FlashHarry: or me...

Oh, indeed. Was at an airshow years ago and one of those bad boys did a flyover. I required a change of pants.

dittybopper: I can't imagine Argentina trying that again. It would be stupid.

It was stupid the first time they tried it. They did it anyway.

jvl: 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?

Start with the obvious. If you introduce the US into the equation then of course all bets are off, but your statement "the US will provide anything the UK is lacking" wasn't even true in 1982. It should have been, but it wasn't. Today, the UK would need combat units and even Ronnie wasn't willing to take that step.

With that out of the way, let's look at the statement "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".

Say WHAT? Looked at a map lately? Ascension is over 4,000 miles from the Falklands. It took 12 tankers to support a couple of Vulcans on nuisance raids in 1982. Fighter escort was from carrier based Sea Harriers. The RAF doesn't have a plane with near the range of the Vulcan today and no Sea Harriers to keep enemy fighters away if they did. Hell, the US couldn't establish air superiority over the Falklands from Ascension.

"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."

Yep, all 6 of them. You had a lot more in 1982 and couldn't completely stop supply runs to the islands. They'd be very effective, but wouldn't totally stop supply runs. As far as saying goodbye to electricity and running water, unless you're gonna nuke them that's pure fantasy. You've bought about 120 tomahawks. That's the only conventional weapon in the UK arsenal capable of hitting mainland targets and that's not enough to completely turn off the water and electricity in Buenos Aires alone, much less the entire country.

Finally "Last time the UK did this, Argentina had numerical superiority in aircraft. How'd that work out?" Without the Sea Harrier, it would have worked out perfectly. As it turned out, the Argentine air force and naval aviation had a pretty good war. Seven or eight ships sunk and about that many more put out of action while operating against superior enemy fighters ain't a bad month's work.

Don't misunderstand. I'm a big fan of the skill and professionalism of the RAF, Royal Navy, and the British Army. They're fine, fine forces but they're not even a shadow of where they were in 1982. If that situation happens again, the UK simply can't do it alone. Invoking the NATO and hoping those commitments would be honored buy the US would be their only hope.

patrick767: Why the fark do the Brits want those islands so badly anyway?

How would we react if Russia decided to invade some remote island off Alaska?

mainsail: Of course, the folks living on the Falklands don't want to be Argentinian

Can you blame them?

/Not trying to attack the people, but the leftists in charge have really run the country into the ground.

slc11082: Let's hope. The limeys don't have a right to that territory.

This is the same idiotic line of thinking that says that Israel does not have a right to East Jerusalem or that the U.S. does not have a right to Southern California. There was a war, one side lost. Get over it!

Kar98: 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.

And the Falklands never belonged to Argentina. See how this works?

The Malvinas islands are in Argentinian territorial waters. Yeah.... the argument could be made that Argentina lost the land in a war.... But who lost it?

The dictator who started the war was put in place by the US government in 1975 to deal with left-wing rebels.... an imagined threat to US national interests. However, this US-supported dictator ended up kidnapping and murdering 30,000 Argentinians over about a 7 year period (Called the "Dirty War."). To try to sway public opinion back in his favor he began a war with GB over the Malvinas Islands.... an issue Argentina and GB had been negotiating since the 1840s.

*Waves the US flag*

People in the US wonder why S. Americans hate us? The US has interfered in the national affairs of nearly every S. American country since the Mexican-American War.

redmid17: Falkland's were never really settled properly.

Huh? Is there an unspoken etiquette or is that just, like, your opinion, man. Show me the primer.

My point is that, as long as anyone can tell, the Brits have inhabited those islands and built any infrastructure on them and developed any sort of economy there is. Argentina has no claim, other than being closest country to the islands. It's bullshiat.

Kar98: 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.

Correct me if I am wrong, but the falkland islands never belonged to argentina either.

The Evil Home Brewer: The Malvinas islands are in Argentinian territorial waters. Yeah.... the argument could be made that Argentina lost the land in a war.... But who lost it?

The dictator who started the war was put in place by the US government in 1975 to deal with left-wing rebels.... an imagined threat to US national interests. However, this US-supported dictator ended up kidnapping and murdering 30,000 Argentinians over about a 7 year period (Called the "Dirty War."). To try to sway public opinion back in his favor he began a war with GB over the Malvinas Islands.... an issue Argentina and GB had been negotiating since the 1840s.

*Waves the US flag*

People in the US wonder why S. Americans hate us? The US has interfered in the national affairs of nearly every S. American country since the Mexican-American War.

BS.

Please please bring this back

/need more parts
//hot

The Evil Home Brewer: The Malvinas islands are in Argentinian territorial waters

No, they aren't. Buy a map.

Somehow I see a FPS Console game coming out on this subject in the next 5 years.

/If they can have one about North Korea taking over the United States, why not?

JustGetItRight: jvl:

"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."

Yep, all 6 of them. You had a lot more in 1982 and couldn't completely stop supply runs to the islands. They'd be very effective, but wouldn't totally stop supply runs. As far as saying goodbye to electricity and running water, unless you're gonna nuke them that's pure fantasy. You've bought about 120 tomahawks. That's the only conventional weapon in the UK arsenal capable of hitting mainland targets and that's not enough to completely turn off the water and electricity in Buenos Aires alone, much less the entire country.



So let's not talk about water and electricity - let's talk about what this is really about - oil. A quick check of Wikipedia indicates 8 large oil refineries in Argentina - budget 5 Tomahawks to each one (mix of TLAM C and TLAM D ideally, bomblets should be fun bouncing around in a refinery) and you'd still have 80 to spare in inventory for say the Ministry of Defense building, President's home, Headquarters of National TV, Telephone Exchanges, any major Web hubs. Maybe a half a dozen to hit pumping stations on each of their major oil and gas pipelines. Would the economic damage that Argentina would suffer from just one wave of 50-60 Tomahawks be worth it for the prize of the Falklands? What good are those oil fields if you have nowhere to process the oil? you can rebuild, but the Brits can blow them up faster then Argentina can build them.

The Evil Home Brewer: The Malvinas islands are in Argentinian territorial waters. Yeah.... the argument could be made that Argentina lost the land in a war.... But who lost it?

The dictator who started the war was put in place by the US government in 1975 to deal with left-wing rebels.... an imagined threat to US national interests. However, this US-supported dictator ended up kidnapping and murdering 30,000 Argentinians over about a 7 year period (Called the "Dirty War."). To try to sway public opinion back in his favor he began a war with GB over the Malvinas Islands.... an issue Argentina and GB had been negotiating since the 1840s.

*Waves the US flag*

People in the US wonder why S. Americans hate us? The US has interfered in the national affairs of nearly every S. American country since the Mexican-American War.

A point missed by virtually everyone on this thread.


I'm laughing at this retarded dick-measuring thread. Argentina was not "stupid enought to try it the first time". It was a political gamble by a military dictatorship that was extremely unpopular (and rightfully so). They thought the UK would not defend the islands and the war would give them support (look at George W's ratings after 9/11). The country was more scared of their own government than they were of the UK soldiers.

Furthermore, Agentina's military was compulsory, and none of the soldiers wanted to really be there fighting for some POS islands. The UK had a volunteer, professional army. If you know about the battles once the UK landed on the beach you would know that most Argentinians surrendered without firing a shot.

True, there has always been pride associated with the islands and Argentina has always claimed it, but never really in a serious way, until the junta government. And look at how that turned out- there were democratic elections in 1984. So basically Argentinians can say the best political move for them in the last 30 years was going to war against the UK.


IF Argentina wanted the islands, I agree there is nothing the UK could do to really stop them. But they won't do it so the point is a stupid one to begin with. This is just flag-waving by a bunch of fear-mongering military types. Argentina would rather have economic ties with the UK and the rest of the NATO contries than bad blood over a few penguins and some sheep-farkers who hate them anyway.

redmid17: fsbilly: redmid17: Falkland's were never really settled properly.

Huh? Is there an unspoken etiquette or is that just, like, your opinion, man. Show me the primer.

My point is that, as long as anyone can tell, the Brits have inhabited those islands and built any infrastructure on them and developed any sort of economy there is. Argentina has no claim, other than being closest country to the islands. It's bullshiat.

Well it's kind of a gray area and that wording was a poor choice in my opinion. The land had been claimed and abandoned by Britain, Spain, and Argentina. Hell the US navy destroyed a settlement there at one point. My overarching view was that it had never been undisputed territory like Alaska had been. Alaska was claimed and "settled" by Russia and sold to the US (thanks Seward!). There was no disagreement ever that Alaska belonged to either Russia or the US.

Ok, I get that. Yeah, it's a stretch, but I understand.

uh no. after al lthe blood that was spilt for that island the UK would deffend it at all costs.

hell they might even bring our zombie thatcher.

dittybopper: redmid17: mike0023: patrick767: Why the fark do the Brits want those islands so badly anyway?

How would we react if Russia decided to invade some remote island off Alaska?

You saw what we did when they invaded Colorado!

[i55.tinypic.com image 639x253]

They lost, Ernesto.

No, seriously, they did: Within about 6 or 7 months of the beginning of the movie, all the Wolverines are dead except Danny and Erica, and they only survive by running away. For most of the movie they are either hiding or going up against 2nd or 3rd rate occupation troops. When the Soviets bring in the professionals to hunt them down, they only last about a month or so.

If it wasn't for the image of the American Flag flying over Partisan Rock during the credits, the movie would have a much darker and more ambiguous tone overall. I suspect that was tacked on by the studio against Milius's wish.

so the important question is.... is steel dawn supposed to be a sequal to red dawn or not?

madgonad: 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

Sure they can. Britain is a nuclear power and can always resort to turning Buenes Aires into a smoking crater. The Falkland Islands are part of UK sovereign land. They also have the option of activating NATO treaties and having the US send a few carriers down south.

A few carriers? All it would take is one, with a couple destroyers on hand for some live fire training.

H31N0US: Same reason China wants the Spratleys. Dead dinosaurs plants.

Sad but true leevis.... One carrier would be sufficient.

The Argentinians have no real army. And yet, the Malinvas are a source of national pride for them. It is true that most of the soldiers in the Argentinian army surrendered when the Brits invaded.... yet others did not. Their graves still lie on the Malinvas.... a land that is off limits to Argentinians. Imagine what it would be like to have family buried only a few miles offshore and not be able to visit the graves nor bring the bodies home.

Now that the Brits have found oil (and some suggest diamonds) the Malinvas will never be willingly returned to the Argentinians. Although I am no fan of China I applaud their role, and the role of the G77 countries, in trying to force the Brits back to the negotiating table over the Malvinas/Falklands affair.

It's all we're skilled in
We will be shipbuilding...

With all the will in the world
Diving for dear life
When we could be diving for pearls.

dittybopper: redmid17: mike0023: patrick767: Why the fark do the Brits want those islands so badly anyway?

How would we react if Russia decided to invade some remote island off Alaska?

You saw what we did when they invaded Colorado!

[i55.tinypic.com image 639x253]

They lost, Ernesto.

No, seriously, they did: Within about 6 or 7 months of the beginning of the movie, all the Wolverines are dead except Danny and Erica, and they only survive by running away. For most of the movie they are either hiding or going up against 2nd or 3rd rate occupation troops. When the Soviets bring in the professionals to hunt them down, they only last about a month or so.

If it wasn't for the image of the American Flag flying over Partisan Rock during the credits, the movie would have a much darker and more ambiguous tone overall. I suspect that was tacked on by the studio against Milius's wish.

That the Soviets had to bring in professional troops who should have been at the front lines fighting other professional soldiers to hunt down several HS kids and needed a month to do it shows they won. They conducted a perfect guerilla exercise harrassing the rear guard keeping them always on the alert and causing important resources to be taken diverted from the real battle.

dittybopper: And I come to this place often, when no one else does.

Note the ambiguity there: The war ended. Not "we won".

I don't see the ambiguity. Had the Soviets won, I seriously doubt they would permit a monument to the guerilla fighters who opposed their occupation, much less allowed former members of that guerilla unit to stop on by whenever they wish.

Wait, are you people actually arguing that it was even remotely possible for the Soviet Union (or anybody) to have invaded the United States (or to do so in the future)? It's really hard to invade a country of 300 million people, many of which have firearms, not even considering our overspending on our armynavyairforcemarines. (The US spends about as much on our military as the other 190+ countries on the planet do-combined.) Red Dawn was always cold war propoganda and never even mildly realistic.

Kar98: Incidentally, there _is_ an Hawaiian independence movement:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaiian_sovereignty_movement

I was looking in that link, but didn't see any polls asking the current inhabitants of Hawaii about this. The last info I saw had about 4% support for Hawaiian independence. 4% is quite a number of people, but I don't think it even represents a majority of native Hawaiians (ie not Asian, White, etc).

The Evil Home Brewer: Sad but true leevis.... One carrier would be sufficient.

The Argentinians have no real army. And yet, the Malinvas are a source of national pride for them. It is true that most of the soldiers in the Argentinian army surrendered when the Brits invaded.... yet others did not. Their graves still lie on the Malinvas.... a land that is off limits to Argentinians. Imagine what it would be like to have family buried only a few miles offshore and not be able to visit the graves nor bring the bodies home.

Now that the Brits have found oil (and some suggest diamonds) the Malinvas will never be willingly returned to the Argentinians. Although I am no fan of China I applaud their role, and the role of the G77 countries, in trying to force the Brits back to the negotiating table over the Malvinas/Falklands affair.


'A few miles' = 300.

'Back' to the Argentines. Hmm. When were they Argentinian exactly?

Any noise on this from Argentina is directly linked to elections.

The Argentinian Govt of the ealy 80's was a fascist junta. I have some sympathy for the conscripts that were herded onto the islands, but none for their officer class.

The Evil Home Brewer: Sad but true leevis.... One carrier would be sufficient.

The Argentinians have no real army. And yet, the Malinvas are a source of national pride for them. It is true that most of the soldiers in the Argentinian army surrendered when the Brits invaded.... yet others did not. Their graves still lie on the Malinvas.... a land that is off limits to Argentinians. Imagine what it would be like to have family buried only a few miles offshore and not be able to visit the graves nor bring the bodies home.

Now that the Brits have found oil (and some suggest diamonds) the Malinvas will never be willingly returned to the Argentinians. Although I am no fan of China I applaud their role, and the role of the G77 countries, in trying to force the Brits back to the negotiating table over the Malvinas/Falklands affair.

Horsesh*t. The Falklands were British before Argentina existed. It is populated solely by subjects of the British Crown. They're British and want to remain so, full stop. No negotiations. Should Japan have claim over Hawaii?
Let Argentina try again and watch the Paras bayonet their conscripts in their foxholes again.

Kar98: 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.

Yeah, right up until the Germans bombed it.

Oh please. A battalion of regular British troops could stop any rag-tag invasion force the Argentines could put together.

And how would they supply any invasion force, with nuclear attack subs sinking their ships and lobbing cruise missiles into their airfields?

How would their prehistoric Skyhawks fare against Eurofighter Typhoons, I wonder?

Scare-mongering by Cold War era military blowhards who see their fiefdoms rightly diminished.

The Evil Home Brewer: The Argentinians have no real army. And yet, the Malinvas are a source of national pride for them. It is true that most of the soldiers in the Argentinian army surrendered when the Brits invaded.... yet others did not. Their graves still lie on the Malinvas.... a land that is off limits to Argentinians. Imagine what it would be like to have family buried only a few miles offshore and not be able to visit the graves nor bring the bodies home.

Now that the Brits have found oil (and some suggest diamonds) the Malinvas will never be willingly returned to the Argentinians. Although I am no fan of China I applaud their role, and the role of the G77 countries, in trying to force the Brits back to the negotiating table over the Malvinas/Falklands affair.


You seem to have a terrible grasp at this issue. Why is it a good thing to "force" the UK back to the negotiating table for land that Argentina never had in the first place, populated by people that don't want to be part of Argentina.

nastro: It's all we're skilled in
We will be shipbuilding...

With all the will in the world
Diving for dear life
When we could be diving for pearls.

Within weeks they'll be re-opening the shipyards
And notifying the next of kin
Once again

TommyDeuce: 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.

That's retarded.

The Evil Home Brewer: The Malvinas islands are in Argentinian territorial waters. Yeah.... the argument could be made that Argentina lost the land in a war.... But who lost it?

The dictator who started the war was put in place by the US government in 1975 to deal with left-wing rebels.... an imagined threat to US national interests. However, this US-supported dictator ended up kidnapping and murdering 30,000 Argentinians over about a 7 year period (Called the "Dirty War."). To try to sway public opinion back in his favor he began a war with GB over the Malvinas Islands.... an issue Argentina and GB had been negotiating since the 1840s.

*Waves the US flag*

People in the US wonder why S. Americans hate us? The US has interfered in the national affairs of nearly every S. American country since the Mexican-American War.

I thought I was the only American around who understood the Dirty War and the Americans' role in it. Largely because I learned about it from Argentineans. Internet smooches for you, you've made my evening ^_^

/pretty sure Argentina really only cares about the Malvinas as a symbolic thing
//they're probably too busy ramping up to the next election to care very much anyway

TheWizard: TommyDeuce: 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.

That's retarded.

I assume that last comment was about the prospect of the UK nuking Argentina over the Falklands. Rather than post a lengthy supporting statement, let's keep it succinct: yes, that's retarded.

Oh, and you may have noticed the current US President is kinda picky about which democratic uprisings he suppports - or which allies he supports. Best to wait until after Nov 2012 before you consider escalating the pissing contest to full-out tussle if your gameplan includes your overspending gun-nut friend having your back.

With the British Royal Navy only having one Carrier, three destroyers and a bunch of pesky frigates I believe the British could in fact defend the falklands assuming they commit a portion of the fleet (assuming these destroyers also have cruise missiles).

The Argentine Airforce is a joke, with a handful of French fighters that lack any range to Combat Patrol the Falklands, let alone go toe to toe with the British Navy.

now saying this, I don't think the British would even be willing to commit such a force to one operation, giving the Argentines the upper hand to use old fashion grunt warfare, and hope China/Venezula gives them a few Surface to Surface missiles to combat the British fleet, otherwise there isn't a chance in hell.

I'm sorry the British Royal Navy is in piss poor shape, I think even Benny Hill has a bigger navy.

Ain't gonna happen, why? Because of the US.
We covered England during the last war, we'll do it again and Argentina knows it, they'll never try to take them again. Who do you think was protecting the English coast while they had their whole damned navy down there as well as running supplies, and providing in air refueling, etc. during that war, we were. That's what good friends and allies are for. Besides, we owe them for at least two of our own clusterfark wars (Iraq and Afghanistan).

Britain barely has a navy. shiat, they might have to re-launch the Victory....

canyoneer: At $80/barrel, that's revenue of about $10 million/day, or about $3.6 billion/year. If oil goes up or they make further discoveries, that number will only be bigger.

Yeah, but that doesn't fund much of a war. The UK's share of the Libya action was $300m and that was close to home and just involved dropping munitions on old Soviet era armaments and trucks.

just a few points, the Brits know that Argentina would like to have the Island back so they have upgraded the defenses down there. There is a battalion of British troops backed up by local militia, somewhat modern air defenses, good radar, and modern fighters stationed on the Island. The is normally a British warship on patrol and they have a decent harbor and airfield. Argentina would have to do a sneak attack because with any kind of notice England will reinforce the Island.

What a load of nonsense. Instead of increasing the defence budget, just hand the same amount of money to the oil firm and the residents of the Falklands, and call it good. It would be a shiatload cheaper in the long run and the Argentinians could have some useless islands with no way to get at the oil without the help of... that oil firm. It's not as though Argentina is worth anything except for babes and good steaks.