Another Falklands war?

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Marcantilan

As an argentinian, I´m not very pleased about some "Bomb and kill" attitude from some members of this forum.

Argentina and G. Britain has a long standing dispute about the islands, both countries arguing about its rights about the land (How many on this threat studied seriously the issue?). Of course, GB actually posses the lands, so it could do whathever the Queen want on the islands and the adjacent sea.

The only thing Argentina could do is protest. And is the only thing Argentina did. No military threat at all. I think the warmongers are on the other side of the Atlantic.

The "blockade" is just The Sun crap. Just the Argentine government asked ships from the mainland to the islands to notify the trip. Of course, they could denied the entrance to local ports. But that´s not a "blockade".

That wouldn't surprise me in the least, looking at the wiki article recently about the permits it shows itself as the innocuous thing it is, but of course, with the memory of the war still fresh in quite a few peoples minds naturally they're going to think the worst thing first, particularly with the Sun cheering them on from the sidelines. I have stated and continue to state that Argentina would not be foolish enough to attack the Falklands a second time, particularly not under a democratic government. To be honest though, most people on the street don't really care if Argentina is democratic or not, they hear two words put together 'Argentina' and 'Falklands' and its OMGWTFBBQ Argentina is going to invade again. Forgetting that the low level sabre rattling has been going on for decades, centuries even. I've personally got nothing against the Argentinian people, in fact I admire the skill of the pilots that flew down Bomb Alley against our shipping during the conflict, displaying some amazing low level skill under fire. This is one of the reasons I doubt that the Argentine government would be willing to put itself in armed conflict with the United Kingdom once again, even in our weakened state, the element of surprise is gone and there are more forces on the Falklands than before. It doesn't take a military genius to see that a successful operation will require more resources than it would gain and is thus not worth it.
On the other hand, this is a perfect governmental opportunity to push for better military budgets on both sides during a time when most governments are looking to make cut backs.

Basically, a PR stunt on both sides, business as usual, nothing to see here, move along.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Oberon

That wouldn't surprise me in the least, looking at the wiki article recently about the permits it shows itself as the innocuous thing it is, but of course, with the memory of the war still fresh in quite a few peoples minds naturally they're going to think the worst thing first, particularly with the Sun cheering them on from the sidelines. I have stated and continue to state that Argentina would not be foolish enough to attack the Falklands a second time, particularly not under a democratic government. To be honest though, most people on the street don't really care if Argentina is democratic or not, they hear two words put together 'Argentina' and 'Falklands' and its OMGWTFBBQ Argentina is going to invade again. Forgetting that the low level sabre rattling has been going on for decades, centuries even. I've personally got nothing against the Argentinian people, in fact I admire the skill of the pilots that flew down Bomb Alley against our shipping during the conflict, displaying some amazing low level skill under fire. This is one of the reasons I doubt that the Argentine government would be willing to put itself in armed conflict with the United Kingdom once again, even in our weakened state, the element of surprise is gone and there are more forces on the Falklands than before. It doesn't take a military genius to see that a successful operation will require more resources than it would gain and is thus not worth it.
On the other hand, this is a perfect governmental opportunity to push for better military budgets on both sides during a time when most governments are looking to make cut backs.

Basically, a PR stunt on both sides, business as usual, nothing to see here, move along.

Agreed (in the main).

The last announced British military presence (Falklands Garrison) IIRC was a frigate or a destroyer on station at Mare Harbour plus either a frigate or a destroyer 'within calling distance'.

The Royal Navy also has Swiftsure and Trafalgar class attack submarines that it can deploy to the area, though such deployments are classified.

The Royal Navy's submarines also carry BGM-109 Tomahawk cruise missiles which have a range of 1500 miles and can strike at targets within an enemy country.

The army have approx 500 personnel based at Mount Pleasant and includes an infantry company, an engineer squadron, a signals unit, a logistics group and supporting services.

The RAF contribute:

No 1435 Flight – 4 Eurofighter Typhoons
No 1312 Flight – 1 Vickers VC-10, 1 Hercules C3
N0 1564 Flight – 2 Sea King HAR3s.

Not a particularly large force perhaps but one with enough muscle/bite to deter a second invasion IMHO.

[krashkart]

Certainly enough force to hold out until help arrives, if need be.

EDIT:

Although, I wonder how such a scenario might play out.

[Bubblehead1980]

President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner has decreed that all ships must get prior permission before entering Argentine waters, which she claims covers the entire South Atlantic continental shelf.


The above is taken from the article I read that caused me to start this thread.Sounds like a country that was taken to town so to speak last time acting up again.Decree is meaningless unless they use force, maybe they intend to at some point thinking Brits are weak right now and lets face it, Brown is no Thatcher.

The Colonialism debate somehow(lol) got started on here.Someone else pointed out, look how former colonies are doing now, most are third world and all the problems that come with it and not "free", prob would have been better off to stay under the Brits.

[XabbaRus]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8523894.stm

Well this is interesting. Even if it isn't a blockade in the normal sense if Argentina does get its way and the rest of SA joins in then diplomatically it is a rattling sabre.

I don't know how it can be policed though. Also what are they considering territoral waters? the 12 mile limit or the 250 mile limit?

[Marcantilan]

Argentina is a signatory state of the 1982 Montego Bay Convention. Territorial waters has a 12 miles limit, adjacent waters up to 24, and Economic Exclusive Zone 250. The Ocean bottoms issue is a separate (and very interesting!) thing.

And also I must say that I´m bored about some posters attitude, that the "civilized" world is England and allies and we people down south are treated like naked indians.

And no offense intented for the British posters, specially Oberon who is a good chap.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Marcantilan

Argentina is a signatory state of the 1982 Montego Bay Convention. Territorial waters has a 12 miles limit, adjacent waters up to 24, and Economic Exclusive Zone 250. The Ocean bottoms issue is a separate (and very interesting!) thing.

And also I must say that I´m bored about some posters attitude, that the "civilized" world is England and allies and we people down south are treated like naked indians.

And no offense intented for the British posters, specially Oberon who is a good chap.

Care to point out who you mean regarding posters with an 'attitude' because like Oberon, I'm also British and consider myself a 'good chap'?

[XabbaRus]

Me too....

[Stealth Hunter]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

The Colonialism debate somehow(lol) got started on here.Someone else pointed out, look how former colonies are doing now, most are third world and all the problems that come with it and not "free", prob would have been better off to stay under the Brits.

Well now that we look back at it seems they would have been, but that's also not noting that a lot of these countries that were colonized already had stable, well-formed governments running in them before someone else came along and decided "We're your sovereigns now. Deal with it.". India is a perfect example. The Marthans and Mughals and Sikhs had for centuries ruled over it and made it one of the most successful countries in the whole of Asia, moreso in many respects than China. Then the French and British began trading with it, there were disputes over who owned what, and eventually the British took over the entirety of it, reducing French influence to a near nonexistent level.

When the British were unable to control it any further (due not only to civil unrest but also the fact that their "empire" was gradually declining in capability because of the severe after effects of both World Wars in such rapid succession- speaking strictly on economic and military grounds-- which had forced them to relinquish lands to their former and rightful owners in favor of the homeland's well-being) and the people finally did gain the independence they had previously had 150 years before that, they were basically left with nothing but what they had- which didn't amount to much by that time; not to mention the confusion and mass dissent which is always a factor to show up when a nation is created or reformed drastically. The result of these things was civil war (excluding the effects on literacy and such), and now we have India AND Pakistan. If the British had just left the Indians alone and acted as a responsible and fair country, negotiating honest trade agreements, none of this would have happened in such a way.

Many will argue that it was their own faults, despite the fact that they were forced to be subjugates to a foreign nation and had what was in the first place rightfully theirs taken. And yes you will get further arguments when this point is made that that "Well- colonialism brought the savages all these wonderful new things, like democracy, railroads, etc." That's true, but does that justify the colonist nations' actions, which were motivated by nothing more than greed and yearning in the first place? Hardly. Furthermore, what good do these things do them if they're treated like dirt and driven about like cattle, not given the same equal treatment as their "sovereigns"?

The fact is, the British, French, Germans, Dutch, Spanish, Portuguese, ALL of these nations that practiced colonialism just wanted to take over these lands that had natural resources on them for their own benefit, and they didn't care at what cost (immediate and future). Nor did they even try to consider what the effects would be given any number of possible future scenarios they might face. But it's not just India or Pakistan. It's also places like South Africa, Jamaica, Nigeria, Sudan, New Guinea, Malaysia, and the Congo. Countries like Egypt, Australia, and New Zealand however have done very well compared to their peers since they were given independence, though.