Falkland Islands Tension increase

[Conrod]

I fully recognise their flexibility but the hard reality is that no Argentinian politician wants his neck attaching to a lampost by the Latin proletariat.

 

... and we can't afford luxury items like Ark Royal any more.

They're more than a luxury. When we need to do a bit of political gesturing overseas (like bombing people in tents), we have to fly from somewhere.

 

We have various deals with Middle Eastern 'partners' like Oman and Bahrain for use of their airfields, and deals with others for overflight of their territory, but all of those deals are fraught with caveats on what we're allowed to do from/over their soil. Overall, it leaves us very limited in how we can operate.

 

By having our own mobile airstrip, we can prosecute the type of operation we want, when we want, without the weeks or months of negotiations required with host nations, which might include being refused clearance to conduct certain operations.

[Annoni_mouse]

More than likely Argentina may try to get some foothold through the UN by diplomatic means with the rest of the south and central American countries supporting.

I see Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez being a big player. He seems to be a growing influence in that part of the world. The US buys some of it's oil from Venezuela and Chavez is flush with dollars. When it comes to trade and the necessity for it everything else goes to second place.

 

I think you're probably right. Agentina can play the wronged party to Britain's 'Colonial Aggression' and win some favour amongst the usual suspects. This is much more of a threat to the Islands remaining British than any military intervention.

 

As for Chavez, I don't really see him as ny more than a blow hard. He'll certainly supply the rhetoric and hyperboly (sp?) but I don't see any meat with the gravy, if you catch my drift!

 

Brazil I believe, are the real players in the region. They are an emerging nation and they have a lot of sway in that part of the world,but as an emerging nation, they are unlikely to show support for any naked aggression by one of their close neighbours, however much they my support the cause.

[Tony]

They're more than a luxury. When we need to do a bit of political gesturing overseas (like bombing people in tents), we have to fly from somewhere.

 

This is one of the few times that we will have to disagree. I don't think that we should be prosecuting conflicts that require aircraft carriers rather than land bases. We don't have a hugely successful track record at it and I reckon that the world has moved on.

[Cyclone]

Thinking that we shouldn't do it is not the same as refusing to accept that if we do do it then it's best done with an aircraft carrier.

 

Is the stance of thinking we shouldn't do it behind your whole argument about why they aren't needed? If so, then you must recognise now that your argument is flawed.

[Tony]

Y'see I think it's your argument that is flawed.

 

I cannot think of a single probable instance where an a/c carrier is required where politics and hindsight aren't better tools than a billion pound shipwreck in waiting.

[Conrod]

This is one of the few times that we will have to disagree. I don't think that we should be prosecuting conflicts that require aircraft carriers rather than land bases. We don't have a hugely successful track record at it and I reckon that the world has moved on.

I don't disagree that we're better off not involved in bombing inhospitable, sandy parts of the globe, but there will be more occasions that we'll need to in future.

Like it or not, we need to project force globally and to do that we need airfields (personally I don't like it - I'd rather leave the rest of the world to fester but the developing world is starting to grow up and play with fire like a delinquent child, so we can't ignore it). When airfields aren't available, or are only available within another nation's political remit, the carrier becomes immensley valuable.

[Tony]

Like it or not, we need to project force globally

 

Why do we?

[Conrod]

Why do we?

Even if you take out our obligation to protect our own remote territories and dependencies, the answer is because we're part of 2 organisations that pledge to look after each other's interests - the UN and NATO. If other hostile nations have a poke at our weaker allies, we're obliged to muck in.

 

Let's imagine Iran gets on top of its nuclear programme. It already has the most extensive ballistic missile ability in the region (don't forget they launched their own satellite 2 years ago), and has the potential to be a serious problem. Who knows what the Iranian leadership might decide to do as the result of diplomatic problems with the UK or other Western nation. If they look like nuking Israel, or us, do we leave their facilites unharmed, or take away their ability to cause mayhem? If any rogue state gets out of control again, are we not obliged as one of the leading western nations to at least contribute to providing a solution to a global problem?

 

I'm not convinced our second Iraq conflict was necessary, but the first certainly was, as was the Afghanistan campaign. I don't think either of those could have been predicted 20 years before they happened - who can predict what will occur after 2030?

[Cyclone]

Y'see I think it's your argument that is flawed.

 

I cannot think of a single probable instance where an a/c carrier is required where politics and hindsight aren't better tools than a billion pound shipwreck in waiting.

 

That's an argument about how we need to act, that was never the argument I put forward.

In the event that we (for whatever) reason have to act with force, there is no argument against requiring an aircraft carrier to do so in certain cases and locations.

[Harleyman]

Even if you take out our obligation to protect our own remote territories and dependencies, the answer is because we're part of 2 organisations that pledge to look after each other's interests - the UN and NATO. If other hostile nations have a poke at our weaker allies, we're obliged to muck in.

 

Let's imagine Iran gets on top of its nuclear programme. It already has the most extensive ballistic missile ability in the region (don't forget they launched their own satellite 2 years ago), and has the potential to be a serious problem. Who knows what the Iranian leadership might decide to do as the result of diplomatic problems with the UK or other Western nation. If they look like nuking Israel, or us, do we leave their facilites unharmed, or take away their ability to cause mayhem? If any rogue state gets out of control again, are we not obliged as one of the leading western nations to at least contribute to providing a solution to a global problem?

 

I'm not convinced our second Iraq conflict was necessary, but the first certainly was, as was the Afghanistan campaign. I don't think either of those could have been predicted 20 years before they happened - who can predict what will occur after 2030?

 

 

I see Iran as possibly acquiring it's own nukes sometime in the future but as for using them that's another matter unless the Iranian leadership suddenly develops suicidal tendencies.

The US Navy has a large naval force in the Persian Gulf and more than likely armed with nukes so that should be a sobering thought for any Iranian leader with ideas of attacking a neighbor.

The Iranians leadership however faces an uncertain future due to the potential change from the pro Iranian Assad regime in Syria and such a change may well ignite a serious attempt to topple the Teheran Mullahs as well.

So far attempts to suppress dissident movements in Iran have proved succesful but there's no guarantee that this success will be permanent.

In the meantime Iran will work to undermine or replace the Iraqi leadership with one strongly orientated to Teheran. They are all of the Shiite Muslim sect anyway.