Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Las Malvinas.
Comments
-
The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »Ah, yes, more flattery.
(you do of course know that post times are listed with every post.... i.e one page back)
Not sure what your point is but yes I do know post times are listed.
And I'm glad you take such an interest in my circadian cycle......
I was up from about 0330 to get the first flight to Stansted. I'm back tonight, but don't worry I have a lifted sorted from the airport......0 -
ChicagoJoe wrote: »You should post over there buddy, anyone who believes the jingoist British media fairytales of a few Brit infantry men on a shore making a 3,000 ton Corvette class ship armed with medium- and small-caliber guns, surface-to-surface missiles, surface-to-air missiles, and antisubmarine weapons ' retreat ' way out into the ocean
You sure do love to throw that old doozy about don't youThe jingoism is that obvious so I'm not going to explainFrom what I seen on TV yesterday, it's little more than jingoism of a country
Those republican stories you heard while growing up in the USA must have really had an affect :rolleyes:0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Well yes it is simple when looking at it in its simplest terms.
Britain wont let it go, Argentina cant take it - fairly simple when looked at in those
simplistic terms.
I'd agree with your point number 2. Argentina won't get the islands back through force.
Argentina itself has made it clear that it won't go to war for the islands. That it will
pursue diplomatic channels only (although as I said Arg is strangling the islands
economy).
However, I'd disagree with point 1 (which you'll see here encompasses point 3), I think
with some certainty that in the long term diplomacy will deliver either a
shared/'leaseback offer' territory or a simply Argentine territory.
The option of leaseback was previously discussed between G.Britain and Argentina after
Britain saw quite reasonably that it would be better to have good relations in south
America, a region ripe with potential, than to possess useless isolated islands with a
tiny sparse population. Add to this the negativity factor of not only lost potential
good relations with Argentina, but bad relations with Argentina/Bolivarian countries in
south America.
This well reasoned thinking led whitehall and Nicholas Ridley, Minister of State at the
Foreign Office to consider bargaining with Argentina.
Naturally galtieri scuppered this potential, in a attempt to glorify himself.
And so naturally Britain after winning dug its heels in.
That however was during the 80's. 30 years has passed and a great deal of those who were
around during the 80's have sadly passed on. The present (British) new generation and
future generations will inherit power over this issue, I believe they'll see it
differently.
http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/52/The-Falklands-War-
Sunday-Times-Survey.aspx
The above link shows a poll taken around about the time of the conflict in the 80's,
when asked who should determine the British government's long term policy on the
Falkland Islands 72 % respond Britain as a whole, taking the Falkland Islanders' views
into account.
This is surely the natural position for a nation when dealing with an issue which
affects the entire nations foreign relations. I think this will return as the future
British opinion - Britain as a whole determining what should happen with respect to the
islands and foreign relations with Argentina/Mercosur. Rather than havin control over
such a key area for the whole country being left in the hands of 2500 people who
obviously will/must look out for themselves.
The logic will eventually hit the British public that it is pointless to maintain 2500
people on land the size of N.Ireland 14,000 km away and inherit in return only animosity
from a trade block (which includes Brazil) influenced by Argentina, as well as Argentina
itself, which on a side point holds giant lithium deposits found in few other places
worldwide, an essential component for the batteries we'll be using in the future ... but I digress.
A few pages back I posted a copy of a proposal by a British MP that laid out the terms
for sharing the islands. I can see something along those lines occuring again (depending
on the oil situation) as it will seem like the obvious choice to those not motivated by
emotions from the 80's.
Having MPs (and a national broadsheet editor) starting to dare address the topic on tv
is a very early sign of reason being chosen over resentment.
(yes Argentina did operate an aircraft carrier a few decades ago, I think thats an
achievement that few countries can claim and I think they'll manage it again in time)
Argentina's inflation problem wont last forever. 0 -
Advertisement
-
The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »
(yes Argentina did operate an aircraft carrier a few decades ago, I think thats an
achievement that few countries can claim and I think they'll manage it again in time)
Think it's time to practice watch you've preached.........The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »Thats probably better suited to an history forum.The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »Well, funny anecdotes from the past, pictures of 80's downed helicopters, rewarding of medals in the 80's for raids carried out by such and such which resulted in whatever, generally belong to stories from the 80's and so to some war history forum.
(They're rich in 80's historic detail, like what might be found on a history forum, along with the referenced war history books)
...........
And it's highly unlikely they'll operate an aircraft carrier again. The cost of naval aviation is escalating and accelerating (according to Van Creveld in Air Power) and is pricing everyone out of the market with the exception of the US, UK, France, India and China. Brazil is teetering and Italy and Spain have opted for scaled down versions.
You need more than the carrier, you need to have enough ships of the right kind to operate it as a carrier battle group and that includes ASW, air defence and auxiliary / replenishment vessels.0 -
Only addressing what someone else posted on the same matter.
Maybe yes maybe no, its not really needed in any case.
Better spent elsewhere imho.
Arg has made clear it has no military aspirations for any expansion, Arg being invaded is also extremely unlikely, so no rush.
But new toys will be bought regardless, as the military naturally grows with the population - as per any country with such high birth rates, with increased future budgets from here on in through the decades.
Ah I can see it now, 2025 and the islands have 3 soldiers to every 1 citizen.
Aircraft carrier permanently stationed in stanley just in case.
Totally worth it for the return on investment.
But no rush to obtain the heavenly tropical stanley, city of gold and art.
(At least thats the vibe I get on the other Malvinas forum)
www.lse.co.uk/ShareTrades.asp?shareprice=RKH&share=rockhopper
- monocle 0 -
-
I dont see how Im supposed to have changed my position - within the recent past/last decade this present time remains the most likely time for any military involvement.
i.e - if I had to place a bet at any point over the last 15 or so years I'd reluctantly place it on 2014, it may be unlikely to win, but its the most likely of the given choices. I've explained why this is so several times now - when was the last time an Argentine president sent an open letter regarding the islands to a British newspaper or threatened company execs with imprisonment for taking part in what Argentina considers to be theft of its resources, when was the last time the Argentine defense budget jumped 25%.
Tell me how 'my ignorance' has once again been exposed. (loving all the constant attention btw - its all about me me me) Yes, Im well aware there will be two aircraft carriers.
Theres more places out there to patrol than the far ends of the south atlantic. Big globe.
As you may be aware the islands defense policy is to be capable of repelling anything coming from Argentina and while mount pleasant is sufficient for now, it can't be said that will always be the case. In my previous post I briefly refer to the question of what exactly is going to happen in the coming decades - Argentina as a country is set to see exponential growth and millions of new citizens in that time.
With those citizens, and the presently increasing military budget (projected by the given market analyst at $8.1 billion p.a by 2018) will come new military abilities .... naturally. Given that theres almost a 2:1 citizen soldier ratio on the islands at present - what might the place look like in 20 years if the policy of keeping in line with Argentinas abilities is maintained.
At that later time Britain will realize that its pointless to have whats effectively an increasingly expensive fortress in the south Atlantic which generates only negative relations with south america's biggest trading block. At this point it will be realized that the previously presented plans for leaseback of the islands, submitted by British politicians themselves, are the sensible option.
- monocle
"Would Argentina abandon any of its citizens if it became too expensive?" - Debatable for any group of 2500 citizens in these unique circumstances. Returning to an earlier plan for sharing seems not very improbable however.0 -
The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »Only addressing what someone else posted on the same matter.
Maybe yes maybe no, its not really needed in any case.
Better spent elsewhere imho.
Arg has made clear it has no military aspirations for any expansion, Arg being invaded is also extremely unlikely, so no rush.
But new toys will be bought regardless, as the military naturally grows with the population - as per any country with such high birth rates, with increased future budgets from here on in through the decades.
Ah I can see it now, 2025 and the islands have 3 soldiers to every 1 citizen.
Aircraft carrier permanently stationed in stanley just in case.
Totally worth it for the return on investment.
But no rush to obtain the heavenly tropical stanley, city of gold and art.
(At least thats the vibe I get on the other Malvinas forum)
www.lse.co.uk/ShareTrades.asp?shareprice=RKH&share=rockhopper
- monocle
Well if oil is found then yes it will be worth it but regardless of that you really don't understand the British mentality of not letting go if you think they would just abandon the Falkland island residents because of money. Would Argentina abandon any of its citizens if it became too expensive?0 -
-
Advertisement
-
intellectual dosser wrote: »I think if this isn't a contradiction, then you're simply not making sense after 15 pages.
I'll give this thread one thing, it's terrible messy, but probably not much worse than the exchanges between London and Buenos Aires on the subject.
Its really not that difficult.
Most probable year of the given years. Thats all.
- monocle 0 -
The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »I dont see how Im supposed to have changed my position - within the recent past/last decade this present time remains the most likely time for any military involvement.
i.e - if I had to place a bet at any point over the last 15 or so years I'd reluctantly place it on 2014, it may be unlikely to win, but its the most likely of the given choices. I've explained why this is so several times now - when was the last time an Argentine president sent an open letter regarding the islands to a British newspaper or threatened company execs with imprisonment for taking part in what Argentina considers to be theft of its resources, when was the last time the Argentine defense budget jumped 25%.
Ok, sabres can be rattled, letters can be written, currencies can be re-designed and budgets can be increased.
Saying the Argentinians are more likely this year to mount any kind of operation to 'recover' the Islands is a bit like saying, next week I'm more likely to win the Euromillions because I bought two tickets instead of one - it may be factually true, but the odds are still vanishingly small.
How in your deluded world would it work? Let's assume the President calls in the respective Chiefs of Staff and issues the requisite orders, and that the population have been duped (again, all extremely unlikely, but lets assume its true).
How would they organise the necessary manpower, equipment, logistics etc and get it into position (in Argentina) without the British knowing? How would they procure the ammunition, food, fuel and other sundries needed without drawing attention to a sudden spend?
And if they could do that without the British, Americans or French figuring out what was going on - how would they then get to the Islands undetected, across 300 miles of ocean, possibly patrolled by at least one of the RN's attack boats, and land their forces when they have only ONE amphibious capable vessel and ONE tender?
And even if they did assemble their force undetected, arrange its supplies, crossed the ocean and landed - how would they keep them supplied? How do you think any armed force the Argentinians could land would do against forces that have been, effectively, at war for most of the last decade-and-a-half and that could have attack helis on station within 24 hours?
How would they even secure some kind of air dominance? They'd end up sending the cream of their pilots to destruction........again.
So, yes 2014 is "....... the most likely of the given choices" but only if the other choices are any other year between now and never.The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »Tell me how 'my ignorance' has once again been exposed. (loving all the constant attention btw - its all about me me me) Yes, Im well aware there will be two aircraft carriers.
Theres more places out there to patrol than the far ends of the south atlantic. Big globe.
You clearly have no idea of what it takes to operate a carrier force or carrier battle group when you talked about the British having an "Aircraft carrier permanently stationed in stanley just in case."
FFS, even if the British did decided to put a carrier down there on anything like a permanent basis they wouldn't confine it to the littoral or create for themselves the complexity of having to crew, supply and sustain something as sophisticated as a CBG to meet a non-existent threat........and as I said two carriers rarely means two carriers on deployment.
I'm glad you're enjoying the attention, hopefully you're getting an education from it.The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »As you may be aware the islands defense policy is to be capable of repelling anything coming from Argentina and while mount pleasant is sufficient for now, it can't be said that will always be the case. In my previous post I briefly refer to the question of what exactly is going to happen in the coming decades - Argentina as a country is set to see exponential growth and millions of new citizens in that time.
With those citizens, and the presently increasing military budget (projected by the given market analyst at $8.1 billion p.a by 2018) will come new military abilities .... naturally. Given that theres almost a 2:1 citizen soldier ratio on the islands at present - what might the place look like in 20 years if the policy of keeping in line with Argentinas abilities is maintained.
The word literally is often used, but in this case it's appropriate - the British aircraft used in the Falklands War are now 'literally' museum pieces - coincidentally, I was looking at Harrier XZ997, a Falklands veteran, in Northolt yesterday. The RAF have moved on to Tiffies and the RN/RAF will be getting F-35s what will the AAF have to contest the air? - At present the Argentinians are still doing their best with pretty much the same kit and in some cases the same airframes they had in 1982 with no sign of anything better.
That's before you go on to look at other systems such as the TLAM, the Tactical TLAM and Storm Shadow - the integration of which on the Typhoon is due to be completed next year so you can be sure there'll be a few of those in a shed somewhere on RAF Mount Pleasant.The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »At that later time Britain will realize that its pointless to have whats effectively an increasingly expensive fortress in the south Atlantic which generates only negative relations with south america's biggest trading block. At this point it will be realized that the previously presented plans for leaseback of the islands, submitted by British politicians themselves, are the sensible option.
- monocle
Well if you want we can go around on your crazy train again - the defence of the Islands costs the UK defence budget a minuscule amount - less than 1% of their defence budget.
To keep things simple for you and to return to John Slessor (the point at which you first demonstrated your lack of knowledge on these matters) - an amphibious landing (according to Slessor and most navies who know about these things) requires air superiority at least. To obtain air superiority an attacking air force - to use Slessor's crude 'formulas' - needs to be able to maintain an advantage of 6:1 over the defender. So to counter those four Tiffies the Argentinians need to be able field 24 comparable aircraft.
Let's be generous at this point and say the AAF can maintain an unheralded 90% serviceability rate during combat ops - that means having 27 fighters to make sure that you have the necessary 24 available to combat the 4 Typhoons.
Then you've got to figure that a few are going to be pranged in accidents and the like, but despite their armourers incompetence, AAF pilots are bloody good so optimistically they might only write off 10% in non-combat flying - that brings us to a nice round figure of about 30 Typhoon equivalent aircraft - at $125m per airframe that's $3.75billion!!
I suppose based on your figures they could buy them as long as they scaled back their army, their navy, their marines, cut everyone's pay, fed everyone less, rationed ammunition, didn't buy much fuel and opted not to buy anything to arm the aircraft with.......0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement