Argentina vow to control Falklands

[Jimbuna]

Speaking to the Guardian and Independent, Mr Timerman said Britain had "occupied" the islands for "access to oil and natural resources".


So when did this phenomena come about then?

I always thought we'd been there since long before oil was discovered.

Bit of a lame argument in my opinion.

Mr Timerman rejected a invitation to discuss the issue with Foreign Secretary William Hague last week, after Mr Hague invited members of the Falkland Islands government to the meeting.

Speaks volumes for me.

I tell you what Hector old chap...ask the natives on the actual island what they want and if you can't grasp the concept or accept their wishes...come and take them :yeah:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21341578

[Cybermat47]

You really need to get these guys a new hobby.

[Jimbuna]

Which guys?

[TLAM Strike]

So when did this phenomena come about then?

I always thought we'd been there since long before oil was discovered. Don't you know all western nations do is occupy foreign lands to exploit their resources and natives? Minor things like "when oil was discovered" there or who "lives on the islands" doesn't matter; what matters is westerners are evil. :O:

[Skybird]

If I were Britain, I would set up 2 or 4 additional Typhoons up there, additional to the 4 that already are there. Because in case of any trouble, any coup must be repelled. I do not see that Britain has the military and logistical capability anymore to retake the island in a counteroffensive, like it was done back then. So one must make sure that it does not get lost in the first. South America is economically on the rise and doe snot accept lectures by Europe that easily anymore. And from haughtiness to irrational decision-making it is just a small step. Even smaller when nationalism and emotional appeals make themselves felt.

The vote of the islanders to whom they want to belong, has settled the issue for me, after I was uncertain myself years ago over what to make of any further war for just a giant rock.

[Tribesman]

I tell you what Hector old chap...ask the natives on the actual island what they want and if you can't grasp the concept or accept their wishes...come and take them
Are the chagos islanders due back in court again soon as your government still hasn't given the natives back their actual island yet even though they have been asking for a long time.

[Oberon]

Are the chagos islanders due back in court again soon as your government still hasn't given the natives back their actual island yet even though they have been asking for a long time.

Diego Garcia? I could just see the United States giving up one of its most important bases in the Southern hemisphere... :doh:

[Tribesman]

Diego Garcia? I could just see the United States giving up one of its most important bases in the Southern hemisphere... :doh:
Yet you expect Argentina to give up its claim on the gasfields.
Consistency Oberon, consistency.
You cannot claim to be obliged to follow the wishes of native islanders if you demonstrate that you don't follow the wishes of native islanders.
Your defense seems to be "the big boys made us do it", which of course means Argentina can also do it when it is in a position to(like they thought they were in '82).

[Catfish]

Don't you know all western nations do is occupy foreign lands to exploit their resources and natives? Minor things like "when oil was discovered" there or who "lives on the islands" doesn't matter; what matters is westerners are evil. :O:


Looking at any map it is obvious the Falklands/Malvinas belong to England.

And "Westerners" are not "evil".
The British Empire was a peace-loving international voluntary community of free independent nations, and the old european nations had a vast concern for slaves, resources, gold and silver etc., nowadays with the US it is more about resources, politics and strategic goals of course.

"Westerners" do not hate foreign countries, they just want what they have. Nothing personal, you know.

(Just stirring the pot) :O:

[Herr-Berbunch]

Obvious geography is obvious, Argentina is west of the UK.

Draw your own conclusions.

(Merc and Fitz - I'm only jesting)

[Jimbuna]

If I were Britain, I would set up 2 or 4 additional Typhoons up there, additional to the 4 that already are there. Because in case of any trouble, any coup must be repelled. I do not see that Britain has the military and logistical capability anymore to retake the island in a counteroffensive, like it was done back then. So one must make sure that it does not get lost in the first. South America is economically on the rise and doe snot accept lectures by Europe that easily anymore. And from haughtiness to irrational decision-making it is just a small step. Even smaller when nationalism and emotional appeals make themselves felt.

The vote of the islanders to whom they want to belong, has settled the issue for me, after I was uncertain myself years ago over what to make of any further war for just a giant rock.

In a military context perhaps it is just as well that Argentina is in an even worse position than that of the UK atm.

http://globaldefenceanalysis.wordpress.com/2013/01/22/argentinedestroyersinking/

[Skybird]

Argentinian navy is not my concern, militarily seen. The Argentinians cannot know when and when not a British sub is in the vicinity - this alone should hold any invasion armada back in harbour.

What I would be concerned about if I would need to defend the islands, is a sudden unexpected airdrop of commandos, followed by more invading forces flown in. Or a drop of an attacking force coming in under the deception of a civilian airliner declaring an emergency. Something like that. Is Britain able to militarily endure a longer siege and fly in supplies? Or to retake the base once it has fallen?

So, to me the key to defend the Falklands is maintaining air superiority at all costs. The biggest threat is not from the sea, but the air.

Another worry is the Argentinians being able to mount more support from Brazil. Southamerican block thinking and solidarity. As said before: they are economically rising powers, and Europe having huge problems, loosing global influence and power.

[Jimbuna]

Oh I'm confident there are enough assets there to hold on until an air bridgehead is set up.

[Herr-Berbunch]

Oh I'm confident there are enough assets there to hold on until an air bridgehead is set up.

And we've still got a Vulcan flying, sort of.

[STEED]

Why 20 years?

What a lode of hot air.

[Skybird]

until an air bridgehead is set up.
Why have you sent a fleet last time, instead of doing an air bridge? ;)

They have Roland SAM systems, and the 40mm Flak by Bofors. Both take out a transport easily. They also have the man-carried RBS-70 by Bofors, a bit older, but still good enough to take out transports and low flying aircraft. The RBS70 is carried by troops. the Flak can be transported as a light air cargo. The Roland is a small armoured vehicle.

So again, I understood you wanted to do an airbridge into a hot warzone with these buggars around. :O: That will cost you transports. How many has the Royal Air Force left these days?

[Herr-Berbunch]

Now we have more than Endurance, 68 marines, 11 sailors and a couple of dozen islanders with shotguns and pitchforks*. :yep:

We may have less aircraft than 30 years ago, but we can go further, carry more, and quicker.

*I'm just guessing at the islander's weapons, but I think that's realistic.

[MH]

Why have you sent a fleet last time, instead of doing an air bridge? ;)

They have Roland SAM systems, and the 40mm Flak by Bofors. Both take out a transport easily. They also have the man-carried RBS-70 by Bofors, a bit older, but still good enough to take out transports and low flying aircraft. The RBS70 is carried by troops. the Flak can be transported as a light air cargo. The Roland is a small armoured vehicle.

So again, I understood you wanted to do an airbridge into a hot warzone with these buggars around. :O: That will cost you transports. How many has the Royal Air Force left these days?

I should guess you dont fly transport through SAM zones without taking care of that first.
Having air superiority.

[Oberon]

Yet you expect Argentina to give up its claim on the gasfields.
Consistency Oberon, consistency.
You cannot claim to be obliged to follow the wishes of native islanders if you demonstrate that you don't follow the wishes of native islanders.
Your defense seems to be "the big boys made us do it", which of course means Argentina can also do it when it is in a position to(like they thought they were in '82).

Oh, I don't for one moment expect them to give up their claim. I'd just rather hope that they don't act on it militarily. Honestly I doubt that they would.
Perhaps, if Argentina can present a better proposal for governance than the current setup then the islanders would prefer to be governed from Buenos Aires? I don't know, honestly, I've never been there.
To be truthful though, in this world, even in this day and age, the old adage of 'might makes right' is still on the ball, it might not be fair, and let's face it there are many unfair situations in the world, but whoever has the most guns and the bigger tactical advantage gets their way. Certainly this is the case in Diego Garcia, and a number of other little islands in the Pacific that had their population removed and their homes turned into radioactive dust.
Sometimes though, and this is no defence of colonialist attitudes mind, but sometimes the alternative to colonial rule isn't as fantastic as it first seems...Zimbabwe comes to mind, once the bread-basket of Africa, now one of the most economically broken nations on the planet.
However, to be fair, Gandhi said it best when he said "No people exists that would not think itself happier even under its own bad government than it might really be under the good governance of an alien power."

[Skybird]

I should guess you dont fly transport through SAM zones without taking care of that first.
Having air superiority.
You may be able to take out the Roland vehicles from the air. But with the 40mm Bofors Flak, it already gets tricky, as the Americans have learned in Iraq 91, and NATO on the Balkans. Air-cleaning an area of shoulder-launched SAMs or SAMs launched for man-carried tripods like the RBS-70, is virtually impossible without cleaning the whole area of enemy infantry completely.

http://www.publicserviceeurope.com/article/1503/could-britain-really-lose-the-falklands

http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/can-britain-defend-the-falkands/

http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_story.asp?id=19352

[Jimbuna]

Why have you sent a fleet last time, instead of doing an air bridge? ;)

They have Roland SAM systems, and the 40mm Flak by Bofors. Both take out a transport easily. They also have the man-carried RBS-70 by Bofors, a bit older, but still good enough to take out transports and low flying aircraft. The RBS70 is carried by troops. the Flak can be transported as a light air cargo. The Roland is a small armoured vehicle.

So again, I understood you wanted to do an airbridge into a hot warzone with these buggars around. :O: That will cost you transports. How many has the Royal Air Force left these days?


We have air superiority (yes just four Typhoons are enough).

You made reference to a commando raid from the air...see 'Typhoons' and don't forget over 1,000 military personnel on the ground.

They come by sea then the naval vessel on station plus one or more nuclear subs will do their part of the job.

As for SAM systems and flak....come on man, what do you think our garrison are using....bazookas? Take a look at my earlier link.

Looking at their known capability I'm of the opinion we have more than enough capability to exact a price from them in equipment and manpower terms that they couldn't afford to pay...even if they had said assets.

Having said all that I doubt they'd be able to get the equipment you make reference to onto the ground. It would either be shot out of the sky (transports) or lying at the bottom of the South Atlantic.

[AVGWarhawk]

Why is the Falklands so vitally important to the parties involved?

[Herr-Berbunch]

They come by sea then the naval vessels on station plus one or more nuclear subs will do their part of the job.


I thought there was a Type-45 and the Clyde. The more the merrier. :)

[Troublous_Haze]

If Russia would agree to give back to Japan Kuril islands. Perhaps UK would also reconsider it's former imperial principles. Just a wild thought that invaded my mind :|\\

[Marcantilan]

Why is the Falklands so vitally important to the parties involved?

We want to live there. Someone told us that sheeps are very passionate at night.

As a side note, US members must remember that Hector Timerman had US citizenship until 2010 and he studied in Columbia University. So, if you see him as retarded as I do, remember MAYBE is your fault...

[August]

I'm pretty sure that Rolands and 40mm flak guns are not within the Argies ability to airdrop. Their forces would have to seize the airfield intact then hold it and the surrounding area to have any chance at getting those systems onto the battlefield.

[Jimbuna]

Why is the Falklands so vitally important to the parties involved?

Supposedly because of the wishes of the inhabitants (in a British context) but obviously because of the suspected underground mineral and oil resources we know of today).

I thought there was a Type-45 and the Clyde. The more the merrier. :)

Yes, I forgot about her:

After being commissioned into active service she was sent to the South Atlantic to relieve HMS Dumbarton Castle as the Royal Navy's patrol vessel in the area based in the Falkland Islands. Unlike predecessors in this role Clyde will stay in South Atlantic waters for the foreseeable future, with a contract in place for her to remain in the Falkland Islands until 2018.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Clyde_(P257)

[AVGWarhawk]

We want to live there. Someone told us that sheeps are very passionate at night.

As a side note, US members must remember that Hector Timerman had US citizenship until 2010 and he studied in Columbia University. So, if you see him as retarded as I do, remember MAYBE is your fault...

The question is not answered. Why is this island so vital to parties involved?

[Oberon]

We want to live there. Someone told us that sheeps are very passionate at night.

As a side note, US members must remember that Hector Timerman had US citizenship until 2010 and he studied in Columbia University. So, if you see him as retarded as I do, remember MAYBE is your fault...

Indeed, it's Strategic Sheep Purposes! :yep::haha:

Aaah, I did wonder why Timerman was a bit of a wild card in terms of diplomatic statements. I mean, I can understand in a small part where he's coming from, trying to go for the anti-colonial approach, but he was rather clumsy about it...and he's a Foreign minister... :doh:

[Troublous_Haze]

If Argentina had the force to take the islands away from UK it would be already done. They've tried in 1982 but failed.. So I believe Argentina wants to try again :haha:

However I think the outcome would be the same as in 1982: a slap to the sconce..

[Jimbuna]

The question is not answered. Why is this island so vital to parties involved?

I think you'll find I did but the timing looks like our posts crossed.

[Oberon]

The question is not answered. Why is this island so vital to parties involved?

It's difficult to explain, partially it's a pride thing, Argentina is in deep financial trouble, even more so than the UK, so it's a way of trying to rally the people around a common cause and distract them from the financial woes...only most of the Argentinian public aren't buying it.
Also there's the question of the potential of oil and gas deposits in the area, however recent surveys have indicated that the initial optimism that there might be vast deposits may have been unfounded.

Mostly though it's just stubborn nationalistic pride.

[AVGWarhawk]

It's difficult to explain, partially it's a pride thing, Argentina is in deep financial trouble, even more so than the UK, so it's a way of trying to rally the people around a common cause and distract them from the financial woes...only most of the Argentinian public aren't buying it.
Also there's the question of the potential of oil and gas deposits in the area, however recent surveys have indicated that the initial optimism that there might be vast deposits may have been unfounded.

Mostly though it's just stubborn nationalistic pride.

Thank you sir. I have glossed over the articles concerning Argentina financial problems. The last was freezing of food prices.

[Jimbuna]

It's difficult to explain, partially it's a pride thing, Argentina is in deep financial trouble, even more so than the UK, so it's a way of trying to rally the people around a common cause and distract them from the financial woes...only most of the Argentinian public aren't buying it.
Also there's the question of the potential of oil and gas deposits in the area, however recent surveys have indicated that the initial optimism that there might be vast deposits may have been unfounded.

Mostly though it's just stubborn nationalistic pride.

Bleedin sarfen pacifist :stare:

:03:

[Marcantilan]

The question is not answered. Why is this island so vital to parties involved?

Aside the sheeps.

Argentina considers that its territorial integrity was violated in 1833, when a British frigate evicted the local population and took control of the islands.

Going beyond that, the islands have strategic significance: have mineral resources, the waters around it have plenty of animal life and also, the islands are an entrance key to Antarctica.

But the islands are not vital to Argentina. Nor to the UK. Just relevant. And more relevant in election years.

Regards,

[Jimbuna]

Aside the sheeps.

Argentina considers that its territorial integrity was violated in 1833, when a British frigate evicted the local population and took control of the islands.

Going beyond that, the islands have strategic significance: have mineral resources, the waters around it have plenty of animal life and also, the islands are an entrance key to Antarctica.

But the islands are not vital to Argentina. Nor to the UK. Just relevant. And more relevant in election years.

Regards,


Agreed :yep:

[AVGWarhawk]

Aside the sheeps.

Argentina considers that its territorial integrity was violated in 1833, when a British frigate evicted the local population and took control of the islands.

Going beyond that, the islands have strategic significance: have mineral resources, the waters around it have plenty of animal life and also, the islands are an entrance key to Antarctica.

But the islands are not vital to Argentina. Nor to the UK. Just relevant. And more relevant in election years.

Regards,

Relevant in what manner? Just a bargaining chip of sorts?

[Sailor Steve]

Relevant in what manner? Just a bargaining chip of sorts?
Something to argue about when you run out of other things to argue about. Every political leader needs a good war, and this one's made to order.

[Troublous_Haze]

Aside the sheeps.

Argentina considers that its territorial integrity was violated in 1833, when a British frigate evicted the local population and took control of the islands.

Going beyond that, the islands have strategic significance: have mineral resources, the waters around it have plenty of animal life and also, the islands are an entrance key to Antarctica.

But the islands are not vital to Argentina. Nor to the UK. Just relevant. And more relevant in election years.

Regards,

You know how was it in medievals ? If you can't protect something, it belongs to someone who can :arrgh!:

[Marcantilan]

You know how was it in medievals ? If you can't protect something, it belongs to someone who can :arrgh!:

Yep, I was at "Medieval Times", enjoyed the show. Rooted for the yellow knight, if my memory serves.

Glad the middle ages are long gone. We could discuss things now.

[Troublous_Haze]

Yep, I was at "Medieval Times", enjoyed the show. Rooted for the yellow knight, if my memory serves.

Glad the middle ages are long gone. We could discuss things now.

You can discuss about it as much as you want, but you can't change the ROOTS of it :smug:

[nikimcbee]

Oh I'm confident there are enough assets there to hold on until an air bridgehead is set up.
Just give Steed a cricket bat-thingy, he can hold em off. I have full confidence in Steed's whacking abilities.:up:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-y8iMhPq9sHw/UCu8ts0J9DI/AAAAAAAAAYE/QU5mLqPrv3o/s1600/cricket1113.jpg

I am Steed, hear me Roar!

[nikimcbee]

We have air superiority (yes just four Typhoons are enough).


Are we talking actual aeroplanes or model ones? If the latter is true, then Jim and Steed could fend off "the hordes":up: I can"t vouche for the RN though. Didn't you guys get rid of it? (the RN)

[Jimbuna]

You are simply incorrigible ya wee bugga http://img824.imageshack.us/img824/8586/smacka1.gif

http://img113.imageshack.us/img113/7975/gigglebigtb9fg3.gif

[Skybird]

We have air superiority (yes just four Typhoons are enough).

You made reference to a commando raid from the air...see 'Typhoons' and don't forget over 1,000 military personnel on the ground.

They come by sea then the naval vessel on station plus one or more nuclear subs will do their part of the job.

As for SAM systems and flak....come on man, what do you think our garrison are using....bazookas? Take a look at my earlier link.

Looking at their known capability I'm of the opinion we have more than enough capability to exact a price from them in equipment and manpower terms that they couldn't afford to pay...even if they had said assets.

Having said all that I doubt they'd be able to get the equipment you make reference to onto the ground. It would either be shot out of the sky (transports) or lying at the bottom of the South Atlantic.

I read that kind of info, too. And I do not say the scenarios I outlined is likely top materialize. I just say that just four interceptors are not much, even Typhoons. Because four planes still are only four planes. One accident in the hangar, one gone. Two machines collide in the hangar, or a technical malfunction (you get my idea) - one or more planes grounded. Pilots error or an unlucky technical problem in flight, a lucky shot by the Argentinians - one plane gone. And boom - there you are on the other side of the world with just one or two flyable fighter. And that is not that unrealistic a mishappening at all. Accidents happen.

In naval assets, note that the naval presence of the Royal navy is no standing force, apparently. I take from the texts that the units are sometimes commissioned to the area - and that implies sometimes they are not. For the Argentinians, the submarine is a problem. But any frigate there is they will know about - when it is there, and when not.

The real concern is not a traditional naval or air assault, however, but a trick. A civilian airliner deceiving you by claiming to have an emergency. Would your government dare to shoot down an airliner approaching the Port Stanley area and transponder set to 7700? It could be loaded with innocent holiday flyers - or with bombs or with commandos jumping onto the airfield.

That scenario is not by me, btw. I read about it last year when we had that debate before. It stems from the pen of your own defence ministry. At that time they did not dare to rule out the success possibility completely.

Finally, if they manage to get troops on the ground in any way, no matter which one, and August is right in assuming that Rolands and 40mm AAA will not be amongst them (last time they brought much bigger heavy artillery pieces, didn't they? 105mm, and even a small number of 155mm), this still leaves the RBS-70 beign there - and these will be with them, you can be sure (it is standard equipement with their marines, I read). That thing has a maximum range of 8 km. Enough to deny the runway to any British transport plane trying to land or doing an airdrop on the base. It may be old, but not old enough not to be still in service with several Western nations like Sweden, Norway, CSR, Australia as well. Wikipedia says the German Ozelot system also bases on the design.

Anyway, it comes down to me just not liking that there is no plan B and no room for errors, mishaps, unfortunate accidents. 4 planes is really damn little. I take iot for granted that once the Agentinians manage to take over the island and base, no matter how, Britain will be unable to retake it. And America said clearly it will not allow to get drawn into any war over the island. Alltogether that situation is a lead for the British defenders, I agree - but not a lead with a comfortable margin that gives a reassuring, soothing statement against the unexpected.

[HundertzehnGustav]

Falklands is like Malta...

thin ice, and a daredevil Bombing raid a la Doolittle will not help much this time.

agreed.a set of Harriers or of good old Jaguars could be useful.or two handsfulls of choppers.
alas, too late. Stupid decision.
Lets hope they make no move.

[August]

I think it's unfair to compare the the islands peacetime British military presence against some fictitious Argentinian airborne assault force.

The Argentinians only have one brigade of Parachute Infantry and one of SF but not enough heavy lift air transport capability (just 6ea C-130's) to carry even one them, let alone also keep them supplied and reinforced with regular troops. Remember the British have shoulder launched AA missiles too.

The Argies need more trained assault troops and more aircraft to even consider mounting an airborne invasion to capture the islands. That takes time to assemble and I really doubt they would be able to conceal the build up let alone hide their invasion preparations.

In short Britain would have plenty of time to make all the defensive preparations they need to repel any attack the Argentinians could mount.

[Skybird]

That'S probably the most liokely scenario, August. However, on issues of war I am not so much worried by what can be reasonably expected and for which you can be prepare, but about the unexpected - like the Viet Nihm not being able to pull heavy artillery up that mountain in Dien Bien Phu. Prien striking Scapa Flow. Doolittle's wakeup-call in Tokyo. All that was seen as impossible by the receiving side.

[Oberon]

Then how does one prepare for the unprepared? :hmmm:

[August]

That'S probably the most liokely scenario, August. However, on issues of war I am not so much worried by what can be reasonably expected and for which you can be prepare, but about the unexpected - like the Viet Nihm not being able to pull heavy artillery up that mountain in Dien Bien Phu. Prien striking Scapa Flow. Doolittle's wakeup-call in Tokyo. All that was seen as impossible by the receiving side.

Very true but all those were done before the surveillance age. It's going to get increasingly difficult to conceal the kind of preparations we're talking about as time goes on and surveillance technology improves.

According to Wiki the Argies have just six c-130 transport aircraft. That is not enough and unless it is overcast I'd bet the Brits could tell you where every one of them is and maybe even provide live footage of what they are doing at the moment. The Brits would certainly would know if the tried to obtain any more aircraft and once they did the eye in the sky would really be on them.

And that's now. A decade from now they'll be able to provide a dozen angles with sound and be nothing more obvious to the Argentinians than a few extra flies buzzing around the base.

The bottom line here I think is that the British just need to keep an eye on the Argentinians. If the Argies start calling up troops or start buying more aircraft and doing large scale airborne assault training then the Brits should respond by beefing up the islands defenses.

Repelling an airborne invasion is not difficult if one knows it's coming and has time to prepare for it. It wouldn't take much to turn the Falkland islands into a death trap. Look what the Brits did in Crete to Students Fallschirmjagers with just an ad hoc and ill equipped force. They'd do a much more efficient job of it today i'd expect.

[nikimcbee]

Then how does one prepare for the unprepared? :hmmm:

Steed+cricket bat= victory

[Oberon]

Steed+cricket bat= victory

/thread :yep:

[HundertzehnGustav]

August, Skybird does not think along the lines of clearly visibly Military herculesses.
he thinks about the regular Passenger flight that crosses the area to be abused to get the ball rolling.
He thinks along the line of alternate warfare, of sneaking in, of terrorist style infiltration, coming in the backdoor.

six C-130s coming in low over the waves to drop chutes... breakfast for a single EF2000, right?

Maybe the Argentinians are trying to sneak in some other way. and once they have done that, and established some kind of foothold, how do you get rid of them again?

http://www.aerolineas.com.ar/

maybe that beautiful A-340 full of Soldiers will have a fuel situation and land on the island... mortars, handheld guns and all.
Taking control of the tower, and guiding another bunch of soldiers on civvie passenger planes in, crammed with soldiers.
Taking over the Key AAA points and

Summa Summum
An imaginative mind can come up with many scenarios that are not described in military docrine.

How such a surprise effort can be completed, and then sustained, That is another question alltogether. The Argentinians do not have many resources to do that, and the brits are far far away.

[Catfish]

Participation in WW1 also kept Asquith and his party in office, and every government be it dictators or elected parliaments have always used war to divert from internal problems, and justify internal surveillance.

I do not believe Argentina could 'take' the Falklands/Malvinas back, at least not for long ...

[Jimbuna]

The bottom line for me (and I totally agree with the comments from August) is the lack of assets on the Argentinian side or indeed the willingness to use what they have racked up against what the UK already has on the ground/islands and what an air bridgehead could deliver in a week at the most.

Two points if I may Sky....

1) What I consider to be reliable sources (naval personnel) inform me there is always a minimum of one nuke on station, and occasionally two (for exercise purposes).

Allowing myself a hypothetical scenario (as have you)...

2) Any attack against the UK and we'll invoke Article 5 (Any attack on a NATO member is deemed an attack against all members etc.).

Who knows? we could yet see German troops defending the Falklands :) and I doubt our American cousins would shy away from some form of assistance.

In finishing....I honestly think we're a million miles away from anything other than sabre rattling.

[HundertzehnGustav]

LOL!!

That would be like FalkEX... the Falklands turkey shooting exercise.:haha::haha:
Real life Red Flag Wargames.

good points, good points.:rotfl2:

[Skybird]

2) Any attack against the UK and we'll invoke Article 5 (Any attack on a NATO member is deemed an attack against all members etc.).

Was it seen like that, and announced in the last Falkland war? and even during the cold war there were doubts over for example Greece allowing the country to become part of any military engagement even if the Russians would attack - as long as they did not strike Greece directly. There were also Greek reservations over contributions to defend NATO-member Turkey. And just remember the way some countries, Germany included, were weaseling in the past years when it came to military job sharing in zones of conflicts. Article 5 is just that - ink on paper. Compare to the Euro - a long chain of legal obligations, laws and treaties on which it was founded - and which all have been broken and violated without consequences.

My trust in article 5 would be limited, if I were you. I also still consider the NATO to be a regional defence alliance, although the Americans have massively lobbied for changing that and making it a golbal intervention alliance. From a purely pragmatical POV, no military European or NATO interests are being at stake in th southern Atlantic. It's called the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. No word of a South Atlantic. That is also the reason for example the defence ties between Japan or Australia and the US are on a national level, not on NATO level.


Who knows? we could yet see German troops defending the Falklands :)
Yes, and I could become the king of Takka-Tukka land. We cannot even move the German contingent to and from Afghanistan without needing to ask for Russian transport help. If you cannot move and maintain your army by your own means, then don't move it, I say. Stay within what you can reach.


and I doubt our American cousins would shy away from some form of assistance.
And Obama in the present has made it clear that he will not allow the US getting drawn into any confrontation over the Falklands.


In finishing....I honestly think we're a million miles away from anything other than sabre rattling.
99% my expectation, too. 1% of uncertainty remains. And that is what I am about here.

[geetrue]

Aside the sheeps.

Argentina considers that its territorial integrity was violated in 1833, when a British frigate evicted the local population and took control of the islands.

Going beyond that, the islands have strategic significance: have mineral resources, the waters around it have plenty of animal life and also, the islands are an entrance key to Antarctica.

But the islands are not vital to Argentina. Nor to the UK. Just relevant. And more relevant in election years.

Regards,

I kept looking for an answer that I could agree with and Marcantilan had it. :yep:

Wisdom yields!

We use to have a gentleman here on subsim from UK that was in the Falklands war.

He has moved on, but I will never forget his sea stoires of having been there and his descriptions of his buddies dying on the decks of his ship.

This place is not worth one Englishmans life ... end of story

[AVGWarhawk]

This place is not worth one Englishmans life ... end of story

Hence my question as to why this spit of land is worth what is going on.

[August]

Hence my question as to why this spit of land is worth what is going on.

It's part of their country and it's inhabitants are British citizens. Does there really need to be better reasons than those to defend it?

No nation can afford to allow a foreign nation to seize a part of their territory without a fight or it ceases to be a valid sovereignty. Just a corpse of a country ready to be picked clean by anyone strong enough to take it.

[AVGWarhawk]

It's part of their country and it's inhabitants are British citizens. Does there really need to be better reasons than those to defend it?

No nation can afford to allow a foreign nation to seize a part of their territory without a fight or it ceases to be a valid sovereignty. Just a corpse of a country ready to be picked clean by anyone strong enough to take it.

The British initially occupied the Falklands in 1765, Argentina did not stake a claim until 1832. Therefore, the Falklands cannot be returned to the Argentinians as the were not theirs to begin with.

http://debatewise.org/debates/1698-give-the-falklands-back-to-argentina/#no6

[Bilge_Rat]

Allow me to play devil's advocate here, but in 1982, Britain fought to reconquer the Falklands, apparently because a majority of "islanders" wanted to remain "British".

However in 1997, Britain handed over Hong Kong to communist China without a squeak, even though a majority of residents wanted to remain "British".

Why the double standard?

[Marcantilan]

http://debatewise.org/debates/1698-give-the-falklands-back-to-argentina/#no6

‘I have perused the papers respecting the Falklands Islands. It is not at all clear to me that we have ever possessed the sovereignty of these islands.’ The Duke of Wellington 1829 (Gavshon & Rice, The Sinking of the Belgrano, p.4)

As you could note, the sovereignty issue is debatable...

[AVGWarhawk]

Allow me to play devil's advocate here, but in 1982, Britain fought to reconquer the Falklands, apparently because a majority of "islanders" wanted to remain "British".

However in 1997, Britain handed over Hong Kong to communist China without a squeak, even though a majority of residents wanted to remain "British".

Why the double standard?

No economic value? Unstable country? Easier to hand it over instead of defending the desire to keep it?

[AVGWarhawk]

‘I have perused the papers respecting the Falklands Islands. It is not at all clear to me that we have ever possessed the sovereignty of these islands.’ The Duke of Wellington 1829 (Gavshon & Rice, The Sinking of the Belgrano, p.4)

As you could note, the sovereignty issue is debatable...

Absolutely. In my minds eye the island belongs to Argentina.

[Bilge_Rat]

No economic value? Unstable country? Easier to hand it over instead of defending the desire to keep it?

easier to stand up to Argentina than China? :hmmm:

[AVGWarhawk]

easier to stand up to Argentina than China? :hmmm:

Would be my guess.

[Skybird]

Allow me to play devil's advocate here, but in 1982, Britain fought to reconquer the Falklands, apparently because a majority of "islanders" wanted to remain "British".

However in 1997, Britain handed over Hong Kong to communist China without a squeak, even though a majority of residents wanted to remain "British".

Why the double standard?


Hong Kong was handed over to the Briotish as a result from the Chinese defeat during the Opium Wars. That was somewhere in the middle of the 19th century, I think. The population however was formed by Han Chinese. British and Europeans were mere "guests" with part-time stays only, and Christian missionaries. The difference to the Falklands is that the Falklanders are of Britsh descent, the Hong Kong people are not - they are native Chinese. The land taking of the British in China also is seen as a chapter in the history of colonialism and the exploitation of weak China by Western powers.

The British then were thrown out by the Imperial Japanese, who were the next occupiers of Hong Kong. By the end of WWII, the city was retaken by a coalition of Chinese and British forces.

Next came the Chinese revolution, and a longer time of ups and downs, that finally led to the British handing Hong Kong back to the original owner, China.

So, there are several historical differences between both examples that justify not to compare Hong Kong with the Falklands. The main difference is that the discovery and fist settling is disputed between the British, Spanish, Portuguese - however the islands were empty when they got discovered by any of the European powers in the 16th century, and first European settlers were left there, which probbaly were British. Hong Kong, on the other hand, was integrated into a Chinese kingdom already 2200 years ago, with Han having lived there since even before that time.

[Bilge_Rat]

Hong Kong was handed over to the Briotish as a result from the Chinese defeat during the Opium Wars. That was somewhere in the middle of the 19th century, I think. The population however was formed by Han Chinese. British and Europeans were mere "guests" with part-time stays only, and Christian missionaries. The difference to the Falklands is that the Falklanders are of Britsh descent, the Hong Kong people are not - they are native Chinese. The land taking of the British in China also is seen as a chapter in the history of colonialism and the exploitation of weak China by Western powers.

The British then were thrown out by the Imperial Japanese, who were the next occupiers of Hong Kong. By the end of WWII, the city was retaken by a coalition of Chinese and British forces.

Next came the Chinese revolution, and a longer time of ups and downs, that finally led to the British handing Hong Kong back to the original owner, China.

So, there are several historical differences between both examples that justify not to compare Hong Kong with the Falklands. The main difference is that the discovery and fist settling is disputed between the British, Spanish, Portuguese - however the islands were empty when they got discovered by any of the European powers in the 16th century, and first European settlers were left there, which probbaly were British. Hong Kong, on the other hand, was integrated into a Chinese kingdom already 2200 years ago, with Han having lived there since even before that time.

so in other words, it is not important what the HK residents wanted because they are chinese while the Falkland Islanders are white? :hmmm:

[Garion]

Um was'nt Hong Kong Leased to the UK and when the lease ran out it reverted back to the Chinese?

Cheers

Gary

[August]

http://debatewise.org/debates/1698-give-the-falklands-back-to-argentina/#no6

Interesting debate. Thanks for posting.

I agree with Skybird (distant thunder roll) that the length of an occupation, a sole occupation especially, is indeed a valid factor when discussing the ownership of territories.

Those islands have been British for an awful long time. The people there have born, raised and buried a dozen or more generations of their family members on those islands.

It'd be one thing if there were a bunch of Argentinian refugees recently dispossessed from their island homes and living in refugee camps but no Argentinian living, or dead for less than two centuries, could possibly make that claim.

The British claim predates the Argentinian claim by over a half century. You don't loose ownership of your home because you leave it for a short time.

In fact the first human to ever step foot on the Falklands was a Briton and that was centuries before Argentina even became a country.

The islands are British in every way that counts. End of story.

[August]

Um was'nt Hong Kong Leased to the UK and when the lease ran out it reverted back to the Chinese?

Cheers

Gary

Correct. A 99 year lease if I recall correctly. And it should be noted that the British honored it even though the government that they made the agreement with had been deposed long ago.

I believe that if the Argentinians had a valid claim to the islands the British would have honored it.

[Skybird]

Um wasn't Hong Kong Leased to the UK and when the lease ran out it reverted back to the Chinese?

Cheers

Gary
Something like that, yes.

so in other words, it is not important what the HK residents wanted because they are chinese while the Falkland Islanders are white?

If the London West End suddenly decides by a public vote to become part of let's say Nigeria - would that make sense?

Most of the Hong Kong people feel with a Chinese identity, becasue they are Chinese. What they were afraid of is a loss in freedom and more restrictive laws that would cost them freedoms and material wealth and economic power once Bejing starts to rule again. Take the comparsion with taiwanese: not many Taiwanese would argue they do not feel to be Chinese anymore. What they fear is that any going together with the PRC again would cost them freedoms and economic wealth.

The Falklanders say they are British by descent and thus want to stay British. The Honk Kong people were sceptical for reasons having to do with pragmatism, not identity.

And since you mentioned skin colour, one thing should be clear when watching a film about the Falklands: the islanders do not look like Spaniards, Indios or Southamericans. :) But the mass of people in Hong Kopng definetly looks Chinese. Or can you differ between the looks of a man from China and a man from Hong Kong? I cannot. :)

[Skybird]

I believe that if the Argentinians had a valid claim to the islands the British would have honored it.
If not back then, then now at the latest. :yep: These are politically extremely correct times of great inter-human sensibility that we live in. :D

[Bilge_Rat]

Um was'nt Hong Kong Leased to the UK and when the lease ran out it reverted back to the Chinese?

Cheers

Gary

well that was the legal justification, "sorry the lease is up, got to go lads!" :ahoy:

Guantanamo is leased, Cuba wants it back since it is on the island of Cuba. I don't see the US handing it back very soon.

Spain considers Gibraltar part of its territory. The UK has held 2 referendums to find out what the locals wanted and are using that as a basis to hold on to it.

The US/UK held on to west Berlin during the cold war, even though their legal justification was tenuous, based mostly on the fact that "west berliners" wanted to be free.

Taiwan is oficially part of China, as far as communist China is concerned, but the US has always garanteed its independence since that is what the Taiwanese want.

Hong Kong, with Macau, is still the one instance of a western government handing a territory back to a communist dictatorship without even bothering to find out what the local population wanted. Why was a referendum not held, as in Gibraltar to find out what the locals wanted? probably because everyone was afraid of the result?

[Tribesman]

Allow me to play devil's advocate here, but in 1982, Britain fought to reconquer the Falklands, apparently because a majority of "islanders" wanted to remain "British".

However in 1997, Britain handed over Hong Kong to communist China without a squeak, even though a majority of residents wanted to remain "British".

Why the double standard?

Don't forget that the British government was stripping the Falklanders of British citizenship, so their talk of the wishes of the islanders rings as hollow as it does with the people of St.Helena at the same time.

Um was'nt Hong Kong Leased to the UK and when the lease ran out it reverted back to the Chinese?

No not quite, some parts of it were leased but the other parts were ceded to Britain in perpetuity.
Britain gave up the whole lot because a little piece of land thousands of miles away can have difficulty justifying the maintainance costs...kind of like the Falklands was up until the invasion embedded it into the British psyche where it has remained ever since.

[nikimcbee]

I agree with Skybird (distant thunder roll)

I think my glasses are broken, did I just read that?

[August]

I think my glasses are broken, did I just read that?
:shucks:

[AVGWarhawk]

http://img0037.popscreencdn.com/123492518_-com-funny-graduation-card---hell-freezes-over-health-.jpg

[geetrue]

I agree with Skybird (distant thunder roll)


It was bound to happen sooner or later

actually it's snowing here :yep:

[HundertzehnGustav]

Hong Kong, with Macau, is still the one instance of a western government handing a territory back to a communist dictatorship without even bothering to find out what the local population wanted. Why was a referendum not held, as in Gibraltar to find out what the locals wanted? probably because everyone was afraid of the result?

Macau and HK are like small spots of land.
If the westerners are <strike>bitc</strike> complaining about holding on to that territory...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Liberation_Army

and i guess that plays a major factor.
Having colonies nowadays is not so "en vogue" any more.

[Bilge_Rat]

Don't forget that the British government was stripping the Falklanders of British citizenship, so their talk of the wishes of the islanders rings as hollow as it does with the people of St.Helena at the same time.


No not quite, some parts of it were leased but the other parts were ceded to Britain in perpetuity.
Britain gave up the whole lot because a little piece of land thousands of miles away can have difficulty justifying the maintainance costs...kind of like the Falklands was up until the invasion embedded it into the British psyche where it has remained ever since.

I agree with Tribesman (distant thunder roll) ...:D

Britain's moral stand has more to do with who is on the other side than the actual issue...:ping:

[Marcantilan]

I believe that if the Argentinians had a valid claim to the islands the British would have honored it.

I really doubt the Chagossians are with you (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depopulation_of_Diego_Garcia)

Again, is no easy case.

Could I quotae Sir Malcolm A.Robertson, British ambassador in Buenos Aires (1928) "Argentine claims to the Falkland Islands in any way are unfounded" and insisted in another document that "English case is not strong enough to face a public controversy."

Check the National Archives for other fascinating stuff...

[Herr-Berbunch]

Could I quotae Sir Malcolm A.Robertson, British ambassador in Buenos Aires (1928) "Argentine claims to the Falkland Islands in any way are unfounded" and insisted in another document that "English case is not strong enough to face a public controversy."

Check the National Archives for other fascinating stuff...

Don't let facts get in the way of a good thread. Not that this is a good thread, it's just a repeat of a couple of others rolled out 6-9 month intervals.

@Marcantilan - is the translation completed yet?

[Oberon]

Don't let facts get in the way of a good thread. Not that this is a good thread, it's just a repeat of a couple of others rolled out 6-9 month intervals.

@Marcantilan - is the translation completed yet?

Indeed so, if one were to take it down to the nitty gritty neither Argentina or the UK have that solid a claim on the island. However, unlike the situation in Diego Garcia, the destruction of the status quo is in no-ones favour, particularly if, as it has been suspected, the oil field is a lot smaller than first expected (personally I'm of the opinion that the oil revenue should be split 50/50 between us and Argentina, both our economies are tanking and they need the revenue just as much as we do...probably more so in fact). The only people that profit from this diplomatic dispute are the politicians, and I think the people of both the UK and Argentina trust their politicians about as far as they could throw them.
Were it not for the environmental and psychological damage that it would cause the inhabitants of the islands I would suggest exiling all Argentinian and British politicians there and letting them fight it out amongst themselves...but the islanders have already had one majorly disruptive event in their history...

BTW, congrats on your promotion to Subsim sentry-bot Herr B. :yep:

[Herr-Berbunch]

. . . and I think the people of both the UK and Argentina trust their politicians about as far as they could throw them.


BTW, congrats on your promotion to Subsim sentry-bot Herr B. :yep:

That's okay if it's the likes of Clegg. Prezzer on the other hand! :nope:

sentry-bot :har:, thanks.

[Jimbuna]

I think my glasses are broken, did I just read that?

LOL :)

[HundertzehnGustav]

I would suggest exiling all Argentinian and British politicians there and letting them fight it out amongst themselves...but the islanders have already had one majorly disruptive event in their history...:yep:

That.
send some cameras along, and the world will have a good laugh!:)

[Jimbuna]

If Carlsberg did headlines...

http://www.dailysquib.co.uk/world/3718-cristina-kirchner-agrees-to-give-back-argentina-to-indigenous-people.html

[Herr-Berbunch]

^ :har:

[HundertzehnGustav]

aaargh!!!
That chick just pushed my Libido WAYYYYYY down!
Hooooly! what an ugly Momma! despite or because of, her many facial Moddefecations.

[Jimbuna]

Even more worrying:


Argentina without the Malvinas Islands is an “incomplete country”, and the right to self determination is a ‘flag’ Argentina “will never allow to be used by whom were the basis of the largest empire history has recorded”, said Minister Hector Timerman



Timerman said Argentina is willing to sit to dialogue with the UK but in accordance with the Untied Nations mandate and rejects “the participation of the people from the Falkland Islands in any Malvinas sovereignty negotiations”.


Well, I guess he makes a lot of people go into siege mentality mode.

http://en.mercopress.com/2013/02/04/argentina-will-never-accept-the-right-to-self-determination-for-the-people-of-malvinas

[HundertzehnGustav]

“Argentine rights over the Malvinas Islands make to the spirit of national union” said Timerman emphasizing that without Malvinas “Argentina is an incomplete country. We are missing a piece of our territory and that is why this struggle for the recovery of the Malvinas that will make Argentina an integral country, is so important”.

Someone about 75 years back pulled a similar stunt with a harbor and a Korridor.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b0/Polish_Corridor.PNG


That Argie guy aint doing nothing but stirring up Poo Poo with a lot of Blah Blah, Lies and a few proper sidekicks to the UK.

What does cameron say on the Subject?
he gonna kick that Loudmouthing sucker in the Nads?

[Jimbuna]

We'll probably ignore him...he's actually managed to consolidate the British position by saying the islanders will have no say in any negotiations which is exactly the opposite to the British position...we uphold the rights of the islanders to self-determination.

[HundertzehnGustav]

yep... denying the right to vote to locals is a bad idea, it is taking away instead of giving.

As such, turning the falklands into an argie colony.

...hmm.

really bad move.

[Sailor Steve]

aaargh!!!
That chick just pushed my Libido WAYYYYYY down!
Hooooly! what an ugly Momma! despite or because of, her many facial Moddefecations.
She's also sixty years old. I just recently saw an actress I liked way back when, and she hasn't aged well either. For that matter, have I? Have you, or will you as the case may be? We all get old.

[HundertzehnGustav]

mine is 64, twice my age and does not "disgust" me half as much.

Its more about what you do to your body or how you tread/preserve it, rather than following "standards"

she looks like a 40 year old with psychological problems in respect to her own body.
(mid life crisis i think might be what ia mafter?)
Sad.

http://www.arteyfotografia.com.ar/contenido/objetos/59/5d/e2/595de2795ff69a1a2cc2e81eb2dc657e1c35daaf/12461_1261170404177350.jpg

[HundertzehnGustav]

and what do i care? I age. You age. We age.
Well or not well... depends on how i live now.
There is more inside me that outside me.
Trying to ... "preserve" the outside... pointless.
She will be dead and rotting away in "a couple" of years.

[Kip336]

Although a bit off topic, but also still very much on topic. Anyone interested in the Falkland war in a modern day setting may want to read Ghost Force by Patrick Robinson.

Basicly it's about Russia wanting the Falklands oil, and poking Argentina (Successfully) to launch another war against the these days ill equipped British Royal Navy.


Lots of good reading material in there 'bout how the Falklands war would be in a modern day setting.

[Jimbuna]

Not read that book but it does sound interesting.

What weapons platforms/ships etc. do the Argentinians use?

Is there any mention of British SSN's in the theatre of operations?

[Oberon]

I wouldn't hold your breath too much Jim, Patrick Robinson's work has declined a lot in quality since HMS Unseen. I think this quote from the Amazon reviews sums it up best:

The Britsih are stiff upper lip fools,The Argetinians great tactically.The Russions are there just for fun and the Americans are clever and smart and can solve all problems with a little Special Force.

[Jimbuna]

Rgr that...I suspected as much.

[Herr-Berbunch]

Vote tomorrow. One member of the world's media per 25 islanders, and many governmental officials from third-party nations.

I think we all know the result, but it'll be nice for the other countries to witness the process.

[Jimbuna]

LOL :)