Originally Posted by Marcantilan (Post 1830951)

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!

Originally Posted by Marcantilan (Post 1830954)

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

Originally Posted by Marcantilan (Post 1830954)

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

Originally Posted by Marcantilan (Post 1830951)

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!

Originally Posted by Oberon (Post 1831068)

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

Originally Posted by Betonov (Post 1830808)

[khm] Bosnians actually [khm]

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

Originally Posted by Marcantilan (Post 1831040)

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: ....

Originally Posted by Oberon (Post 1831068)

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.

Originally Posted by jimbuna (Post 1831197)

*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:

Originally Posted by Marcantilan (Post 1830826)

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

Originally Posted by mapuc (Post 1831249)

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

Originally Posted by mapuc (Post 1831249)

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

Originally Posted by Marcantilan (Post 1831289)

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!

Originally Posted by jimbuna (Post 1831301)

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

Originally Posted by Oberon (Post 1831384)

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.

Originally Posted by Oberon (Post 1831384)

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.

Originally Posted by Oberon (Post 1831384)

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.

Originally Posted by Marcantilan (Post 1831624)

nuclear depth charges

Originally Posted by August (Post 1831668)

: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.

Originally Posted by Herr-Berbunch (Post 1831690)

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.

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike (Post 1831735)

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