Falkland Islands Tension increase

[Tony]

Britain has been on the Falklands 120 years longer than the Argentinian nation has existed.

[Green Web]

Britain has been on the Falklands 120 years longer than the Argentinian nation has existed.

 

Just coz we have sovereignty doesn't we mean we should bomb it though.

[southcoast]

Britain has been on the Falklands 120 years longer than the Argentinian nation has existed.

 

And the French was there before us so by your logic they are French:loopy:

[shane39]

Not sure how much oil is out there,but has anyone on here wondered if another nation is setting the wheels in motion,for another conflict? Maybe a country a few thousand miles up the road from Argentina??

 

Of maybe Brazil getting in on the act for a share of the spoils..I'm probably wrong as usual,but moneys tight and nations get desperate.

[Tony]

And the French was there before us so by your logic they are French:loopy:

 

Put your silly smiley away.

 

The French aren't claiming sovereignty or stopping Spanish fishing vessels. Additionally, both Spain, France and the entire United Nations fully recognise UK sovereignty... well maybe excepting Latin loonies like Chavez and Castro.

 

What you need to understand is that the Argentinian Government is in an almost permanent state of crisis and intermittently seeks to deflect attention from its own problems while doing a bit of populist rabble rousing.

 

While they have democracy, the likelihood of an Argentinian military attack on or around the Falklands is zero. They do not have the capacity or the capital and know that any attempt would be over in a matter of a few hours with their air and sea forces being disabled almost instantly by the UK. The incumbent government would be strung up by their citizens... literally.

 

All they have is a political tool that keeps politicians in domestic clover. Don't be misled.

[Cyclone]

Looking at this:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_Falkland_Islands

 

I think we could do ok for ourselves in repelling an air attack.

 

I didn't mention an air attack, I mentioned said that they could seize the islands, 4 aircraft with limited ground attack capability could not stop them, and subsequently those 4 aircraft have nowhere to go and are effectively disabled. They then have complete air superiority and can sink any naval task force before it even gets over the horizon.

[Cyclone]

The Argentinian ships wouldn't get far out of port. There are subs permanently in the south atlantic, armed with torpedoes and tomahawk cruise missiles. The main runway at mount pleasant can take 747s so thousands of troops can be deployed in a matter if days. The Typhoon squadron provides air superiority.

 

Argentina has a very weakened military with very limited offensive capability.

 

I agree with Conrod

 

747's from where? Getting boots on the ground would be key to recapturing the islands, but troop transports aren't landing on a captured airfield and 4 planes aren't going to stop the islands being captured.

[Cyclone]

Nice one Cyclone, comedy thread of the day

 

No serious reply then. You don't want to defend your earlier comments about how war there again would never happen?

[Cyclone]

I'm sure those in Aberdeen have welcomed the oil platforms and extra work it brought, but I'm talking about the revenue derived from it. It all disappeared down a black hole called the government 'coffers'

 

So we did see benefit from it then.

[Cyclone]

And the GR7s were so far pushed into the end of their useful lifespans that keeping that fleet running would have cost fortunes as well - they were old at best, then we flew the life out of them in Afghanistan and hardly any remaining airframes have useful fatigue life left.

 

We had nothing to fly from the carriers so it was pointless keeping them.

 

Yeah, funny thing about that. The US forces just bought them all, apparently it's far cheaper to upgrade them and keep them running for another 30 years than to buy new ones!