Falkland Islands: Government rules out protection law

[Jimbuna]

I firmly believe in the rights of the Falklands islanders to self determine if they wish to remain a part of Great Britain.


The government has ruled out bringing in a UK law to ensure the Falkland Islands' right to remain British.
Tory MP Guy Opperman said legislation would show support for the "unambiguous right to self-determination".
But Foreign Office Minister Jeremy Browne said existing UN rules offered protection against ongoing territorial claims made by Argentina.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16811050

[soopaman2]

This seems ripe for old Hugo Chavez to make an attempt at indirectly poking at the US, by helping against the Brits. (America will always help Britain, rightfully so, we love you guys.)

Kinda like how Vietnam was a proxy war between the US and Russia.

Whatever the Falklanders want, they deserve. But the UN has proven time and time again how inept they are at protecting people, just ask the Serbians.

Kudos to mother Britain for doing it herself.

[Oberon]

As stated in another thread, HMS Dauntless is on her way down to the Falklands.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/76/HMS_Dauntless-1.jpg/300px-HMS_Dauntless-1.jpg

[Herr-Berbunch]

This seems ripe for old Hugo Chavez to make an attempt at indirectly poking at the US, by helping against the Brits. (America will always help Britain, rightfully so, we love you guys.)


As proven by Belize and Falklands, the good ol' U.S. of A. has a none-interventionist policy with regard to South America. This obviously doesn't apply to the rest of the world, nor to Central America. :o

[soopaman2]

As proven by Belize and Falklands, the good ol' U.S. of A. has a none-interventionist policy with regard to South America. This obviously doesn't apply to the rest of the world, nor to Central America. :o


Not to say we will not jump in if Venezuela sees this as a chance to expand it's influence using the Falklands and Argentina as a catalyst.

Perhaps they fire on British ships. America will help, because Britain is in our good old boys club along with France and Germany.

I was simply speculating in my previous post and this one. Simply throwing out consequences, and theories.:)

[Jimbuna]

As stated in another thread, HMS Dauntless is on her way down to the Falklands.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/76/HMS_Dauntless-1.jpg/300px-HMS_Dauntless-1.jpg

I hope she has a stock of missiles :DL

[Oberon]

I hope she has a stock of missiles :DL

*sigh* Yes, let's hope that they have remembered that small concern. :damn:

[Tribesman]

America will help, because Britain is in our good old boys club along with France and Germany.

Is that why the invasion of Grenada still went ahead with Ronnie assuring Maggie that it wouldn't be invading and upsetting the British?

[soopaman2]

I hope she has a stock of missiles :DL


Better hope they don't have anti ship missiles. Oh wait...

They been had them. They did a good number on you guys in '82 with them.

Maybe send a carrier too? 5000 troops as well. You might find yourself with some new South American real estate.


Or you can just Nuke Argentina. Show off them muscles!:salute:

(god bless mother Britain) NUKE EM!!oneeleven!11

[Oberon]

Better hope they don't have anti ship missiles. Oh wait...

They been had them. They did a good number on you guys in '82 with them.

Maybe send a carrier too? 5000 troops as well. You might find yourself with some new South American real estate.


Or you can just Nuke Argentina. Show off them muscles!:salute:

(god bless mother Britain) NUKE EM!!oneeleven!11

ALL HAIL BRITANNIA!!

http://insovietbritannia.comoj.com/shugochara/demotivations/AllHailBritannia.jpg

[Dan D]

some more background info, taken from http://europeangeostrategy.ideasoneurope.eu/2011/12/22/time-to-end-support-for-foreign-regional-integration/


"Time to end support for foreign regional integration?"

Past development:
"On Tuesday [18.12.2011], the South American countries banded together in support of Argentina’s claim to the Falkland Islands, a democratic and self-governing British territory in the South Atlantic. This move formalises a trend, which began last year, whereby South American countries reject British naval vessels from entering their ports, citing British sovereignty over the Falkland Islands as the reason for the refusal. For example, Uruguay denied the British destroyer, HMS Gloucester, access to Montevideo harbour in 2010; while, earlier this year, Brazil did the same in relation to the British corvette, HMS Clyde, which was prevented from cruising into the port of Rio de Janeiro
...
What is significant about this latest Falklands spat is the way in which it is becoming regionalised. The South American countries have started to band together to support Argentina. More significantly, rather than Argentina, another South American country – Uruguay – proposed the closure of South America’s Atlantic ports not only to British warships, but also to merchant vessels registered in the Falklands. This move was then supported by the whole of the ‘Southern Common Market’. From this moment on, all British warships and merchant vessels flying the flag of the Falkland Islands will no longer be welcome in ports belonging to the Atlantic-facing trade bloc, which includes four countries (Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay), and several observers.
...
In some ways, though, the closure of South America’s Atlantic ports does not matter very much. There are only twenty-five vessels in the Falklands’ merchant marine; the Royal Navy’s warships do not need to berth in South America’s Atlantic ports, for Britain has the logistical wherewithal to support them almost anywhere with its auxiliary fleet (as well as at the naval station in the Falklands at Mare Harbour); and vessels flying Britain’s merchant ensign will still be welcome (Uruguay went out of its way to assert that its support for Argentina is not an anti-British commercial drive).

Author's opinion:
Europeans often give support to regional organisations on other continents, which are often likened to the European Union itself.

Europeans frequently support the African Union, the Southern Common Market and the Association of South-east Asian Nations, among other organisations that are less well-known.

The European Union should end its policy of trying to build up foreign regional organisations. On the contrary, it should actively seek to prevent their crystallisation. After all, ‘divide and rule’ is perhaps the primary rule of all politics.
...
What would happen in twenty or thirty years from now, should the European Union wish to promote a particular policy on another continent – in Africa, in Central Asia, in South America or even South-east Asia – only to find itself blocked by some newly-empowered regional organisation? Or worse, what would happen if those foreign organisations sought to use their collective power to impose their own policies on Europeans?"

You got to love geostrategy :-)

[Betonov]

Whatever the Falklanders want, they deserve. But the UN has proven time and time again how inept they are at protecting people, just ask the Serbians.


[khm] Bosnians actually [khm]

But other than that, the UN made a total mockery of themselves in that war

In April 1993, the United Nations declared the besieged enclave of Srebrenica in the Drina Valley of north-eastern Bosnia a "safe area" under UN protection.

[Jimbuna]

RULE BRITANNIA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cWz9MrHskk

[Marcantilan]

Or you can just Nuke Argentina. Show off them muscles!:salute:

(god bless mother Britain) NUKE EM!!oneeleven!11

You are 10 years old? For sure, you have the mind of a 10 years old...

[Herr-Berbunch]

Hey there Marcantilan - how's the book translation to English going?

[Oberon]

You are 10 years old? For sure, you have the mind of a 10 years old...

I think he's taking the mick...well...I hope he is anyway... :doh:

What is Kerchners strange sudden obsession with the Malvinas anyway, I mean it's been thirty years of the status quo with some occasional upsets but nothing like the movements we're seeing now.
And they just had to pick the spawn of Maggie to be in power at the time.

Ah well, all hot air I imagine from both sides.

[Marcantilan]

I think he's taking the mick...well...I hope he is anyway... :doh:

What is Kerchners strange sudden obsession with the Malvinas anyway, I mean it's been thirty years of the status quo with some occasional upsets but nothing like the movements we're seeing now.
And they just had to pick the spawn of Maggie to be in power at the time.

Ah well, all hot air I imagine from both sides.

Well, probably the South Atlantic Islands issue is the only (lonely) national cause here in Argentine.

In the last 30 years, local governments used lot of "tactics" to try to resume negotiations over the islands: from sending TV sets, Teddy Bears and nice letters in the ´90s (it doesn´t work) to the new "hard" position. This new "hard" position is really not new, but had 8 years since its inception.

From my point of view, the new approach is working: new voices (US, LA countries, China) are supporting the negotiations over the islands, which is the first goal of Argentina.

In the other hand, don´t have a doubt that the Islands thing is in right now in the top of the government agenda, just to hide some economic problems.

I think the same is happening in the other side of the Atlantic.

In any case, I don´t think this barking could end in a war. Argentina is not willing to initiate it (doesn´t have the hardware also...) and not even a single airplane was deployed south to "counter-balance". I think is time to honour the dead of 1982 (from both sides), no to creating new widows and orphans.

Regards!

[Marcantilan]

Hey there Marcantilan - how's the book translation to English going?

Hello Mr. Berbunch,

Submitted the book to an English publisher (to read it in spanish, translate and publish it in UK). I am waiting for an answer.

Did you read this chapter (via Google translator)?: http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=es&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=es&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.elsnorkel.com%2F2010%2F10%2Fmal vinastras-los-submarinos-ingleses_2738.html&act=url

Regards!

[TLAM Strike]

Well, probably the South Atlantic Islands issue is the only (lonely) national cause here in Argentine. Is the Tierra del Fuego (Beagle Channel) ownership dispute mostly settled in Argentina or is that included in the "South Atlantic Islands Issue"?
:hmmm:

[Marcantilan]

Is the Tierra del Fuego (Beagle Channel) ownership dispute mostly settled in Argentina or is that included in the "South Atlantic Islands Issue"?
:hmmm:

That one (ownership of Beagle Channel and islands Picton, Nueva and Lennox) was settled in the eighties (to Chile). Later, in the `90s, Argentina and Chile settled the other big boundaries problem, on Laguna del Desierto (to Argentina).

In non-argentine circles I`d prefer to name the islands the "South Atlantic Islands" and the war the "South Atlantic War". I don´t like to use the name "Falkland" for the islands and, surely, the name "Malvinas" is viewed as a provocation sometimes.

I could use Falkvinas or Malklands :hmmm: ....

[Jimbuna]

In any case, I don´t think this barking could end in a war. Argentina is not willing to initiate it (doesn´t have the hardware also...) and not even a single airplane was deployed south to "counter-balance". I think is time to honour the dead of 1982 (from both sides), no to creating new widows and orphans.

Regards!

Rgr that :salute:

[Herr-Berbunch]

Submitted the book to an English publisher (to read it in spanish, translate and publish it in UK). I am waiting for an answer.

I hope it's a yes! :yep:

Did you read this chapter (via Google translator)?:

I certainly did, hence why I'm impatient to read the rest of the book. :yeah:

[Oberon]

Well, probably the South Atlantic Islands issue is the only (lonely) national cause here in Argentine.

In the last 30 years, local governments used lot of "tactics" to try to resume negotiations over the islands: from sending TV sets, Teddy Bears and nice letters in the ´90s (it doesn´t work) to the new "hard" position. This new "hard" position is really not new, but had 8 years since its inception.

From my point of view, the new approach is working: new voices (US, LA countries, China) are supporting the negotiations over the islands, which is the first goal of Argentina.

In the other hand, don´t have a doubt that the Islands thing is in right now in the top of the government agenda, just to hide some economic problems.

I think the same is happening in the other side of the Atlantic.

In any case, I don´t think this barking could end in a war. Argentina is not willing to initiate it (doesn´t have the hardware also...) and not even a single airplane was deployed south to "counter-balance". I think is time to honour the dead of 1982 (from both sides), no to creating new widows and orphans.

Regards!

Aye, you're spot on, it is an attempt at distraction on both sides of the table, I guess with 'The Iron Lady' coming out at cinemas at the moment and the whole 30 year anniversary coming up it's at the forefront of peoples minds, so the powers that be seek to capitalize on that.

Another war would be pointless and costly to both sides, and I hope that both governments realise that.

[Herr-Berbunch]

Another war would be pointless and costly to both sides, and I hope that all governments realise that.

Fixed.

[soopaman2]

[khm] Bosnians actually [khm]

But other than that, the UN made a total mockery of themselves in that war


Yes sir, sorry. But thanks for getting my point. It was a sad embarrassing display.:wah:

[Sailor Steve]

In non-argentine circles I`d prefer to name the islands the "South Atlantic Islands" and the war the "South Atlantic War". I don´t like to use the name "Falkland" for the islands and, surely, the name "Malvinas" is viewed as a provocation sometimes.

I could use Falkvinas or Malklands :hmmm: ....
Or just sneer and say "Those Islands!"

[Jimbuna]

Aye, you're spot on, it is an attempt at distraction on both sides of the table, I guess with 'The Iron Lady' coming out at cinemas at the moment and the whole 30 year anniversary coming up it's at the forefront of peoples minds, so the powers that be seek to capitalize on that.

Another war would be pointless and costly to both sides, and I hope that both governments realise that.

*Just thinking out loud*

The cost of any future war would be offset countless times over from the revenue derived from the oil and mineral resources that are about to be procured :hmmm:

[TLAM Strike]

*Just thinking out loud*

The cost of any future war would be offset countless times over from the revenue derived from the oil and mineral resources that are about to be procured :hmmm:
I'm sure they said that about the French and Indian War, and WWII, and OIF and... and ... and...

:O:

[mapuc]

You are 10 years old? For sure, you have the mind of a 10 years old...

Then the english politician must had that too.

About 5-6 years after the Falkland war, some of the swedish newspaper and tv-news had information about this war.

On two bases in England there were 2+2 vulcan bombers loaded with nuclear and ready to take-off if england should lose the battle in the south atlantic.
according to these news, the third and fouth biggest city in Argentina was the target.

I have tried to find these article, but have not manege to find them.

Markus

[Marcantilan]

Then the english politician must had that too.

About 5-6 years after the Falkland war, some of the swedish newspaper and tv-news had information about this war.

On two bases in England there were 2+2 vulcan bombers loaded with nuclear and ready to take-off if england should lose the battle in the south atlantic.
according to these news, the third and fouth biggest city in Argentina was the target.

I have tried to find these article, but have not manege to find them.

Markus


I don´t want to make an off topic, but the history of the nuclear gift to Argentina was published firstly in The New Statesman, back in 1984. According to that article, a Royal Navy SSBN was moved from North Atlantic to a location near Ascension Island, ready to wipe out Cordoba City if Op Corporate is jeopardized (sinking of an assault ship or any of the carriers)

Northwood denied later that claim.

In any case, I will say that a poll undertaken in the UK by Market and Opinion Research International on April 14 (1982) revealed that 28 percent of the respondents were prepared to bomb Argentine air and naval bases, 21 percent were willing to contemplate invading the Argentine mainland and 5 percent were ready to use nuclear weapons against Argentina.

Stupids are everywhere!

[Jimbuna]

Then the english politician must had that too.

About 5-6 years after the Falkland war, some of the swedish newspaper and tv-news had information about this war.

On two bases in England there were 2+2 vulcan bombers loaded with nuclear and ready to take-off if england should lose the battle in the south atlantic.
according to these news, the third and fouth biggest city in Argentina was the target.

I have tried to find these article, but have not manege to find them.

Markus

I'd really welcome a link because IMHO the thought of using nuclear weapons against the Argentinians is ludicrous at best.

[mapuc]

I don´t want to make an off topic, but the history of the nuclear gift to Argentina was published firstly in The New Statesman, back in 1984. According to that article, a Royal Navy SSBN was moved from North Atlantic to a location near Ascension Island, ready to wipe out Cordoba City if Op Corporate is jeopardized (sinking of an assault ship or any of the carriers)

Northwood denied later that claim.

In any case, I will say that a poll undertaken in the UK by Market and Opinion Research International on April 14 (1982) revealed that 28 percent of the respondents were prepared to bomb Argentine air and naval bases, 21 percent were willing to contemplate invading the Argentine mainland and 5 percent were ready to use nuclear weapons against Argentina.

Stupids are everywhere!


I could not agree more

Markus

[Oberon]

I'd really welcome a link because IMHO the thought of using nuclear weapons against the Argentinians is ludicrous at best.

Indeed, I know we had nuclear weapons on board one of the ships heading for the Falklands but only because we didn't have time to offload it before deployment. I think they got it off as soon as was possible.
One of our Resolution SSBNs did apparently move to Resolution island but I think nuking Argentina would have just been ludicrous and probably resulted in a revolution in the UK.

[Jimbuna]

Indeed, I know we had nuclear weapons on board one of the ships heading for the Falklands but only because we didn't have time to offload it before deployment. I think they got it off as soon as was possible.
One of our Resolution SSBNs did apparently move to Resolution island but I think nuking Argentina would have just been ludicrous and probably resulted in a revolution in the UK.

Indeed...and there are still some out there who believe the US control the launch codes to our nukes :03:

[Marcantilan]

Indeed, I know we had nuclear weapons on board one of the ships heading for the Falklands but only because we didn't have time to offload it before deployment. I think they got it off as soon as was possible.

Varios of the ships had nuclear depth charges (WE 177) on board. Moved to the carriers firstly and then shipped back to UK. Some Admirals oposed to that movement, because the eventual intervention of Soviet subs in behalf of Argentina.

After the war, firstly TASS, then International Atomic Energy Agency, and last but not least Greenpeace claimed that HMS Sheffield had a atomic depth charge at the moment she went to bottom.

One of our Resolution SSBNs did apparently move to Resolution island but I think nuking Argentina would have just been ludicrous and probably resulted in a revolution in the UK.

Well, at least you make happy 5 % of UK population...

Happy that didn´t happen, I lived nice times since 1982.

[August]

nuclear depth charges

:o

That reminds me of the nuclear hand grenade. It kills everything within a half mile but they're having a heckuva time testing it because you can only throw it 50 feet.

[Herr-Berbunch]

If there were Vulcans based in the UK armed in such a way, then they were on normal QRA and it had little or nothing to do with the South Atlantic. :nope:

The idea of nuclear weapons deployed against Argentina is laughable, but with nearly 30-years of hindsight that is easy to say.

[TLAM Strike]

:o

That reminds me of the nuclear hand grenade. It kills everything within a half mile but they're having a heckuva time testing it because you can only throw it 50 feet.

Just got to bounce out with your jets or hit the dirt and take it in the armor.

Oh wait...

:O:

BTW NDCs would be delivered by Helis or ASROCs, they would not be rolled over the side like a normal depth charge. :03:

[Karle94]

If there were Vulcans based in the UK armed in such a way, then they were on normal QRA and it had little or nothing to do with the South Atlantic. :nope:

The idea of nuclear weapons deployed against Argentina is laughable, but with nearly 30-years of hindsight that is easy to say.

Considering the fact that the task force sent to recapture the Falklands did have nuclear weapons.

[August]

...hit the dirt and take it in the armor.

:DL

[Jimbuna]

Considering the fact that the task force sent to recapture the Falklands did have nuclear weapons.

Yes that was probably the case but as has already been explained this was because we didn't have time to offload them before deployment.