IrishFeeney92 Registered User
#1

just want to get peoples opinion on this topic, anybody reckon theyll have another go at each other?

#2

No , there is a lot of ' Sabre Rattling ' all right coming from Argentina but IMO thats all it is - the British built a substantial airport on the islands after the war and they can , if required , quickly re-inforce their air presence there not to mention the rumoured presence of their attack submarines in the South Atlantic.
Ironically if the Argentines had never attacked in 1982 now would be the time to do it - Royal Navy has no working aircraft carriers now so there would not be much they could do about an invasion.
Royal Navy also now has only a limited amphibious attack capability.

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 .

2 people have thanked this post
Lemming Registered User
#3

Delancey said:

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 .


It remains to be seen just how long that can be sustained. There's a lot of populism about the whole matter; and populism gives way for practicality at the end of the day when people look at the returns.

Chile for one, I do not see sustaining this for long as they enjoy economic dealings with the Falklands. Nor do I see other nations keeping up a protracted level of embargo or any notions of blockade when their own businesses perhaps start to suffer on account of this. Ultimately, if/whenever oil starts getting drilled and the Falkland Islanders are looking to trade, you'll find all that "solidarity" suddenly becomes inconvenient and ends up drifting in the wind.

Still, De Kischner is playing a dangerous game that she may not be able to stop without toppling both herself & her government if she's not careful. Her government has its population whipped into quite a frenzy over the matter, and with the 30th anniversary of Argentina's military defeat looming close, emotions are going to be very raw and unchecked. De Kischner may not be able to stop what she's started without a face-losing climb-down.

Realistically though, no. There wont be a shooting match unless the Argentinians really lose the run of themselves.

1 person has thanked this post
Maoltuile Registered User
#4

feeney92 said:
just want to get peoples opinion on this topic, anybody reckon theyll have another go at each other?


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.

1 person has thanked this post
Maoltuile Registered User
#5

Delancey said:
No , there is a lot of ' Sabre Rattling ' all right coming from Argentina but IMO thats all it is - the British built a substantial airport on the islands after the war and they can , if required , quickly re-inforce their air presence there not to mention the rumoured presence of their attack submarines in the South Atlantic.
Ironically if the Argentines had never attacked in 1982 now would be the time to do it - Royal Navy has no working aircraft carriers now so there would not be much they could do about an invasion.
Royal Navy also now has only a limited amphibious attack capability.


And the Harriers are gone, and the troops are still tied up in Afghanistan. As well, there's a lack of friendly South American juntas (and I don't think Obama will open the NATO armouries to them the way Ronnie did).

OS119 Registered User
#6

Delancey said:
...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?

BlaasForRafa Registered User
#7

Maoltuile said:
And the Harriers are gone, and the troops are still tied up in Afghanistan. As well, there's a lack of friendly South American juntas (and I don't think Obama will open the NATO armouries to them the way Ronnie did).


Have you looked at the capabilities of Argentina's air force lately? (heres a hint, they don't have much)

tac foley Registered User
#8

Submarine-launched cruise missiles.

UK - many.

Argentina - none.

tac

1 person has thanked this post
Maoltuile Registered User
#9

BlaasForRafa said:
Have you looked at the capabilities of Argentina's air force lately? (heres a hint, they don't have much)


They don't need to *have* much, unless the UK fancies flying CAPs from the UK to cover any fleet they send.

xflyer Registered User
#10

Maoltuile said:
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

5 people have thanked this post
#11

OS119 said:
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?


This again, please include your analysis the hugely Anti Military background of the leftwing government and try to understand that they are resented by x military personnel. They absolutely will not launch another doomed to fail invasion.

Try and go beyond comparing argentina of 30 years ago to that of today. An entirely new government is in place, they are motivated by an attempt to stabilise the latin american bloc into one cohesive society. They believe this regional political unity affords them a greater diplomatic voice to table their sovereignty claim at the UN. They are going for exclusively political and diplomatic means of getting the outcome they want.

The uk's response to this is to send down the boys singing rule britannia until them argies work out who is boss. Terrific.

Maoltuile Registered User
#12

xflyer said:
In 1982 they actually brought leaflets for the inhabitants telling them not to worry they were now liberated from the British! LOL


"In 1982" the inhabitants of the Falklands actually weren't full British citizens.

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.

Maoltuile Registered User
#13

xflyer said:
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.


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?

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.


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.

OS119 Registered User
#14

I am pie said:
...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?

OS119 Registered User
#15

Maoltuile said:
...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.


so, just to be clear, if the British PM, standing in front of a map of Ireland coloured in with the Union Flag, said that the UK wanted to take control of the whole of the Island of Ireland - though exclusively by peaceful means of course - and the Irish government chose to move an Air Defence radar onto the Wicklow Mountains, its the Irish Government that would be sabre-rattling?

2 people have thanked this post

Want to share your thoughts?

Login here to discuss!