't been high on the agenda. Indeed the reverse as the country deals with its revulsion at the excesses of the dirty war waged by the army against its own people. Something the British brought to a close. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lagarde's Drift Posted May 16, 2010 Share Posted May 16, 2010 We may have come very close to losing the 1982 conflict. Regardless of how much weaker we are now than then, Argentina is in no position to mobilise nor threaten in a military sense. She would do much better to blackmail us with regards to onshore processing facilities should there be oil in the Falklands. The islanders (quite rightly) do not want massive facilities on their islands. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ken_ichikawa Posted May 16, 2010 Share Posted May 16, 2010 Well not being an authority on the topic but I imagine the argentian forces are not the forces they once were. The UK already have theatre experienced troops - and much greater technology. The islands are already well defended - and this time we have the economic reasons to retain the islands. Do you think we would have trouble bombing the runaway at Port Stanley this time around? Not really, we only have one carrier left and fewer destroyers, which are going through technical problems and are therefore virtually unarmed. We don't even have anything capable of flying all the way there and bombing them. Also military technology actually favours the underdog, sure we may send a carrier task force but they will send envoys to Iran/Russia/China countries that have little love for us, and buy transonic antiship missiles and the carrier task force (much smaller) will be sunk at the end of the first day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deflation Posted May 16, 2010 Share Posted May 16, 2010 (edited) Not really, we only have one carrier left and fewer destroyers, which are going through technical problems and are therefore virtually unarmed. We don't even have anything capable of flying all the way there and bombing them. Also military technology actually favours the underdog, sure we may send a carrier task force but they will send envoys to Iran/Russia/China countries that have little love for us, and buy transonic antiship missiles and the carrier task force (much smaller) will be sunk at the end of the first day. Rubbish. The bombers didn't fly all the way there in 1982. The Vulcans took off from Ascension Island in the middle of the Atlantic, which we still own. There wouldn't even need to be any kind of 'task force,' there's a heavily armed garrison on the Falklands now, including fighter bomber aircraft which weren't there in 1982. Edited May 16, 2010 by deflation Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betterToDo Posted May 16, 2010 Share Posted May 16, 2010 Isn't this all blowing over now that they didn't find much oil? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan B'Stard MP Posted May 16, 2010 Share Posted May 16, 2010 (edited) Not really, we only have one carrier left and fewer destroyers, which are going through technical problems and are therefore virtually unarmed. We don't even have anything capable of flying all the way there and bombing them. Also military technology actually favours the underdog, sure we may send a carrier task force but they will send envoys to Iran/Russia/China countries that have little love for us, and buy transonic antiship missiles and the carrier task force (much smaller) will be sunk at the end of the first day. We seem to be operating in the gulf with too many problems? We have executed two wars simultaneously - yet you think it beyond our capabilities to hold on to an island we have already fortified. I suspect the armed services would surprise you. Edited May 16, 2010 by Alan B'Stard MP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ken_ichikawa Posted May 16, 2010 Share Posted May 16, 2010 We seem to be operating in the gulf with too many problems? We have executed two wars simultaneously - yet you think it beyond our capabilities to hold on to an island we have already fortified. I suspect the armed services would surprise you. Correction we are LOSING two wars simultaneously you think we can open up a 3rd front? a big garrison is all well and fine but you cannot expect them to hold out forever. You may recall the Glocs who were annilated in Korea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ntb Posted May 16, 2010 Share Posted May 16, 2010 Not really, we only have one carrier left and fewer destroyers, which are going through technical problems and are therefore virtually unarmed. We don't even have anything capable of flying all the way there and bombing them. Also military technology actually favours the underdog, sure we may send a carrier task force but they will send envoys to Iran/Russia/China countries that have little love for us, and buy transonic antiship missiles and the carrier task force (much smaller) will be sunk at the end of the first day. Sigh. Ken, the Eurofighter Typhoons that are based there on a brand new military airfield only have to fly a few miles to bomb Port Stanley airfield. They might do this for fun after they have eliminated the entire Argentinian airforce I suppose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan B'Stard MP Posted May 16, 2010 Share Posted May 16, 2010 LOSING two wars simultaneously Incorrect. Been to Iraq lately? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan B'Stard MP Posted May 16, 2010 Share Posted May 16, 2010 (edited) Sigh. Ken, the Eurofighter Typhoons that are based there on a brand new military airfield only have to fly a few miles to bomb Port Stanley airfield. They might do this for fun after they have eliminated the entire Argentinian airforce I suppose. Doesn't the Royal Navy also have cruise missiles? Edited May 16, 2010 by Alan B'Stard MP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingsgate Posted May 16, 2010 Share Posted May 16, 2010 The Navy still have a good few hunter-killer submarines, don't they? If the Argentinians invaded, couldn't they just sit outside Argentina's main ports and torpedo anything that went in or out, until they run out of torpedoes, then go and reload and repeat until they got the message? Argentina has nothing that could stop us from doing this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1929crash Posted May 16, 2010 Share Posted May 16, 2010 Except this time it would be a walk in the park. For the Argies? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
right_freds_dead Posted May 16, 2010 Share Posted May 16, 2010 Doesn't the Royal Navy also have cruise missiles? lots of them. they could easily sit a couple of hundred miles form the mainland and pound them directly through windows and doors. this oil they have no claim to. just cos its on the same shelf. well we are on the same shelf as france but its a different country. we dont claim france. argies can eat shittake. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1929crash Posted May 16, 2010 Share Posted May 16, 2010 (edited) Correction we are LOSING two wars simultaneously you think we can open up a 3rd front? a big garrison is all well and fine but you cannot expect them to hold out forever. You may recall the Glocs who were annilated in Korea. Good response to Mr B'Stard. Edited May 16, 2010 by 1929crash Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan B'Stard MP Posted May 16, 2010 Share Posted May 16, 2010 Good response to Mr B'Stard. Pure fantasy too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trampa501 Posted May 16, 2010 Share Posted May 16, 2010 The Navy still have a good few hunter-killer submarines, don't they? If the Argentinians invaded, couldn't they just sit outside Argentina's main ports and torpedo anything that went in or out, until they run out of torpedoes, then go and reload and repeat until they got the message? Argentina has nothing that could stop us from doing this. All Argentina has to do is to keep quiet and do nothing for 6-10 years. The cuts that the UK will be forced to do, will make any more global adventures unviable. We'll be lucky to have a navy of more than a few gunboats in 10 years time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krackersdave Posted May 16, 2010 Share Posted May 16, 2010 Isn't this all blowing over now that they didn't find much oil? hush now - don't try and use logic to stop a Sunday morning ******** fest by armchair generals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Hovis Posted May 16, 2010 Share Posted May 16, 2010 Let's have a go at Iceland. Less logistical problems in getting there and lots of cod for the chippies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cashinmattress Posted May 16, 2010 Share Posted May 16, 2010 What war? This is sabre rattling. Got your mind off of the crap economy here for at least 10 seconds though. Job done. Britain cannot hold ground abroad without being in the shadow, and pocket, of the yanks. Period. The current American position on the Falklands is 'impartiality' and no intervention. I know what will happen if the UK starts chest beating. The US will set up a base there and essentially take it over. What makes you think that we are free to do what we want? Grow up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ken_ichikawa Posted May 16, 2010 Share Posted May 16, 2010 What war? This is sabre rattling. Got your mind off of the crap economy here for at least 10 seconds though. Job done. Britain cannot hold ground abroad without being in the shadow, and pocket, of the yanks. Period. The current American position on the Falklands is 'impartiality' and no intervention. I know what will happen if the UK starts chest beating. The US will set up a base there and essentially take it over. What makes you think that we are free to do what we want? Grow up. Did you just say Diego Garcia? 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.