FARK.com: (6598204) UK may lose Falkland Islands. This is not a repeat from 1982

If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

		UK may lose Falkland Islands. This is not a repeat from 1982 (guardian.co.uk)		160
		More: Obvious, Falkland Islands, air support, defence minister, boosting, UK defence

• • •

12885 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Sep 2011 at 12:39 PM | Favorite | share:

Share this link:

URL:

http://fark.com/go/6598204

Bookmark:

Article Comments close

160 Comments (+0 »)

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

czetie		2011-09-27 01:29:46 PM

Voiceofreason01: /If Argentina decides they want the Falklands Britain will not be able to stop them

If Argentina decides they want the Falklands it is welcome to them.

What makes us think that a tiny island half a world away is "ours", and even if it once was, is still worth defending in the modern world? It wasn't worth it last time, either: 255 men died in the fighting, and an equal number of veterans have committed suicide in the years since, and I've yet to hear anybody explain coherently why that sheep-infested spit of land was worth the lives of 500 soldiers when it would have been cheaper to relocate the residents to some equally foul and god-forsaken island north of Scotland.

TFA refers to the UK being "in a weak position to defend its interests around the globe". This is the 21st century. The UK doesn't have, and shouldn't have, military interests around the globe that need defending.

In fact, I'm having a hard time imagining circumstances in which more than a tiny fraction of our current defense spending is worthwhile. Other than adventurism in the skies over Arab countries, what exactly are we defending against? It seems our military still have a mind set of defending a non-existent Empire while preparing for a land war in Europe. Like most military spending, it's money just pissed away.

TheShavingofOccam123		2011-09-27 01:34:01 PM

Devin172: The way NATO budgets are going it's turning into an alliance of one power plus a number of other powers that may or may not form a B team or provide moral support (see recent decision by Dutch to decommission all of their tanks). National defense policies are becoming increasingly reliant on the idea that the U.S. will assist. Would be nice if we were paid for the service we provide, or alternatively, determine the level of support we provide based on the average contribution of the other members.

I suggest we require all of our allies institute mandatory military service. Then we should institute the draft with no exceptions for Senator's sons and daughters or for the children of corporate officers.

We'll see how many necessary wars suddenly become optional. Let BP follow the Zetas model and just hire mercenaries to protect its corporate resources.

El Ojo		2011-09-27 01:34:24 PM

emersonbiggins: They just don't want to lose the valuable .fk domain

They should spin them off as an independent country within the commonwealth. That way, if the Argentines attack them, they're no longer "liberating" the Falklands from their colonial oppressors, but usurping the sovereignty of an independent nation. The world tends to look down upon the latter.

Old enough to know better		2011-09-27 01:35:55 PM

Wish I still had the reference handy, but going by several books I read on the subject, The Argentinian air force was using the wrong type of bomb, so a lot of successful hits actually failed to detonate. The Brits got lucky and could have been hurt a lot more than they were.

cgraves67		2011-09-27 01:36:55 PM

While the UK's military may be larger than that of Argentina, it's also spread out across the globe and committed to various missions that it would be difficult to extract it from in a hurry. The UK has a lot of forces in Afghanistan and air power in Libya at the moment.

Also the Argentinians might have the material support of China in exchange for a nice bit of the oil that's been recently explored in the Islands.

It's definitely a temptation for Argentina. The Brits are spread thin and getting thinner. The Islands' resources are rich and on the verge of development. Plus, they may get the world's second biggest super power to help.

dittybopper		2011-09-27 01:37:57 PM

TheShavingofOccam123: I suggest we require all of our allies institute mandatory military service. Then we should institute the draft with no exceptions for Senator's sons and daughters or for the children of corporate officers.

We'll see how many necessary wars suddenly become optional. Let BP follow the Zetas model and just hire mercenaries to protect its corporate resources.

Guess what? They'll still happen. They might even happen a bit more, because being a "combat veteran", especially a well-connected one, can open a lot of doors, and the definition can be stretched a tad to just being in theater.

kbronsito		2011-09-27 01:40:03 PM

Argentina is not going to attack the Falklands again. They only did that under a military dictatorship to take attention away from the fact that a military dictatorship was still running the country even after they had put down the "communist threat".

I guess someone had to make something up to scare some more defense spending out of the UK government... but couldn't someone had made up something that wasn't half a stupid as an imaginary China-Argentine military alliance to attack the Falklands. I thought that kind of stupidity would only fly in America... I am dissapoint England!

ecmoRandomNumbers		2011-09-27 01:40:17 PM

theflatline: Voiceofreason01: The Brits are damned lucky they held on to the Falklands in the 80's and they don't have the naval airpower anymore that they did then.

/If Argentina decides they want the Falklands Britain will not be able to stop them

Really, the war was stopped because the rest of the free world knew that after that exojet missile was fired, that brits would roll up and kick the shiat out of Argentina.

The Argentine army would be no match for the Brits. I take it you have never lived in South America.

The Brits would eat their lunch.

And Chile would help them. Again.

JustGetItRight		2011-09-27 01:40:22 PM

HeadLikeOrange: Voiceofreason01: The Brits are damned lucky they held on to the Falklands in the 80's and they don't have the naval airpower anymore that they did then.

/If Argentina decides they want the Falklands Britain will not be able to stop them

I think you'll find that the UK military is about 4x stronger than the Argentinian military by most raw counts (troops, aircraft, ships, vehicles) but the UK's defense spending is about 20x greater, indicating that these resources are of a much higher quality.

The difference between today and 1982 is that you can't get them to the islands. As the 1982 war demonstrated, the Falklands are well within range of mainland based air power and you don't have any carriers.

Your entire navy has 6 destroyers capable of area air defense and three of those are batch 3 Type 42s - a slightly improved version of the same type that saw action in 1982. Even if you sent every single one of them south, the Argentine air force would wipe the RN off the sea in under a week.

hulkster		2011-09-27 01:43:28 PM

I visited the Falkland Islands a few years ago - Union Jack was flying everywhere.

www.komar.org

jvl		2011-09-27 01:44:44 PM

H31N0US: jvl: redmid17: How is China going to support Argentina? IIRC China doesn't even have a capable blue water navy yet.

Maybe they could tow their carrier out there and fly some choppers off it.

I think their carrier is landlocked.

The one they bought from Russia is not. They recently had "Sea Trials" with it. And by "Sea Trials" they mean they towed it out in a fog and took pictures of it which tried and failed to hide the fact that it was being towed.

dittybopper		2011-09-27 01:44:52 PM

Nightsweat		2011-09-27 01:47:19 PM

Falklands? Falklands!

That makes Margaret Thatcher Little Bo Peep

Kar98		2011-09-27 01:48:16 PM

It still puzzles me how Britain had the nerve to wail "but the Germans want to conquer the wooooorld! and they're not a democracy!" back in WW1 and 2, when the British Empire of that time spanned the world and their heads of state arrive at that position by being squirted out of just the right vagina.

amindtat		2011-09-27 01:49:06 PM

I misread that headline as "Farkland Islands."

/won't Argentina think of the squirrels?

eas81		2011-09-27 01:50:52 PM

redmid17: How is China going to support Argentina? IIRC China doesn't even have a capable blue water navy yet.

you might want to look at this. (new window)

nventory
Type Nr.
Planned/
Building Nr.
Active Nr. in
Reserve
Submarines
Nuclear Ballistic Missile Submarines 2 5
Nuclear Attack Submarines 4-6 5 2
Conventional Ballistic Missile Submarines 0 1
Conventional Attack Submarines 1 47
Total Submarines 7-9 58 2
Principal Surface Combatants
Aircraft Carriers 1 0
Destroyers 2 26
Frigates 3 51
Total Principal Surface Combatants 6 77
Coastal Warfare Vessels
Missile Boats 132 110-120
Torpedo Boats 20 150
Gun Boats 160 100
Submarine Chasers 75 20
Total Coastal Warfare Vessels ~387 ~380-390
Amphibious Warfare Vessels
Landing Platforms 1 1
Landing Ships 83
Landing Craft 370-480
Total Amphibious Warfare Vessels 1 ~454-564
Mine Warfare Vessels
Mine Warfare Ships 27 42
Mine Warfare Drones 4 26
Total Mine Warfare Vessels 31 68
Total Auxiliary/Support Vessels ~153
Total All Vessels 12+ ~1160-1270 450+
Total Combat Vessels 12+ ~633 420+

JustGetItRight		2011-09-27 01:50:57 PM

Old enough to know better: Wish I still had the reference handy, but going by several books I read on the subject, The Argentinian air force was using the wrong type of bomb, so a lot of successful hits actually failed to detonate. The Brits got lucky and could have been hurt a lot more than they were.

Not quite. The Argentine aircraft were using standard GP bombs, which work just fine. To avoid surface to air missiles and Sea Harriers, they attacked at literally wavetop height. The bombs were fused to only arm after falling a certain distance - so they didn't detonate before the attacking aircraft had time to clear area and not get caught in the blast.

Since they were delivered below the minimum height, many didn't arm and thus didn't detonate. The impact on the final outcome was minimal. Had the bombs exploded, the ships would have been sunk but ships hit by 1,000 pound bombs were often disabled and taken out of action anyhow. They all suffered significant impact damage and you can't exactly sail around a combat zone carrying an enemy bomb in your hull.

The Argy pilots weren't dumb. If they attacked at higher altitudes, more ships might have been sunk but many more planes would have been lost.
They displayed great courage in pressing their attacks and a ship out of action from an undetonated bomb is mission accomplished, even if it doesn't make world wide headlines.

JustGetItRight		2011-09-27 01:54:33 PM

dittybopper: Hull age isn't important, it's the sensors/weapons/etc., in other words, all the bolt-on stuff that you can change easily.

Of course you're right, but the Type 42s are still carrying Sea Darts, just like 1982.

This text is now purple		2011-09-27 01:56:09 PM

JustGetItRight: I think you'll find that the UK military is about 4x stronger than the Argentinian military by most raw counts (troops, aircraft, ships, vehicles) but the UK's defense spending is about 20x greater, indicating that these resources are of a much higher quality.

The difference between today and 1982 is that you can't get them to the islands. As the 1982 war demonstrated, the Falklands are well within range of mainland based air power and you don't have any carriers.

So don't play defense. Play tit-for-tat.

You attack the Falklands, we attack Buenos Aires.

"Gee, that's a capital you've got there. Be a shame if something were to happen to it."

Or just drop a lot of hoof-and-mouth or Creutzfeldt-Jakob infected cattle onto the pampas.

This text is now purple		2011-09-27 01:57:43 PM

Kar98: It still puzzles me how Britain had the nerve to wail "but the Germans want to conquer the wooooorld! and they're not a democracy!" back in WW1 and 2, when the British Empire of that time spanned the world and their heads of state arrive at that position by being squirted out of just the right vagina.

Handy reference (new window)

DVD		2011-09-27 01:57:45 PM

I know it doesn't matter to the 'tear down the man' crowd, but if a vote were held on the Falklands on whether they wanted to stay British or become Argentine, which way would the vote go?

phead		2011-09-27 01:59:00 PM

Surface fleets, *giggle*

upload.wikimedia.org

lehmac		2011-09-27 01:59:01 PM

Read that as the UK was banning Fark.
Thought it said farkland.

Cause Im a fark face from farkistan!

jvl		2011-09-27 02:02:13 PM

JustGetItRight: The difference between today and 1982 is that you can't get them to the islands. As the 1982 war demonstrated, the Falklands are well within range of mainland based air power and you don't have any carriers.

Your entire navy has 6 destroyers capable of area air defense and three of those are batch 3 Type 42s - a slightly improved version of the same type that saw action in 1982. Even if you sent every single one of them south, the Argentine air force would wipe the RN off the sea in under a week.

The Falklands and Argentina are both within reach from Ascension Island. Since the UK is not stupid, the first thing it would do is obtain air superiority. As demonstrated last time Argentina messed with them, the US will provide anything the UK is lacking.

UK submarines are Nuclear. Between air and subs, say goodbye to Argentina's entire Navy, all resupply and reinforcement of the Falklands, and all military bases in northern Argentina. If the UK gets pissed, say goodbye to electricity and running water in Argentina.

Or, since the Falklands are UK territory, they could just invoke NATO self defense and then Argentina can say hello to a Nimitz-class carrier group.

Last time the UK did this, Argentina had numerical superiority in aircraft. How'd that work out?

DECMATH		2011-09-27 02:02:44 PM

Hang on. Is Argentina still ruled by a xenophobic dictator? No?
Here's what you do: Instead of spending X additional pounds on the RN every year in perpetuity, just spend it once and negotiate a civilized turnover of the Malvinas in which no one dies. Preferably a win-win deal which involves them sending X additional pounds from oil revenue to the Exchecquer every year in perpetuity.

Lagaidh		2011-09-27 02:04:09 PM

Current and Former Defense System Beneficiaries and Employees: "OOOGA BOOGA"
Society: "..."
Current and Former Defense System Beneficiaries and Employees: "Can we have more money?"

Actually scratch that. "Society" would never give a blank statement of disdain as a counter to "OOOGA BOOGA".

DVD		2011-09-27 02:07:18 PM

DECMATH: Hang on. Is Argentina still ruled by a xenophobic dictator? No?
Here's what you do: Instead of spending X additional pounds on the RN every year in perpetuity, just spend it once and negotiate a civilized turnover of the Malvinas in which no one dies. Preferably a win-win deal which involves them sending X additional pounds from oil revenue to the Exchecquer every year in perpetuity.

And how do the citizens of the Malvinas feel about this arrangement?

JammerJim		2011-09-27 02:07:28 PM

DVD: I know it doesn't matter to the 'tear down the man' crowd, but if a vote were held on the Falklands on whether they wanted to stay British or become Argentine, which way would the vote go?

IIRC, there has been more than one vote, and they all went the same way: stay under the UK. But hey, let's not worry about what the people living there want so long as the Argies get to have a hard-on.

gbcinques		2011-09-27 02:08:46 PM

UK Subs (no, not the band)
www.ghetto-rock.com

ahem...
UK Subs will once again have to cruise down to to the South Atlantic.
In 1982, they stopped at sinking one ship (Belgrano). They could have taken out their entire fleet but lives lost would have been incredibly high for Argentina (323 dead out of 770 crew on the Belgrano).

Today, modern spy satellites would locate the surface fleet, subs punch in the coords and fire. Game Over.

ronin7		2011-09-27 02:14:27 PM

Voiceofreason01: The Brits are damned lucky they held on to the Falklands in the 80's and they don't have the naval airpower anymore that they did then.

/If Argentina decides they want the Falklands Britain will not be able to stop them

I wouldn't under estimate the Brits.

FTGodWin		2011-09-27 02:16:45 PM

redmid17: How is China going to support Argentina? IIRC China doesn't even have a capable blue water navy yet.

Blue water navy is an offensive tool. Defensive measures are handled simply by deploying their anti-ship missiles. Lots and lots of missiles.

Look at Taiwan, for instance. The US Navy will be of no help defending the place if China decides to uproot Western influences.

ethics-gradient		2011-09-27 02:16:58 PM

DECMATH: Hang on. Is Argentina still ruled by a xenophobic dictator? No?
Here's what you do: Instead of spending X additional pounds on the RN every year in perpetuity, just spend it once and negotiate a civilized turnover of the Malvinas in which no one dies. Preferably a win-win deal which involves them sending X additional pounds from oil revenue to the Exchecquer every year in perpetuity.

That involves giving the islands back against the wishes of the inhabitants. Democracy, how the fark does it work?

spottymax		2011-09-27 02:17:54 PM

fsbilly: I bet you're fun to play Risk with.

collider.com

"The Falklands are weak, they're feeble!"

TommyDeuce		2011-09-27 02:18:22 PM

JustGetItRight: HeadLikeOrange: Voiceofreason01: The Brits are damned lucky they held on to the Falklands in the 80's and they don't have the naval airpower anymore that they did then.

/If Argentina decides they want the Falklands Britain will not be able to stop them

I think you'll find that the UK military is about 4x stronger than the Argentinian military by most raw counts (troops, aircraft, ships, vehicles) but the UK's defense spending is about 20x greater, indicating that these resources are of a much higher quality.

The difference between today and 1982 is that you can't get them to the islands. As the 1982 war demonstrated, the Falklands are well within range of mainland based air power and you don't have any carriers.

Your entire navy has 6 destroyers capable of area air defense and three of those are batch 3 Type 42s - a slightly improved version of the same type that saw action in 1982. Even if you sent every single one of them south, the Argentine air force would wipe the RN off the sea in under a week.

Forgetting for a moment that any one of the UK's 4 Valiant class SSBNs could incinerate the 8 most important bases/cities in Argentina while still holding about 40 more warheads to dissuade China from getting involved, the 7 currently active SSNs ( I'd assume Astute would be readied for action quickly in any attack on the Falklands) could very easily ruin the Argentine Navy (or at least any of it that left port). Since all 7 can (and do) carry Tomahawk missiles, Argentina would need to maintain air defense at all important locations 24/7. The Brits don't really have to defeat an attack force - just make the decision to declare war on them too painful for Argentina to consider.

Smeggy Smurf		2011-09-27 02:21:41 PM

eas81: redmid17: How is China going to support Argentina? IIRC China doesn't even have a capable blue water navy yet.

you might want to look at this. (new window)

*List of targets*

Not one of them could detect a modern fast attack sub. We can barely do it and we're the best. The Chicoms are so noisy our subs would have to kill them at long range to avoid harming the sonarmen's ears.

ronin7		2011-09-27 02:22:18 PM

cgraves67: While the UK's military may be larger than that of Argentina, it's also spread out across the globe and committed to various missions that it would be difficult to extract it from in a hurry. The UK has a lot of forces in Afghanistan and air power in Libya at the moment.

Also the Argentinians might have the material support of China in exchange for a nice bit of the oil that's been recently explored in the Islands.

It's definitely a temptation for Argentina. The Brits are spread thin and getting thinner. The Islands' resources are rich and on the verge of development. Plus, they may get the world's second biggest super power to help.

I can not imagine a scenario where the Chinese put military assets into the Americas.

chimp_ninja		2011-09-27 02:22:40 PM

jvl: Or, since the Falklands are UK territory, they could just invoke NATO self defense and then Argentina can say hello to a Nimitz-class carrier group.

Exactly. I can't imagine a country thinking they can just roll into territory under the UK defense umbrella in 2011 and expect the rest of the world to just watch. The US will be more than happy to sell the UK all sorts of modern hardware, and all they'd have to do to end the conflict is ominously park a supercarrier group somewhere in the south Atlantic.

"Don't mind us. Just flying some training exercises over international waters. Nothing to see here."

dittybopper		2011-09-27 02:24:57 PM

JustGetItRight: dittybopper: Hull age isn't important, it's the sensors/weapons/etc., in other words, all the bolt-on stuff that you can change easily.

Of course you're right, but the Type 42s are still carrying Sea Darts, just like 1982.

Meh. I've still got Lawn Darts from back then.

Edward Rooney Dean of Students		2011-09-27 02:25:38 PM

Don't make me come back...

dittybopper		2011-09-27 02:27:44 PM

chimp_ninja: jvl: Or, since the Falklands are UK territory, they could just invoke NATO self defense and then Argentina can say hello to a Nimitz-class carrier group.

Exactly. I can't imagine a country thinking they can just roll into territory under the UK defense umbrella in 2011 and expect the rest of the world to just watch. The US will be more than happy to sell the UK all sorts of modern hardware, and all they'd have to do to end the conflict is ominously park a supercarrier group somewhere in the south Atlantic.

"Don't mind us. Just flying some training exercises over international waters. Nothing to see here."

Hey, maybe we could rope them into another sweet Lend-Lease deal, like the one they just finished paying off a few years ago.

jvl		2011-09-27 02:30:12 PM

DECMATH: Hang on. Is Argentina still ruled by a xenophobic dictator? No?
Here's what you do: Instead of spending X additional pounds on the RN every year in perpetuity, just spend it once and negotiate a civilized turnover of the Malvinas in which no one dies. Preferably a win-win deal which involves them sending X additional pounds from oil revenue to the Exchecquer every year in perpetuity.

The UK should give them islands which Argentina has never previously controlled, which contain only UK citizens from Britain, why?

Should the US give Hawaii back to Japan too?

Kar98		2011-09-27 02:33:17 PM

jvl: Should the US give Hawaii back to Japan too?

Hawaii never belonged to Japan, it was its very own independent kingdom in the middle of the Pacific Ocean.

cgraves67		2011-09-27 02:33:34 PM

ronin7: cgraves67: While the UK's military may be larger than that of Argentina, it's also spread out across the globe and committed to various missions that it would be difficult to extract it from in a hurry. The UK has a lot of forces in Afghanistan and air power in Libya at the moment.

Also the Argentinians might have the material support of China in exchange for a nice bit of the oil that's been recently explored in the Islands.

It's definitely a temptation for Argentina. The Brits are spread thin and getting thinner. The Islands' resources are rich and on the verge of development. Plus, they may get the world's second biggest super power to help.

I can not imagine a scenario where the Chinese put military assets into the Americas.

What about China giving them military hardware and expertise for next to nothing in exhcange for oil?

ethics-gradient		2011-09-27 02:33:52 PM

Edward Rooney Dean of Students:
[pic of harrier]
Don't make me come back...

They won't. Our government has sold them all to the US Marines who are using them for spare parts.
You know how we were talking about budget cuts?

Kar98		2011-09-27 02:34:22 PM

Incidentally, there _is_ an Hawaiian independence movement:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaiian_sovereignty_movement

Edward Rooney Dean of Students		2011-09-27 02:34:52 PM

ethics-gradient: They won't. Our government has sold them all to the US Marines who are using them for spare parts.
You know how we were talking about budget cuts?

I'm aware. 'Twas a jest.

ronin7		2011-09-27 02:36:05 PM

chimp_ninja: jvl: Or, since the Falklands are UK territory, they could just invoke NATO self defense and then Argentina can say hello to a Nimitz-class carrier group.

Exactly. I can't imagine a country thinking they can just roll into territory under the UK defense umbrella in 2011 and expect the rest of the world to just watch. The US will be more than happy to sell the UK all sorts of modern hardware, and all they'd have to do to end the conflict is ominously park a supercarrier group somewhere in the south Atlantic.

"Don't mind us. Just flying some training exercises over international waters. Nothing to see here."

Maybe we could help solve some of our budget problems by 'renting' out some carriers and support ships to our British friends.

geo9270		2011-09-27 02:38:43 PM

DVD: DECMATH: Hang on. Is Argentina still ruled by a xenophobic dictator? No?
Here's what you do: Instead of spending X additional pounds on the RN every year in perpetuity, just spend it once and negotiate a civilized turnover of the Malvinas in which no one dies. Preferably a win-win deal which involves them sending X additional pounds from oil revenue to the Exchecquer every year in perpetuity.

And how do the citizens of the ~~Malvinas~~ feel about this arrangement?

Falklands, the people who live there identify themselves as subjects of the British Crown.

redmid17		2011-09-27 02:39:49 PM

fsbilly: BarbadoSlim: Give it up losers, crumbling empire is crumbled.

So the English speaking inhabitants of the islands should just pack it up and hand em over to the Argentinians who never had valid claim to the islands in the first place. By your logic the US should give up Alaska to Russia or better yet Canada since, well, they're closer.

The Falklands have been British territory since there have been people on them. This isn't like other places where natives were displaced or another colonial power was deposed. Brits settled the god-forsaken place and figured out what to do with it and make it worth inhabiting. Now the shiathead Nazi coddlers want to walk in and reap the rewards.

I bet you're fun to play Risk with.

We paid for Seward's Folly. Falkland's were never really settled properly.

eas81: redmid17: How is China going to support Argentina? IIRC China doesn't even have a capable blue water navy yet.

you might want to look at this. (new window)

Those are almost entirely coastal craft. Hell the last sentence of the intro paragraph in your link says: "As part of its overall program of naval modernization, the PLAN has a plan of developing a blue-water navy."

That means they don't have a blue water navy yet. Their carrier was towed around about a month ago.