UK PANIC?!

[stormrider_sp]

Is the UK in panic about Brazilian and Argentinian's plans to build ssn and renew their navies?

A few weeks ago, Subsim's main page was flooded with articles regarding brazilians decision to build in cooperation with France, its first SSN. But I didnt see what a friendly neutral country, who recently found a reasonable amount of fossil fuel hiding underneath its extended coast line, really deserve from allied countries. And it is not fear!

Brasil is a neutral country who sent troops only to Haiti and East Timor, not to rage war, but to guarantee security given the army's experience in such an enviroment (Favelas in Rio de Janeiro). Brasil is also still trying to have a chair in the UN "restrict"?! decision cupola.

But unfortunatly all I read was panic and fear. Defeatism because of the unresolved problem called Islas Malvinas. :damn:

Now, Argentina announced its intentions to develop its own SSN.

I would like to know how you guys feel and think about that.

Cheers

[Herr_Pete]

I wouldn't be worried. They wouldn't dare try take the Falklands again. If they did they have to try take out what can't be seen :03:

[papa_smurf]

Not that worried.

[Skybird]

Logical step by Brazil. It is the regional dominant power, it has rich resources that othery eye with envy, and I take it since years that they are a military nuclear power, although they did a magnificient job at not pushing the global public's nose into it.

That others will follow in order to not let the gap to Brazil become too great, is to be expected. For the same reason I argue that a nuclear Iran at all cost must be prevented, for it will cause a nuclear arms race in the whole region with Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt not letting it happen without reacting with their own nuclear propgrams. In South America, it is Brazil, Argentinia, Venzuela (now accounted for the world'S biggest reserves in oil, before Saudi Arabia).

The Falkland Islands, well, the Royal Navy may have decent platforms, but it is shrinking and shrinking, and Western nations find it increasingly struggling to deal with their military budgets. Back then, the Argentinians tried a quick shot from the hip, they were not too well prepared for a real war, and the British military was more powerful and potent to project combat force by means of a fleet. But for the future, I am not so sure that the Brits again could push back a South American attack if that attack is prepared by better military preparation as well as years of political preparation and tailoring of military developement.

Let'S face it, the military lead of the West was shrinking constantly over the past, and it needs bigger and bigger investement to claim smaller and smaller advances in technology, therefore resulting system are not available at the numbers they would be needed in order to cover the same terrain as before - or in order to be able to digest own losses. A fleet of thirty ships of mediocre potence can afford the sinking of three ships much easier than a fleet of eight ships with better potence. Also, European developements make it less lioekly that high own losses will be tolerated by populations - even more so when said populations have less and lesser links to the goals of a war, or maybe even oppose it from beginning on.

A new war over the Malvinas would be decided by more than just mere firepower.

[Herr-Berbunch]

The question of another Falklands/Malvinas conflict was raised here a couple of months ago, and I think the bottom line is that Argentina is not in a fiscal position nor currently has the military wherewithal to make another push, whilst the UK would not be able to run a sustained campaign there now.

Basically they could come, and we'd fight them off, but if they kept coming then we'd be buggered and it would fall for good. :nope: And I regularly have several friends down there at once - I don't relish the thought.

[stormrider_sp]

The 1982 Malvinas War was a military bluff by a desperate dictatorship military government. I've lived in Argentina for about 2 years. Even if the argentinians and mosta south americans (except for Chile ofcourse) claim Islas Malvinas to be Argentinian, at the same time, they're ashamed of what happened and know it was a mistake to start a conflict and pay it in blood, specially over small, cold and deserted islands.

A conflict in my opinion is the most unlikely scenario. The diplomatic pressure tho should increase considerably specially backed by a new world order with new powers emerging, and old empires struggling and as said in previous posts, shrinking.

[Oberon]

Not that bothered.

[jumpy]

But unfortunatly all I read was panic and fear. Defeatism because of the unresolved problem called Islas Malvinas. :damn:


Correction - Falkland Islands.

And the problem was resolved.

Clearly the people who live there don't want to be argentinian, otherwise they would have chosen to be so before now.

Equally as clear it would be an undignified return to being a second rate military junta (and all that implies in the eyes of the world) to attempt another invasion.

Those things aside, I'm not concerned by it, though I'm sure others are.

[stormrider_sp]

Correction - Falkland Islands.

And the problem was resolved.

Clearly the people who live there don't want to be argentinian, otherwise they would have chosen to be so before now.

Equally as clear it would be an undignified return to being a second rate military junta (and all that implies in the eyes of the world) to attempt another invasion.


Please, no political bias here. But thanks for answering.

[Herr_Pete]

Yes I would like everyone to take note that the islands are called The Falkland Islands. Not the Malvinas!!!!!

[Jimbuna]

The question of another Falklands/Malvinas conflict was raised here a couple of months ago, and I think the bottom line is that Argentina is not in a fiscal position nor currently has the military wherewithal to make another push, whilst the UK would not be able to run a sustained campaign there now.

Basically they could come, and we'd fight them off, but if they kept coming then we'd be buggered and it would fall for good. :nope:

Agreed....and not overly worried at all.

The Falklands have become more important of late because of the natural resources discovered in the area.

[BossMark]

Yes I would like everyone to take note that the islands are called The Falkland Islands. Not the Malvinas!!!!!
Correct, the only decent thing that cow thatcher did was retake these islands(or should I say gave the order to retake The Falklands)

[stormrider_sp]

Correct, the only decent thing that cow thatcher did was retake these islands(or should I say gave the order to retake The Falklands)

Why? Is there any other reason than pride?
And btw, the first settlers named the islands Îles Malouines, in 1764.

Please moderators, would you close this thread before it turns out to be a political flamming?

[TLAM Strike]

I just read an article (http://www.bernama.com/bernama/v5/newsworld.php?id=605381) that said Argentina wants to take that submarine they never finished the ARA Santa Fe and stick a nuclear reactor in to its hull.

Well since the TR1700 class submarines are only about 2,000 tons that reactor better be natural circulation and/or have a turbo electric drive otherwise it will be the nosiest thing running. 2,000 tons does not allow for much in the way of conventional quieting features.

[mookiemookie]

Agreed....and not overly worried at all.

The Falklands have become more important of late because of the natural resources discovered in the area.

I was just about to ask this. According to Wikipedia, there's a population of just over 3000 on the islands, with an annual GDP of $75 milion USD. I don't understand why the UK would go to the trouble and expense of defending that. But if there's resources there, that makes more sense.

[August]

I don't understand why the UK would go to the trouble and expense of defending that.

It's British sovereign territory, populated by British citizens. I would think any further justification would be unnecessary.

[Herr-Berbunch]

The oil wasn't there 29 years ago, well it obviously was, but not discovered. Just the people. At least these days people know it's whereabouts, in '82 they all went reaching for the world atlas.

[Tribesman]

Yes I would like everyone to take note that the islands are called The Falkland Islands. Not the Malvinas!!!!!

They have several names, would you like to remind everone to take note that there is a piece of water which you call the English Channel but others call La Manche!!!!!
After all people must stop calling those balliwicks Isles d'la manche or people get testy:rotfl2:


It's British sovereign territory,
That is a matter of dispute, just like six counties, Gibralter, Rockall and bits of cyprus not to mention Wales Scotland and even cornwall.
populated by British citizens
That was a matter of dispute....with Britain.
I would think any further justification would be unnecessary.
It would be unnecesssary, if it wasn't a matter of dispute.

[jumpy]

Please, no political bias here. But thanks for answering.

Not bias, you asked what we thought and you got an answer - we think it should remain british sovereign territory, and so do the people who live there - we are not overly worried by any military build up by argentina/brazil, for reasons listed, not least of which is that the world would take a dim view of argentina attacking a sovereign nations territory... again. Such would only damage argentinian reputation from a democratic country to a retrograde position it left behind many years ago, along with making political dissidents 'disappear'.

Please moderators, would you close this thread before it turns out to be a political flamming?

No flaming here mate, just what some of us britishers think and feel about it...

Is the UK in panic about Brazilian and Argentinian's plans to build ssn and renew their navies?

SNIP

I would like to know how you guys feel and think about that.

Cheers

You did ask :DL

We're not worried or afraid of new surface vessels as a threat to british territory, mainly because the UK would not give up the Falkland islands without a fight, even for the sake of receiving a bloody nose in the process. It'd be a clearer cut conflict of arms than any that we are currently engaged in for sure.




Referring to them as either the malvinas or falkland isles does give away the standpoint of the speaker, however; no brit would ever call them 'malvenas isles' just as no argie would call them 'falkland isles'. I see nothing wrong with either, just so long as we are clear about who owns them :O: :timeout:. (I'm making a pointed joke here, just so's you know)

[Karle94]

I was just about to ask this. According to Wikipedia, there's a population of just over 3000 on the islands, with an annual GDP of $75 milion USD. I don't understand why the UK would go to the trouble and expense of defending that. But if there's resources there, that makes more sense.

It's British sovereign territory, populated by British citizens. I would think any further justification would be unnecessary.

There was more to that than just British territory and citizens. This was not the first time that other counties had seized British islands, this was the first time that Great Britain reacted to it. They didn`t want to seem weak in their sphere of influence, just like the US in the Cuban missile crisis back in 62.

[Oberon]

The Argentinian armed forces are in a state not that much better than our own...in fact they are probably a bit worse off. Cuts, cut backs, neglect.
It'll be years before they get the boat running and then the cost of upkeep will probably mean that it'll never leave dock.

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

It's British sovereign territory, populated by British citizens. I would think any further justification would be unnecessary.
I agree with you August. Mookiemookie, what you think United States would do if someone captures Key West? I know, I know its not exactly same but still do you see any other viable options for U.S. government but to respond with force?

[TLAM Strike]

I agree with you August. Mookiemookie, what you think United States would do if someone captures Key West? I know, I know its not exactly same but still do you see any other viable options for U.S. government but to respond with force?

Maybe Guam might be a better example...

oh snap...
http://img703.imageshack.us/img703/4076/41dvddrgbfl.jpg

:haha:

[Lord Justice]

This does not give cause for concern, no panic here whatsoever.

[mookiemookie]

There was more to that than just British territory and citizens. This was not the first time that other counties had seized British islands, this was the first time that Great Britain reacted to it. They didn`t want to seem weak in their sphere of influence, just like the US in the Cuban missile crisis back in 62.

This makes sense. Thanks for that answer.

[Skybird]

I admit, ignoring any legal bean counting attempt, from a point of reason I have a problem with claiming an small rock on the other side of the planet to be an object of national sovereignity. Whether it be Guam for the US, or Gibraltar or Falkland Islands for Britain, or any similiar geographic absurd constellation - just to leave a stamp-sized piece of land in another, a completely and totally diffent place of the globa, and then make claims about it and link it to national soveriegnity and national home territoies - it makes no sense, it is hilarious, it is absurd. It even does not serve in any understandable diplomatic function, like embassies do.

But possible that such geographic platforms and outposts, like a big warship eternally fixed in its geographical position, serve opportunistic political and economic intentions. But then it is an issue of economic intentions - not national sovereignity per se.

That britain still claims power over the falklands to me makes as much sense as if Madagaskar would make sovereign national claims for the Orkney Islands. The Orkneys of Man lies offshore the British coast, and the Falklands lie offshore South America, not Scotland.

For heaven's sake, let reasonability prevail just this time. It's on the other side of the planet - what else must be explained on this...?.

[Oberon]

Resources, primarily oil. If we weren't going to shift before...we sure as hell won't be shifting now. :haha:

[stormrider_sp]

I'm sorry if I let myself go misunderstood. My question did not regard Malvinas, but actually brazilian and argentinian governmnent's plans to build ssn, cause reading the headlines, seemed UK was in shock mainly because of Malvinas.

[TLAM Strike]

I admit, ignoring any legal bean counting attempt, from a point of reason I have a problem with claiming an small rock on the other side of the planet to be an object of national sovereignity. Whether it be Guam for the US, or Gibraltar or Falkland Islands for Britain, or any similiar geographic absurd constellation - just to leave a stamp-sized piece of land in another, a completely and totally diffent place of the globa, and then make claims about it and link it to national soveriegnity and national home territoies - it makes no sense, it is hilarious, it is absurd. It even does not serve in any understandable diplomatic function, like embassies do.

But possible that such geographic platforms and outposts, like a big warship eternally fixed in its geographical position, serve opportunistic political and economic intentions. But then it is an issue of economic intentions - not national sovereignity per se.

That britain still claims power over the falklands to me makes as much sense as if Madagaskar would make sovereign national claims for the Orkney Islands. The Orkneys of Man lies offshore the British coast, and the Falklands lie offshore South America, not Scotland.

For heaven's sake, let reasonability prevail just this time. It's on the other side of the planet - what else must be explained on this...?.

Go read Debt of Honor, good old Jack puts it in a simple to understand way.

"The citizens of those islands are American citizens, with U.S. passports—not because we made them do it, but because they freely chose to be. That's called self-determination. We brought the idea to those rocks, and the people there must have thought that we were serious about it."

...


"So we let a foreign country strip the citizenship rights of Americans because it's too hard to defend them?" Ryan asked more quietly. "Then what? What about the next time it happens? Tell me, when did we stop being the United States of America?"

[Oberon]

I dare say that there is a possibility, a strong one, that as the future rolls on and the economic crisis digs deeper that there are going to be a lot of people asking whether the expenditure is worth it. Maybe not on Guam because that's a good Asian counter, nor on the Falklands because of the oil reserves, but other places, that the US or UK or any other country in this debt problem owns that isn't right next door to their shores.

Something'll give, in the future, in regards to the finances, something has to.

[Jimbuna]

Please moderators, would you close this thread before it turns out to be a political flamming?

I'm at a loss to see anything untoward here.....all I see is a healthy debate, people sharing opinions and viewpoints with nobody breaking the forum rules or anyone being attacked or name called on a personal basis (my own personal dislike), nor have there been any bad post reports.

Feel free to report the thread stating on what grounds your objecting and I'm confident a moderator will respond but it won't/can't be me because I'm going to be posting my views here soon.

[Skybird]

Go read Debt of Honor, good old Jack puts it in a simple to understand way.
Still the xyz-foreign-community of 3000 people in let'S say Berlin do claim national sovereignity there, but understand that they are in Germany, not let'S say Uganda.

If it were like you say, then it would be making much more sense if people that wish to be British, would not try to live by that practially in South America, but in - guess what? In Britain. ;) The German state is in Germany, the Argeninian state is in Argentina, but the Brish Island are in the Southern arctic?! They could at least have choosen for the closer polar region, the Northern Arctic!

Also, by your logic it seems amazing that India and Austrralia are no longer British colonies. Brits with Briotish passports were living there, and do so until today, or not? And more than just 3000.

I assume for traditionalists it also is a sentimental thing, glory of the good ol' empire and how-sweet-to-die-for-the-Vaterland and all that stuff. Well, I use to talk of cultiural heritage and identity, and lack of that in the EU, myself quite often, don'T I. But just patriotism or even nationalism over a handful of dirt and rock far, far away from one's homeland is not what I am about.

I vaguely remember that some weeks ago there was a report about the first Brit living on the Falklands chosing for Argentinian nationality. But I did not read the essay, just caught the headline.

[Jimbuna]

I was just about to ask this. According to Wikipedia, there's a population of just over 3000 on the islands, with an annual GDP of $75 milion USD. I don't understand why the UK would go to the trouble and expense of defending that. But if there's resources there, that makes more sense.

Yeah untapped resources that could eventually match some of the largest known to man or even bigger (under the ice shelf) are fundantally what are at stake here Mark.

It's British sovereign territory, populated by British citizens. I would think any further justification would be unnecessary.

The oil wasn't there 29 years ago, well it obviously was, but not discovered. Just the people. At least these days people know it's whereabouts, in '82 they all went reaching for the world atlas.

There was more to that than just British territory and citizens. This was not the first time that other counties had seized British islands, this was the first time that Great Britain reacted to it. They didn`t want to seem weak in their sphere of influence, just like the US in the Cuban missile crisis back in 62.

In 1982 the Argentinian military were of the firm belief Britain would never amass an armade to travel to the South Atlantic.

In military terms they may have been right but what they forgot to take into account was the political counter.

Maggie was seeking re-election a year or two later and was way back in the opinion polls...this was her big opportunity to regain much needed popularity.

The British people were looking for someone with the stature of a previous Tory leader, Churchill and she knew it, took the gamble and the rest is history.

Strange how she was ditched later as was Churchill before her.

[ABBAFAN]

I like Horses.

[Morts]

I like Horses.
What a coincidence !, i like potatoes too :o

[TLAM Strike]

Still the xyz-foreign-community of 3000 people in let'S say Berlin do claim national sovereignity there, but understand that they are in Germany, not let'S say Uganda.

If it were like you say, then it would be making much more sense if people that wish to be British, would not try to live by that practially in South America, but in - guess what? In Britain. ;) The German state is in Germany, the Argeninian state is in Argentina, but the Brish Island are in the Southern arctic?! They could at least have choosen for the closer polar region, the Northern Arctic! The question should not be where the islands are, the passage I quoted shows just that, it is that people of the UK traveled to an uninhabited island (there was another European settlement there but that is beside the point) and made it their home and wanted to remain subjects of the British Crown. It is the will of the people there that is paramount, when one side strips away that will by unjust force of arms that side loses any right to make claims, at least in this day and age they do.


Also, by your logic it seems amazing that India and Austrralia are no longer British colonies. Brits with Briotish passports were living there, and do so until today, or not? And more than just 3000. Ah but Australia's head of state is still Queen Elisabeth the 2nd, they have a Governor General (the representative of the crown), their warships are "Her Majesty's Australian Ship". The same can be said of Canada and New Zealand. They are part of the Commonwealth and the British Crown does technically have executive power over them.

India on the other hand left the Commonwealth along with most of the 3rd world garbage (Ireland excluded).

I assume for traditionalists it also is a sentimental thing, glory of the good ol' empire and how-sweet-to-die-for-the-Vaterland and all that stuff. Well, I use to talk of cultiural heritage and identity, and lack of that in the EU, myself quite often, don'T I. But just patriotism or even nationalism over a handful of dirt and rock far, far away from one's homeland is not what I am about.

I vaguely remember that some weeks ago there was a report about the first Brit living on the Falklands chosing for Argentinian nationality. But I did not read the essay, just caught the headline. There is always that one stupid person, just the other day and US citizen was arrested as a member of Al Qaeda. There are those who just want to rebel against the system: Stick it to "The Man" as we say.

[Herr_Pete]

I'm sorry if I let myself go misunderstood. My question did not regard Malvinas, but actually brazilian and argentinian governmnent's plans to build ssn, cause reading the headlines, seemed UK was in shock mainly because of Malvinas.

Falklands**
Falklands**

I refuse to accept the Malvinas as a name :down:

But your questions clearly points to the falklands when you ask Brits about a possible Argentinian Navy build up. If we never owned the Falklands then we wouldn't care less of a build up but because of the it will always point to that.

[Tribesman]

India on the other hand left the Commonwealth along with most of the 3rd world garbage (Ireland excluded).

I object, India and all those other 3rd world countries are still in the Commonwealth, Ireland isn't in the Commonwealth but is a piece of third world garbage

[stormrider_sp]

I admit, ignoring any legal bean counting attempt, from a point of reason I have a problem with claiming an small rock on the other side of the planet to be an object of national sovereignity. Whether it be Guam for the US, or Gibraltar or Falkland Islands for Britain, or any similiar geographic absurd constellation - just to leave a stamp-sized piece of land in another, a completely and totally diffent place of the globa, and then make claims about it and link it to national soveriegnity and national home territoies - it makes no sense, it is hilarious, it is absurd. It even does not serve in any understandable diplomatic function, like embassies do.

But possible that such geographic platforms and outposts, like a big warship eternally fixed in its geographical position, serve opportunistic political and economic intentions. But then it is an issue of economic intentions - not national sovereignity per se.

That britain still claims power over the falklands to me makes as much sense as if Madagaskar would make sovereign national claims for the Orkney Islands. The Orkneys of Man lies offshore the British coast, and the Falklands lie offshore South America, not Scotland.

For heaven's sake, let reasonability prevail just this time. It's on the other side of the planet - what else must be explained on this...?.

+1

Unfortunatly there is much more (Pride) involved.

[stormrider_sp]

Still the xyz-foreign-community of 3000 people in let'S say Berlin do claim national sovereignity there, but understand that they are in Germany, not let'S say Uganda.

If it were like you say, then it would be making much more sense if people that wish to be British, would not try to live by that practially in South America, but in - guess what? In Britain. ;) The German state is in Germany, the Argeninian state is in Argentina, but the Brish Island are in the Southern arctic?! They could at least have choosen for the closer polar region, the Northern Arctic!

Also, by your logic it seems amazing that India and Austrralia are no longer British colonies. Brits with Briotish passports were living there, and do so until today, or not? And more than just 3000.

I assume for traditionalists it also is a sentimental thing, glory of the good ol' empire and how-sweet-to-die-for-the-Vaterland and all that stuff. Well, I use to talk of cultiural heritage and identity, and lack of that in the EU, myself quite often, don'T I. But just patriotism or even nationalism over a handful of dirt and rock far, far away from one's homeland is not what I am about.

I vaguely remember that some weeks ago there was a report about the first Brit living on the Falklands chosing for Argentinian nationality. But I did not read the essay, just caught the headline.


People Who Enjoy Waving Flags Don't Deserve To Have One
Banksy

[stormrider_sp]

Falklands**
Falklands**

I refuse to accept the Malvinas as a name :down:

But your questions clearly points to the falklands when you ask Brits about a possible Argentinian Navy build up. If we never owned the Falklands then we wouldn't care less of a build up but because of the it will always point to that.

You may call it whatever you like tho.
I call it Malvinas. Its original name, given by its first settlers, was îles Malouines!

[Oberon]

At the end of the day, like most things in the world, it all boils down to who has the biggest gun. So, for the meanwhile the Falklands will remain the Falklands, Guam will remain Guam, and so on and so forth.

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

You may call it whatever you like tho.
I call it Malvinas. Its original name, given by its first settlers, was îles Malouines!

I can accept both îles Malouines as well as Falkland Islands to be islands correct names although I personally prefer Falklands. Reason to this is that Falklands is name given by party with longest presence there. However I don't see why those island should be called Islas Malvinas. I know Spain used that name when they had presence there, but Islas Malvinas was just third name used for it (after french and english names).

Islands were first spotted by Dutch who didn't visit there nor claim them. Then came French and after them Britons - at first without knowing about each other. Then Spain took control of French part of islands. After that islands were some time uninhabited by anyone but claimed by Britain and Spain. Then moved to British control.

After all this I don't see Argentine claim to islands to be strong or valid. Ofcourse this is my opinion (and most likely British too) and others (including Argentinians) are free to disagree.

EDIT: Forgot from list above that Argentine claimed sovereignity to islands from 1812 (their independence) to 1833 (settlers removed by British) on grounds that when they declared independence from Spain sovereignity of Falkland Islands moved to Argentina.
EDIT2: Also forgot to mention that Argentine held de facto control of islands only from December 1832 to January 1833 and during Falklands War in 1982. I also forgot that Dutch (United Provinces) actually held de facto control from August 1829 to December 1831.
EDIT2B - CORRECTION: United Provinces in this context refers to United Provinces of South America not to todays Netherlands. My apologizes for error.
EDIT3: United States de facto sovereignity from December 1831 to January 1832.

[stormrider_sp]

EDIT: Forgot from list above that Argentine claimed sovereignity to islands from 1812 (their independence) to 1833 (settlers removed by British) on grounds that when they declared independence from Spain sovereignity of Falkland Islands moved to Argentina.

Right.

[jumpy]

So, what's your opinion of these events and responses then, OP?

Evidently, you must have had a reason for it (other than wanting to know what we all think about it for knowledges sake).

At a pinch I'd say you don't think britain has a legitimate claim on the islands, but that's just my speculation on what I've read here.

Depending on what side of the fence you sit on makes all the difference in this case.

Question: (a hypothetical one at that) You have spent time in argentina; do you think that has shaped your posing of this topic with a leaning toward their claim on the islands? And if this is so, could it be said that if you had spent that time in the UK, would you feel duly supportive of the idea it belongs to us?

Arbitrary, I know :oops:

The falklands has been a thorny issue here in the past for britishers and argentinians.

As far as the british government is concerned there is nothing to discuss, but that's no how we do things in GT (well, most of the time lol).

Go on! Spill those beans chap, you know you want to :DL

[stormrider_sp]

Hi Jumpy, to answer your questions might open new discussions.
I was born in Italy, but grew up in Brazil. Before finishing college I've moved to California for about 3 intermitent years, working for Ski Resorts during the winter and freelancing during Spring/Summer. Soon after finishing college, I've moved to Argentina to work as a photojournalist and study some more. Then I've moved to Barcelona and finally France, tho my sis lives in London and one of my best friend is brit.

My first question didnt regard Malvinas per se, tho it was a collateral result of my assumptions. As a double citizen myself (Brazilian and Italian) I'm currently excited with Brazilian's economic growth and accomplishments like for example renewing its Armed Forces which are currently in really bad shape. Also, having spent half of my life in South America (what some call third world garbage) and the other half at first class countries I noticed some international injustices. Not worth to mention here tho since everybody already knows how international politics work; its no surprise that the worlds economics' crumbling. But my question was regarding more specifically, brazilian's ambition to build its first SSN, purchase of italian/france FREMM frigates, french scorpene's ssk and possibly french Rafales, all technology tranfered. But the SSN subject generated polemic responses specially from english-written news and all of them raised questions of an argentinian second attempt of recovering Malvinas. Having lived in Brasil for so long I know that country and I know its intentions which were always, during its short independent history, peaceful. So Id liked to ask fellow subsimmers their opinion regarding those polemic articles.

My opinion regarding Malvinas is that it should be resolved by diplomacy and rest as it once was when the British Empire shared it with Spain and then expelled the spanish/argentinian settlers after Argentina's Independence. Half oversea Britain territory and the other half argentinian, with both sides cooperating to explore its resources, although poking this hornets nest was not my intention.

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

There are few obstacles in half British half Argentine controlled Falkland Islands most importantly trust. Falklands War was in 1982 just 29 years ago. Why should British government trust to Argentinians so much that they would share islands with them?

Last time when UK shared the islands with someone else it didn't end very well. Side by side life ended when Spain expelled Britons in 1770. After that in my knowledge there have not been another time when there have been two sovereign states with permanent presence.

[jumpy]

@ stormrider_sp

Now, there's a decent response :up:

No 'poking the hornets nest' received here either - my reference to it being a thorny topic in the past, was not a warning over the subject, more a hint at some of the ideas and opinions expressed (my own included :roll: ).
As ever we sometimes give away more than we intend to lol :oops:

To be fair, I don't recall a great deal of press coverage regarding the buildup of naval assets; in the british media, we've had far too much else to focus on - political expenses scandal, phone hacking scandal, economic meltdown scandal, each story more important and sensationalist than the last, and most of them entirely introverted.

Can you have a look for any links to the stories you mention? I only ask as it can be very revealing (of the reporting, that is) to know which news paper it came from.
We have a number of tabloids that most of the brits here on the forums wouldn't give house room to line their cats litter trays, let alone as balanced sources of 'news' free of bias and zealotry.

I'll concede the point that a partnership as regards mineral/oil rights could be lucrative for both parties, without all the the sabre rattling. But somehow I doubt that whatever we discuss here will bear any relation to what actually happens in this respect.

[mookiemookie]

After that in my knowledge there have not been another time when there have been two sovereign states with permanent presence.

On the Falkland Islands or in all the world? Because if it's the latter, then there's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispaniola

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

On the Falkland Islands or in all the world? Because if it's the latter, then there's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispaniola
I meant in Falkland Islands. Elsewhere in the world there is for example Ireland which is shared by the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Thank you for link to wiki article on Hispaniola. :salute:

[jumpy]

I meant in Falkland Islands. Elsewhere in the world there is for example Ireland which is shared by the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Thank you for link to wiki article on Hispaniola. :salute:

oops, can of worms there fella :har:

[Lord Justice]

I was born in Italy, but grew up in Brazil. Before finishing college I've moved to California for about 3 intermitent years, working for Ski Resorts during the winter and freelancing during Spring/Summer. Soon after finishing college, I've moved to Argentina to work as a photojournalist and study some more. Then I've moved to Barcelona and finally France, tho my sis lives in London and one of my best friend is brit.



although poking this hornets nest was not my intention.Sir, sometimes I view many threads without comment. I draw my own conclusions from many members. Have they been well taught? or much travelled and learned? I can only add that you seem to be one of these clever members that is formed from shifting in the world, (and) shining in a college. I do not think you are poking the nest, I really do believe you possess a friendly, curious and generous disposition. I ought to believe you shall more than get the answers you desire herein. I will observe. :DL

[Jimbuna]

http://img396.imageshack.us/img396/6942/popcorncowtx0.gif

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

oops, can of worms there fella :har:
I have hook and line ready for fishing just give me a bait! :DL

[Jimbuna]

I have hook and line ready for fishing just give me a bait! :DL

Don't anyone dare mention RUSSIA :O:

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

Don't anyone dare mention RUSSIA :O:
Do you mean Kaliningrad or Kuril Islands? :hmmm:



:D

[Jimbuna]

Do you mean Kaliningrad or Kuril Islands? :hmmm:



:D


Ik ken niets mijnheer :-?

[Herr-Berbunch]

I call them the Falklands, but I can understand some call them Malvinas, just as most other places throughout the world have an English name and another, and another, and another...

Köln - Cologne
Den Haag - The Hague
Latvija - Latvia

The list goes on, and on... :yep:

[stormrider_sp]

@ stormrider_sp

Now, there's a decent response :up:

No 'poking the hornets nest' received here either - my reference to it being a thorny topic in the past, was not a warning over the subject, more a hint at some of the ideas and opinions expressed (my own included :roll: ).
As ever we sometimes give away more than we intend to lol :oops:

To be fair, I don't recall a great deal of press coverage regarding the buildup of naval assets; in the british media, we've had far too much else to focus on - political expenses scandal, phone hacking scandal, economic meltdown scandal, each story more important and sensationalist than the last, and most of them entirely introverted.

Can you have a look for any links to the stories you mention? I only ask as it can be very revealing (of the reporting, that is) to know which news paper it came from.
We have a number of tabloids that most of the brits here on the forums wouldn't give house room to line their cats litter trays, let alone as balanced sources of 'news' free of bias and zealotry.

I'll concede the point that a partnership as regards mineral/oil rights could be lucrative for both parties, without all the the sabre rattling. But somehow I doubt that whatever we discuss here will bear any relation to what actually happens in this respect.

Thanks for your response Jumpy.
Here's a list of the headlines which were posted here at Subsim regarding those stories:


-The Telegraph, 2nd August, 2011
Argentina developing nuclear-powered submarine
Argentina has announced it is developing a nuclear-powered submarine, leading to fresh warnings that Britain would face an "insurmountable" task if the country invaded the Falkland Islands again. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/argentina/8677600/Argentina-developing-nuclear-powered-submarine.html)


-Defense Talk
Argentina Re-states Intent for Nuclear-Powered Submarines (http://www.defencetalk.com/argentina-re-states-intent-for-nuclear-powered-submarines-36108/)
Read more: http://www.defencetalk.com/argentina-re-states-intent-for-nuclear-powered-submarines-36108/#ixzz1UEk8sK5C

-Al Jazeera
Brazil's new nuclear subs to defend oil wells (http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/features/2011/07/201172213173679528.html) Work on the country's first nuclear submarines has begun in an effort to defend oil reserves and project global power.

-Global Post
Analysis: Brazil goes nuclear (http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/americas/brazil/110714/brazil-nuclear-submarine-falkland-islands-brazil-argentina-oil)
Brazil is building nuclear attack submarines that promise to dramatically alter the balance of power off the South American coast.

"It's a British admiral's nightmare scenario: In the not too distant future, a nearly bankrupt Argentine government invades the oil-rich Falkland Islands. For the second time in half a century, Las Malvinas, the islands all of Latin America regard as a stolen piece of Argentina, spark a war(...)" :down:


Cheers mate.

[stormrider_sp]

Sir, sometimes I view many threads without comment. I draw my own conclusions from many members. Have they been well taught? or much travelled and learned? I can only add that you seem to be one of these clever members that is formed from shifting in the world, (and) shining in a college. I do not think you are poking the nest, I really do believe you possess a friendly, curious and generous disposition. I ought to believe you shall more than get the answers you desire herein. I will observe. :DL

Thank you Lord Justice for your kind comments. After reading the responses I believe now the news were mostly alarmist tabloids. But one thing that points my attention is the public's belief, after 29 years, that another argentinian military action is still a possible scenario. As I once said before, even if the argentinians and south americans still claim for the Malvinas, they are ashamed for their Populist, Tough Hand Military Dictatorship's decision to divert the population's attention from the economical problems to a more nationalist subject, involving the military action against the Islands. Unfortunatly, most people either forgot or dont know, is that soon after this Political failure, the public discontentment with their goverment resulted in its immediate termination.

Most South American countries endured tough military government for about half the last century, frozing their economies and growth. It was a difficult period for the entire world, the Cold War reaching its climax, public's discontentment, poverty, censorship, torture and repression. Brazil started to recover from it about 25 years later while Argentina and basically South/Central America in general still didnt.

[jumpy]

Cheers for those links stormrider_sp.

I must say they don't have the usual trappings of the tabloid press; had it been The Sun or perhaps the Daily Mail (god forfend) I would have dismissed the articles out of hand as nothing more than slow news day gutter journalism - at least those pages linked did not have celebrity gossip linked down one side of the page :) which is something we can all be grateful for haha.

As you say, I guess 30 years is still recent history as far as most nations go - look at how war in europe still echoes down the years, or the english/french rivalry (see below) still exists after centuries -what hope do the dry ticking of the ages have against passion and national fervour? :hmmm:

Seems like argentinas ssn program is a revision of an existing project that was already much delayed - given the rhetoric of the opening paragraph in the telegraph article 'presidency recalled by history as great time for argentina' this looks similar in some respects to thatchers determination to mount a taskforce to retake the islands back in the 80's - Leaving aside the reclamation of territory, it was as much about reinforcing national pride and political strength at home as anything else.

The global post mentions a small sentence that further reveals this: 'Combined with Argentina’s near perpetual state of fiscal distress'.

If their nuclear submarine program is anything like ours, it'll be over budget and behind schedule :DL Same follows for the brazillian effort - not scheduled for completion until 2023 (aljazzira).
Still, we can only hope it will also follow ours, quite literally, and on its maiden shakedown voyage, run aground :rotfl2: :oops: (oh the shame! lol (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-11605365))

I do find a certain irony here, though it is not without a little barb directed in a friendly way to our 'old enemy' (no, not the germans lol) the french! We english and french have always had a history of emnity, more based on historical tradition and humour now, than any desire for conflict these days, but I'll elaborate.
Who sold mirage jet fighters and exocet anti ship missiles to argentina back in the 80's? and who is now assisting them with construction of the nuclear propulsion side of their ssn program? :O:
here's a rather dry exchange of our government ministers from the day discussing this very fact http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=1982-11-22a.583.0

lol If anything it just goes to show how murky the waters really are when ordinary folk try and plumb the depths of international affairs.
Certainly there's a lot of talk in all of the articles, but the headlines don't necessarily show much of the meat of the content.
It shows how much the falklands war still features in the thinking of military men and is still much tied up with things like national prestige and politics.

Certainly with the statement of britain being a 'crude colonial power in decline' as a reply to our governments release that the falklands should remain british 'for as long as they want'. You could think that it means more to Kirchner to be seen playing the hard line back home... but that's politics for you - say what you think the people want to hear and they'll love you (and re-elect you) for it.
But I don't have much truck with politicians, ours or anyone else's, they all seem pressed from the same mould.

[stormrider_sp]

I totally agree with you. Except when you mentioned the French colaboration with the argies during the Malvinas. They were forced to halt their Exocet/Super Eterndart's sales and subsequent training.

The argentinians had to find another way of adquiring its equipment, requesting help from Lybia for example. That's the reason they only had 5 Exocets. Could they had more, the history could had been different.

I dont know how true the reports I've read and watched but infact the argentinians were so unprepared that the Exocet warhead which hit HMS Sheffield didnt explode. The damage and fire were were results of the remaining missile's fuel ignition with combined effects of the aluminium hull of that ship.

[Jimbuna]

I totally agree with you. Except when you mentioned the French colaboration with the argies during the Malvinas. They were forced to halt their Exocet/Super Eterndart's sales and subsequent training.

The argentinians had to find another way of adquiring its equipment, requesting help from Lybia for example. That's the reason they only had 5 Exocets. Could they had more, the history could had been different.

I dont know how true the reports I've read and watched but infact the argentinians were so unprepared that the Exocet warhead which hit HMS Sheffield didnt explode. The damage and fire were were results of the remaining missile's fuel ignition with combined effects of the aluminium hull of that ship.

Yes....that is very true.

[jumpy]

I totally agree with you. Except when you mentioned the French colaboration with the argies during the Malvinas. They were forced to halt their Exocet/Super Eterndart's sales and subsequent training.

The argentinians had to find another way of adquiring its equipment, requesting help from Lybia for example. That's the reason they only had 5 Exocets. Could they had more, the history could had been different.

I dont know how true the reports I've read and watched but infact the argentinians were so unprepared that the Exocet warhead which hit HMS Sheffield didnt explode. The damage and fire were were results of the remaining missile's fuel ignition with combined effects of the aluminium hull of that ship.

Yer, that is true - the parliament debate I linked does say that, also about germany delaying delivery of naval frigates, I was making more of a humorous generalisation of the old english/french bickering. There's also talk of how effective the missiles were and of how we could use countermeasures against them. As I said, it's a bit of a dry read, but it does have many of the relevant thoughts we have looked at in passing, from various ministers serving in government (and opposition) at the time.

[stormrider_sp]

Yer, that is true - the parliament debate I linked does say that, also about germany delaying delivery of naval frigates, I was making more of a humorous generalisation of the old english/french bickering. There's also talk of how effective the missiles were and of how we could use countermeasures against them. As I said, it's a bit of a dry read, but it does have many of the relevant thoughts we have looked at in passing, from various ministers serving in government (and opposition) at the time.

Oh mate, btw, despite schedule delays and minor problems during shakedown, HMS Astute is today one of the best submarines ever produced. And by delivering it, B&F (BAE) kept the technology alive.

I hope that Brazil follows the Royal Navy, cause by doing so, it can be a great navy after all.

Cheers!

[TLAM Strike]

I dont know how true the reports I've read and watched but infact the argentinians were so unprepared that the Exocet warhead which hit HMS Sheffield didnt explode. The damage and fire were were results of the remaining missile's fuel ignition with combined effects of the aluminium hull of that ship.
To clarify, the rocket motor on the Exocet continued to burn after impact and the missile had struck the ship's water main and thus the firefighting system could not put out the fire and it gutted the ship. The Type 42's superstructure or hull was NOT made of aluminum: the Type 42s were 100% steel ships.

Sheffield later sunk in high seas under tow by HMS Yarmouth to South Georgia island.

[stormrider_sp]

To clarify, the rocket motor on the Exocet continued to burn after impact and the missile had struck the ship's water main and thus the firefighting system could not put out the fire and it gutted the ship. The Type 42's superstructure or hull was NOT made of aluminum: the Type 42s were 100% steel ships.

Sheffield later sunk in high seas under tow by HMS Yarmouth to South Georgia island.

My mistake then. Wrong episode maybe.
:doh:

[jumpy]

Oh mate, btw, despite schedule delays and minor problems during shakedown, HMS Astute is today one of the best submarines ever produced. And by delivering it, B&F (BAE) kept the technology alive.

I hope that Brazil follows the Royal Navy, cause by doing so, it can be a great navy after all.

Cheers!

:DL all joking aside, Astute may well live up to its name, but oooh, deary me, is was a poor show to run aground like that... it's not even like the area was uncharted. You'd think any 'minor problems' would not include running aground on a sandbank lol