Falklands War The Second?

Delancey wrote: »

...Argentina is waging a successful diplomatic campaign against the islands and seems to be winning support from neighbouring countries - in the long run this may prove decisive .

while i agree - to some extent - i have a nasty feeling that the current Argentine government is forcing itself into a corner on this issue, and that the scale/nature of the rethoric its using internally may mean that when the UN finally says 'not interested' (as it always does), and the rest of MERCOSUR says 'no, we aren't going to establish economic sanctions against the UK and EU over the FI - grow up', the Argentine govt is going to face an electorate that it exposed to the heady whiff of nationalism without any further peaceful options left open to it.

its then going to face the delightful choice of saying 'oh well, thats that - shows over, nothing to see here' or having a pop at the Islands.

one of those will result in its immediate loss of office and abject humiliation, the other a short term guarenteed 99% poll rating, the possibility of having every street in Argentina named after fair Christina, and if it all goes wrong the possibility that a scapeoat can be found in the Americans, the betrayel by the already hated military, or some kind of fabrication of British aggression that the other MERCOSUR countries will pretend to believe.

one requires moral courage and ends in political death, the other is expedient, will result in young men losing their lives for nothing except political ego, and may allow our politician to live to fight another day.

so, dear readers, which do we think the average politician will go for?

Submarine-launched cruise missiles.

UK - many.

Argentina - none.

tac

Maoltuile wrote: »

No. It's BS being fanned by the Tories, desperate to distract from their domestic unpopularity with a bit of jingoism. The deployments of the warship, (allegedly) the nuclear sub and the royal heir don't have an equivalent on the South American side, so far as I can see.

And an English Tory government accusing others of "colonialism" takes the biscuit.

The Argentinians started the jingoism. Warships are routinely deployed to the Falklands. The new one simply replaced the previous one and RAF SAR crews are routinely rotated through the islands whether they be royalty or not.

You've a hilariously distorted view of the situation. It's quite obvious that the sabre rattling is an election trick on the part of the Argentines.

That Harriers may be gone, but Typhoons are deployed there. With their capability any air attack would be cut to pieces from a long way out.

In fact the Argentine forces are incapable of launching an invasion. The carrier is long gone. The Air Force are still using the same aircraft from 1982, mildly upgraded, Mirages, Skyhawks. Museum pieces then, positively archaic now.

The Armada is but a shadow of it's former self and fundamentally incapable of transporting enough troops to the island to make a difference.

Add that there is no possibility of surprise like the the last time and it's pure escapism on the part of a failed Argentine government.

There will be no second war and if the Argentines are thinking all this sabre rattling will bring the British to the negotiating table then they don't know their history.

The only possible tactic that might work would be to send civilian boats to 'liberate' the Malvinas. As far as I know some people in Argentina still think the people there are suffering under the yoke of British oppression!!! In 1982 they actually brought leaflets for the inhabitants telling them not to worry they were now liberated from the British! LOL

I am pie wrote: »

...They are going for exclusively political and diplomatic means of getting the outcome they want....

and if it doesn't work?

you are suggesting that the current Argentine government is uniquely equipped in the world to handle the public failure of its flagship policy - that it will face no electoral consequences for being re-buffed in the world stage, that the electorate who were told 'we will get the Islands back' will hold no grudge against a government that failed to deliver?

Maoltuile wrote: »

The Argentines have been making this case (and it is a strong case) to the UN for years. This didn't just pop out of nowhere as a surprise.

your logic is flawed - if Argentina is not ramping up because its made the same claim for years, how is the UK ramping up when it has been deploying same forces to the Islands since 1983?

four fighters - firstly F-4 Phantoms, then Tornado F3's, now Typhoon.

1 major surface combatant as South Atlantic Patrol Ship (covering an area from Assension Island to the Caribean, to the FI and out to Southern Africa) - either a Type 42 Destroyer, a Type 22 or T23 Frigate, and now a Type 45 Destroyer.

1 infantry Company - it used to be an Infantry Battalion, but it was decided it wasn't neccesary.

1 tanker aircraft.

1 transport aircraft.

1 submarine - a submarine covers the same patrol area as the SAPS, but is only deployed for about 6 months of the year.

that it - exactly the same forces have been on/around the Islands since the 1982 war. i imagine if you googled it you could even get the ships names and patrol dates.

Maoltuile wrote: »

I don't actually believe that this is going to come to military conflict, as I mentioned. And I think that ignoring the enthusiastic Tory involvement in ratcheting the situation up is woefully myopic. The suggestion that the royal heir just happens to be posted there is laughable. And the 'warship' usually deployed down there isn't typically a state of the art destroyer with more important things to be doing.

The carrier wasn't used in the invasion, apart from carrying troops, and took no part in the war. On a separate issue - Typhoons, really? Has anyone bought those white elephants without bribery?



The Argentines have said nothing, done nothing to give any indication that they've any interest in war. All of the military activity has been on the British side.

You are one deluded fool. What have the tories done except maintain that the wishes of the islanders will always be the most important thing?

The Argentines have no interest in any war? Maybe they should stop talking about islands inhabited by a people who are repulsed by them then. Maybe they should stop calling press conferences in front of maps of the islands filled with the colours of the Argentine flag.

British military activity in the south atlantic is at the same level as it has been for the last thirty years.

MANUTD99 wrote: »

I've been reading a little lately about South America. It is becoming more like a union these days and not conforming to what Western powers would like them to be.

Does anybody know what the likes of Chavez of Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador and more importantly Brazil have had any say on this matter and I wonder if they would back Argentina in any way?

Mr Chavez has expressed his solidarity with Argentina and made a couple of predictibly clueless statements regarding the actions of the "British Empire" and has pledged venezuelan military support should things kick off.

scudzilla wrote: »

Which means nothing, The Brits had much better missiles last time around, and unless they're going for a strike on the mainland, which they won't, then these missiles mean nothing

err, the UK didn't have these missiles, or anything like these missiles last time - it had the Vulcan Bomber force, which it used to attack/degrade Port Stanley Airport from Assension Island - and used a significant part of its tanker force to do so.

the Vulcan is long gone, but Tommahawk can do the same job with far less risk and effort - it can also do very bad things to ships...

54kroc wrote: »

Theres a big difference between the US and the little old UK.

The Royal Navy was an enthusiastic lobber of submarine-launched cruise missiles in GW2.

What makes you think that they are not so enthusiastic about doing it all over again with a bunch of invading dagoes uppity Argentinians?

tac

Maoltuile wrote: »

And the inhabitants of Hong Kong haven't been accorded the same 'rights' to be British before being handed over to Communist China. But, this is turning into a political discussion.

Britain, had Hong Kong on 'lease' on agreement from the Chinese by agreements dating back to the mid 19th century. Those treaty agreements expired. You are effectively trying to compare an apple to an orange. The histories of Hong Kong & the Falkland Islands are not even remotely similar in political or socio-economic terms.

Maoltuile wrote: »

The suggestion that the royal heir just happens to be posted there is laughable. And the 'warship' usually deployed down there isn't typically a state of the art destroyer with more important things to be doing.

Two things;

1. Being posted to the Falklands is considered one of the sh*tiest deployments for UK forces as far as I am aware. Others who post here can correct me on that if I'm wrong. It has been suspected that the RAF deployed Prince William to make a point within its own ranks that whilst yes he may be heir to the throne, he's still wearing the uniform and has to abide by orders just like anyone else, even if it includes deployment to a fairly sh*te location.

2. As has already been pointed out, the deployment of the new type 95 destroyer is replacing an older model, & is something that has been done on a recurring basis. So Argentina trying to make capital from this is just dishonest politics at its "finest".

On a separate issue - Typhoons, really? Has anyone bought those white elephants without bribery?

So, you're flying a Skyhawk. Do you fancy going up against a modern fighter? Any modern fighter? No? Well then what difference does it make if it's a Typhoon or a F22 when your own airforce capabilities have effectively stood still for thirty years? You are well and truly neck deep in it.

The Argentines have said nothing, done nothing to give any indication that they've any interest in war. All of the military activity has been on the British side.

I'll direct you to a direct quote from De Kischner;

"Give peace a chance, give peace a chance. Not war".

Now, so far, the only politicians to have used the 'W' word have been the Argentinians. Take from that what you will.