Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(LA Times)   Quick, somebody wake up Thatcher   (latimes.com ) divider line 132
    More: Followup, Falkland Islands, Argentine Republic, Britain, Falklands War, UN resolution, Kirchners, British Forces, Self-Government  
•       •       •

5729 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Jan 2013 at 9:36 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



132 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-01-03 09:39:26 AM  
It doesn't matter what Argentina wants

It doesn't matter what Britian wants.

All that matters is what the Falkland Islenders want.

The sovereignty referendum in a few months time will once and for all settle what the Falkland Islanders want.
 
2013-01-03 09:39:28 AM  
1. Invade islands.
2. Fill them with your own people.
3. Have the people vote democratically on which country they want to belong to.
 
2013-01-03 09:39:46 AM  
Will this thing jerk me off?
 
2013-01-03 09:40:36 AM  
images3.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2013-01-03 09:40:46 AM  
 i.imgur.com
 
2013-01-03 09:41:27 AM  
♫ Wake up, Maggie, I think I got somethin' to say to youuu... ♫
 
2013-01-03 09:42:43 AM  
How about no

/ to both Thatcher and the Argies
 
2013-01-03 09:44:05 AM  
Yea, try again. Stop blaming your problems on a couple of islands. you're never getting them. deal with it.
 
2013-01-03 09:44:14 AM  
upload.wikimedia.org

this headline still makes my skin crawl.
 
2013-01-03 09:44:54 AM  
cdn.theatlantic.com

why u mad?
 
2013-01-03 09:46:02 AM  
And Maggie, over lunch one day, took a cruiser with all hands, apparently to make them give it back.

/mmm mmm mm mmm mmm
 
2013-01-03 09:46:55 AM  
www.forces80.com

love this cover
 
2013-01-03 09:51:41 AM  
"Argentine President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner"

Why don't they tell us how old she is and how many kids she has?
 
2013-01-03 09:52:15 AM  

Norfolking Chance: It doesn't matter what Argentina wants

It doesn't matter what Britian wants.

All that matters is what the Falkland Islenders want.

The sovereignty referendum in a few months time will once and for all settle what the Falkland Islanders want.


The islanders are mostly people from Britain and the descendants of those from Britain. Hardly seems fair.to stuff the place full of one nation's people and then say it's up to them to decide. This is obviously a political distraction meant to take some heat off of the Argentine president but that doesn't change the fact that when Britain took over the islands, they removed the local population and stocked it full of their own people.
 
2013-01-03 09:52:34 AM  
Tell that to the Toba...
 
2013-01-03 09:52:39 AM  

Biness: [www.forces80.com image 794x1061]

love this cover


now that's a headline.

fascinating piece on the sun and its rabid pro-war stance during the falklands crisis.
 
2013-01-03 09:52:57 AM  
Uhm, doesn't anyone remembers that prior to the British colonisation the Falklands were basically inhabited. It has never been Argentinian to begin with, despite some Spanish claims from before Argentine's independence on it.
 
2013-01-03 09:53:11 AM  

Dorf11: And Maggie, over lunch one day, took a cruiser with all hands, apparently to make them give it back.

/mmm mmm mm mmm mmm


Except that out of the 1,095 people on board the ARA Belgrano, 775 were rescued. That's a survival rate of 71%.

/Don't get your history from rock musicians.
 
2013-01-03 09:53:19 AM  
i.telegraph.co.uk

Don't cry for me argentina
 
2013-01-03 09:56:02 AM  

Flakeloaf: 1. Invade islands.
2. Fill them with your own people.
3. Have the people vote democratically on which country they want to belong to.


You might not look like such a moran if you read a little about the history of the Falklands before making stupid statements like this
 
2013-01-03 09:56:30 AM  
It's just a rumor that was spread around town
Somebody said that someone got filled in
For saying that people get killed in
The result of this shipbuilding
 
2013-01-03 09:56:56 AM  

EngineerAU: Norfolking Chance: It doesn't matter what Argentina wants

It doesn't matter what Britian wants.

All that matters is what the Falkland Islenders want.

The sovereignty referendum in a few months time will once and for all settle what the Falkland Islanders want.

The islanders are mostly people from Britain and the descendants of those from Britain. Hardly seems fair.to stuff the place full of one nation's people and then say it's up to them to decide. This is obviously a political distraction meant to take some heat off of the Argentine president but that doesn't change the fact that when Britain took over the islands, they removed the local population and stocked it full of their own people.


but its not really fair to force a bunch of people into a country they don't want to be in
 
2013-01-03 09:57:14 AM  

Flakeloaf: 1. Invade islands.
2. Fill them with your own people.
3. Have the people vote democratically on which country they want to belong to.


You misspelled "settle" in item one.
 
2013-01-03 09:57:34 AM  

The wonderful travels of a turd: Uhm, doesn't anyone remembers that prior to the British colonisation the Falklands were basically inhabited. It has never been Argentinian to begin with, despite some Spanish claims from before Argentine's independence on it.


This was my understanding as well, why does Argentina even want them? Do they have valuable resources or something?
 
2013-01-03 09:58:34 AM  

AntonChigger: The wonderful travels of a turd: Uhm, doesn't anyone remembers that prior to the British colonisation the Falklands were basically inhabited. It has never been Argentinian to begin with, despite some Spanish claims from before Argentine's independence on it.

This was my understanding as well, why does Argentina even want them? Do they have valuable resources or something?


black gold
 
2013-01-03 09:59:09 AM  

EngineerAU: Norfolking Chance: It doesn't matter what Argentina wants

It doesn't matter what Britian wants.

All that matters is what the Falkland Islenders want.

The sovereignty referendum in a few months time will once and for all settle what the Falkland Islanders want.

The islanders are mostly people from Britain and the descendants of those from Britain. Hardly seems fair.to stuff the place full of one nation's people and then say it's up to them to decide. This is obviously a political distraction meant to take some heat off of the Argentine president but that doesn't change the fact that when Britain took over the islands, they removed the local population and stocked it full of their own people.


It's amazing how stunningly ignorant people can be of a topic that gets so much play on Fark.
 
2013-01-03 10:01:36 AM  
The farking Islands
 
2013-01-03 10:02:12 AM  

EngineerAU: Britain took over the islands


Britain <B>settled</B> the Falklands over 50 years before the country of Argentina ever existed.
 
2013-01-03 10:02:21 AM  

meanmutton: EngineerAU: Norfolking Chance: It doesn't matter what Argentina wants

It doesn't matter what Britian wants.

All that matters is what the Falkland Islenders want.

The sovereignty referendum in a few months time will once and for all settle what the Falkland Islanders want.

The islanders are mostly people from Britain and the descendants of those from Britain. Hardly seems fair.to stuff the place full of one nation's people and then say it's up to them to decide. This is obviously a political distraction meant to take some heat off of the Argentine president but that doesn't change the fact that when Britain took over the islands, they removed the local population and stocked it full of their own people.

It's amazing how stunningly ignorant people can be of a topic that gets so much play on Fark.


alot of it, i think, is just knee jerk hate of the west. standard white guilt.
 
2013-01-03 10:03:37 AM  

DammitIForgotMyLogin: EngineerAU: Britain took over the islands

Britain <B>settled</B> the Falklands over 50 years before the country of Argentina ever existed.


oh come on, its not like this failed president would try to distract her population with dubious claims to islands that don't belong to them....right?


/wait, thats exactly what happened last time?
 
2013-01-03 10:03:52 AM  
If they try anything, they will get the same thing again. Britain will send down one of their aircraft carriers full of Harrier jets and take back the islands. Rule Britania!
 
2013-01-03 10:04:03 AM  
So... 180 year old conflict... in which we claimed a small but strategic island chain, which was for the most part uninhabited.

We built roads, we built infrastructure, the people that live there consider themselves British..... not really sure how the Argentinian argument works at all. If that was the case surely Amercians should all move out of america and give control back to the Native American as Andrew Jackson called for "Indian Removal" in the same year....

And anyone that claims Britain gave Hong Kong back because it was scared of China is a moron... it was a 100 loan which we swindled out of them for a lot of Opium!
 
2013-01-03 10:04:05 AM  
Falklands Islands has been a British colony longer then California has been American.
 
2013-01-03 10:04:19 AM  
We won!

If you want 'em, 'tina, come and get 'em!!

/Oh, you can't, can you??

//Meh!
 
2013-01-03 10:05:44 AM  

Clash City Farker: If they try anything, they will get the same thing again. Britain will send down one of their aircraft carriers full of Harrier jets and take back the islands. Rule Britania!


Harriers have been retired, but other than that, yes.
 
2013-01-03 10:05:54 AM  

EngineerAU: Norfolking Chance: It doesn't matter what Argentina wants

It doesn't matter what Britian wants.

All that matters is what the Falkland Islenders want.

The sovereignty referendum in a few months time will once and for all settle what the Falkland Islanders want.

The islanders are mostly people from Britain and the descendants of those from Britain. Hardly seems fair.to stuff the place full of one nation's people and then say it's up to them to decide. This is obviously a political distraction meant to take some heat off of the Argentine president but that doesn't change the fact that when Britain took over the islands, they removed the local population and stocked it full of their own people.


Classic Civ 4 cultural takeover
 
2013-01-03 10:09:52 AM  
B-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-but SHEEP!!!
 
2013-01-03 10:10:41 AM  

Biness: Clash City Farker: If they try anything, they will get the same thing again. Britain will send down one of their aircraft carriers full of Harrier jets and take back the islands. Rule Britania!

Harriers have been retired, but other than that, yes.


There are 4 Typhoons permanently stationed on the Island, and almost certainly a nuclear powered sub in the area. Somehow I don't think an attempted invasion would go down quite so well a second time.
 
2013-01-03 10:10:46 AM  

EngineerAU: that doesn't change the fact that when Britain took over the islands, they removed the local population and stocked it full of their own people.


From wiki:

When the Clio arrived, there were 33 genuine resident civilian settlers. Captain Onslow gave them a free choice of staying or leaving; he applied no pressure on them to leave and indeed encouraged some to stay. Only four of them chose to leave

I note that at this point Argentina had settlers on the islands for 4 years (1829-1833). while England had settlers as far back as 1760 (though they lost the islands to the Spanish, who lost them to Argentina), and have continuously settled the islands for the past 180 years.
 
2013-01-03 10:15:00 AM  

Gunther: EngineerAU: that doesn't change the fact that when Britain took over the islands, they removed the local population and stocked it full of their own people.

From wiki:

When the Clio arrived, there were 33 genuine resident civilian settlers. Captain Onslow gave them a free choice of staying or leaving; he applied no pressure on them to leave and indeed encouraged some to stay. Only four of them chose to leave

I note that at this point Argentina had settlers on the islands for 4 years (1829-1833). while England had settlers as far back as 1760 (though they lost the islands to the Spanish, who lost them to Argentina), and have continuously settled the islands for the past 180 years.


This.
 
2013-01-03 10:17:12 AM  

Gunther: EngineerAU: that doesn't change the fact that when Britain took over the islands, they removed the local population and stocked it full of their own people.

From wiki:

When the Clio arrived, there were 33 genuine resident civilian settlers. Captain Onslow gave them a free choice of staying or leaving; he applied no pressure on them to leave and indeed encouraged some to stay. Only four of them chose to leave

I note that at this point Argentina had settlers on the islands for 4 years (1829-1833). while England had settlers as far back as 1760 (though they lost the islands to the Spanish, who lost them to Argentina), and have continuously settled the islands for the past 180 years.


that seems exceedingly fair on the part of Onslow
 
2013-01-03 10:20:55 AM  

EngineerAU: . This is obviously a political distraction meant to take some heat off of the Argentine president but that doesn't change the fact that when Britain took over the islands, they removed the local population and stocked it full of their own people.


Hmmm.....are Argentinians all "the local population" in Argentina? So funny.

Similarly, I continue to be amazed at the total pass that white hispanics get on racism, colonialism, and slavery. It's really brilliant
1. Find new land in the Americas
2. Invade, set up shop and import slaves or exploit the few natives who didn't die from disease or bloodshed
3. Profit for centuries off of racism, segregation, and exploitation of darker people.
4. Use the wealth acquired thereby to move to America.
5. Take advantage of racial preferences designed to remedy the exact injustices you profited off of.
6. Scream bloody murder whenever those preferences are threatened.
7. Profit.

/White hispanic, but from Chile, so the screed above doesn't apply to me.
 
2013-01-03 10:21:06 AM  

dittybopper: /Don't get your history from rock musicians.


Weird. I always interpreted the lyrics as taking a British fleet halfway round the world to project sovereignty (not sinking the Belgrano). Kinda works both ways, I guess.
 
2013-01-03 10:22:11 AM  

DammitIForgotMyLogin: Flakeloaf: 1. Invade islands.
2. Fill them with your own people.
3. Have the people vote democratically on which country they want to belong to.

You might not look like such a moran if you read a little about the history of the Falklands before making stupid statements like this


I stopped reading when I got to the part where the British abandoned all their overseas colonies because fighting Americans was getting expensive. If living there makes it yours, moving out should make it stop being yours. Or does the Nootka convention only go one way?

I don't pretend to know or care, but the way I read it, it sounds like the British and Spanish took turns moving in, kicking each other out, ceding land, not caring, putting up a "back in 5 minutes" sign and so on, so "historical claims" may not hold much water. However it is that they got there, the people living on those islands right now are British and if they want to stay that way then fine. If the Argentines want to use the UN to force the islands back into their possession, they could at least fill the place with their own people and money first. To my untrained eye that seems like the only way this is going to end up in their favour.
 
2013-01-03 10:22:50 AM  

EngineerAU: The islanders are mostly people from Britain and the descendants of those from Britain. Hardly seems fair.to stuff the place full of one nation's people and then say it's up to them to decide. This is obviously a political distraction meant to take some heat off of the Argentine president but that doesn't change the fact that when Britain took over the islands, they removed the local population and stocked it full of their own people.


Except none of that really ever happened.
 
2013-01-03 10:23:33 AM  

FLMountainMan: EngineerAU: . This is obviously a political distraction meant to take some heat off of the Argentine president but that doesn't change the fact that when Britain took over the islands, they removed the local population and stocked it full of their own people.

Hmmm.....are Argentinians all "the local population" in Argentina? So funny.

Similarly, I continue to be amazed at the total pass that white hispanics get on racism, colonialism, and slavery. It's really brilliant
1. Find new land in the Americas
2. Invade, set up shop and import slaves or exploit the few natives who didn't die from disease or bloodshed
3. Profit for centuries off of racism, segregation, and exploitation of darker people.
4. Use the wealth acquired thereby to move to America.
5. Take advantage of racial preferences designed to remedy the exact injustices you profited off of.
6. Scream bloody murder whenever those preferences are threatened.
7. Profit.

/White hispanic, but from Chile, so the screed above doesn't apply to me.


damn. never thought of it that way. thats kind of incredible.

Brazil imported WAY more slaves than the USA
 
2013-01-03 10:27:58 AM  

Biness: FLMountainMan: EngineerAU: . This is obviously a political distraction meant to take some heat off of the Argentine president but that doesn't change the fact that when Britain took over the islands, they removed the local population and stocked it full of their own people.

Hmmm.....are Argentinians all "the local population" in Argentina? So funny.

Similarly, I continue to be amazed at the total pass that white hispanics get on racism, colonialism, and slavery. It's really brilliant
1. Find new land in the Americas
2. Invade, set up shop and import slaves or exploit the few natives who didn't die from disease or bloodshed
3. Profit for centuries off of racism, segregation, and exploitation of darker people.
4. Use the wealth acquired thereby to move to America.
5. Take advantage of racial preferences designed to remedy the exact injustices you profited off of.
6. Scream bloody murder whenever those preferences are threatened.
7. Profit.

/White hispanic, but from Chile, so the screed above doesn't apply to me.

damn. never thought of it that way. thats kind of incredible.

Brazil imported WAY more slaves than the USA


Don't get me wrong, I'm absolutely not arguing that it makes the USA did any more moral or righteous. I just remember my dad's disbelief at the preferences and set-asides I could have claimed in this country, despite being blue-eyed and from a middle-class family. Also, most Americans don't realize that Affirmative Action of some sort happens in most first or second-world countries you can think of.
 
2013-01-03 10:28:29 AM  

Biness: FLMountainMan: EngineerAU: . This is obviously a political distraction meant to take some heat off of the Argentine president but that doesn't change the fact that when Britain took over the islands, they removed the local population and stocked it full of their own people.

Hmmm.....are Argentinians all "the local population" in Argentina? So funny.

Similarly, I continue to be amazed at the total pass that white hispanics get on racism, colonialism, and slavery. It's really brilliant
1. Find new land in the Americas
2. Invade, set up shop and import slaves or exploit the few natives who didn't die from disease or bloodshed
3. Profit for centuries off of racism, segregation, and exploitation of darker people.
4. Use the wealth acquired thereby to move to America.
5. Take advantage of racial preferences designed to remedy the exact injustices you profited off of.
6. Scream bloody murder whenever those preferences are threatened.
7. Profit.

/White hispanic, but from Chile, so the screed above doesn't apply to me.

damn. never thought of it that way. thats kind of incredible.

Brazil imported WAY more slaves than the USA


French Haiti was pretty barbaric too, from what I understand. Show up, turn entire country into a slave colony, export everything of value, charge them some multiple of their GDP for their "freedom" and then toss a few pennies in their hat when someone shows a pity porn movie of the area.
 
2013-01-03 10:33:01 AM  

FLMountainMan: Hmmm.....are Argentinians all "the local population" in Argentina? So funny.

Similarly, I continue to be amazed at the total pass that white hispanics get on racism, colonialism, and slavery. It's really brilliant
1. Find new land in the Americas
2. Invade, set up shop and import slaves or exploit the few natives who didn't die from disease or bloodshed
3. Profit for centuries off of racism, segregation, and exploitation of darker people.
4. Use the wealth acquired thereby to move to America.
5. Take advantage of racial preferences designed to remedy the exact injustices you profited off of.
6. Scream bloody murder whenever those preferences are threatened.
7. Profit.

/White hispanic, but from Chile, so the screed above doesn't apply to me.


Worked with a guy who was a red haired blue eyed "pure" ruling class noble from Guatemala. At least he was until the "peasants" overthrew the government. Neat guy, really neat life story, really racist towards some ethnic groups. Was interesting to hear his perspective on "other" Hispanics. He had some funny rants on how much he hated Americans who considered him to be just another Hispanic due to his name / country of origin.
 
2013-01-03 10:34:04 AM  

Clash City Farker: If they try anything, they will get the same thing again. Britain will send down one of their aircraft carriers full of Harrier jets and take back the islands. Rule Britania!


Their one aircraft carrier in service. Which has helicopters and no planes.
 
2013-01-03 10:34:21 AM  
I see the Falklands going to Argentina about the same time Gibraltar is given back to Spain....

/ not anytime soon
 
2013-01-03 10:34:33 AM  

Flakeloaf: French Haiti was pretty barbaric too, from what I understand. Show up, turn entire country into a slave colony, export everything of value, charge them some multiple of their GDP for their "freedom" and then toss a few pennies in their hat when someone shows a pity porn movie of the area.


Haiti never had a chance. Truly. Even if France and the rest of the First World hadn't farked them over from day one, they still never had a chance. What few intellectuals they had were murdered in the series of dictatorships that ran the island; they had no educated people, few craftsmen. Even today, any Haitian with any sort of marketable skill is probably living in Broward or Miami-Dade. It's sad.
 
2013-01-03 10:34:57 AM  

Satanic_Hamster: FLMountainMan: Hmmm.....are Argentinians all "the local population" in Argentina? So funny.

Similarly, I continue to be amazed at the total pass that white hispanics get on racism, colonialism, and slavery. It's really brilliant
1. Find new land in the Americas
2. Invade, set up shop and import slaves or exploit the few natives who didn't die from disease or bloodshed
3. Profit for centuries off of racism, segregation, and exploitation of darker people.
4. Use the wealth acquired thereby to move to America.
5. Take advantage of racial preferences designed to remedy the exact injustices you profited off of.
6. Scream bloody murder whenever those preferences are threatened.
7. Profit.

/White hispanic, but from Chile, so the screed above doesn't apply to me.

Worked with a guy who was a red haired blue eyed "pure" ruling class noble from Guatemala. At least he was until the "peasants" overthrew the government. Neat guy, really neat life story, really racist towards some ethnic groups. Was interesting to hear his perspective on "other" Hispanics. He had some funny rants on how much he hated Americans who considered him to be just another Hispanic due to his name / country of origin.


i'm friends with a guy who is of german descent, but his family is "from" argentina. Apparently there was a point at which his family needed to leave germany, towards the end of a war.
 
2013-01-03 10:36:02 AM  

FLMountainMan: Flakeloaf: French Haiti was pretty barbaric too, from what I understand. Show up, turn entire country into a slave colony, export everything of value, charge them some multiple of their GDP for their "freedom" and then toss a few pennies in their hat when someone shows a pity porn movie of the area.

Haiti never had a chance. Truly. Even if France and the rest of the First World hadn't farked them over from day one, they still never had a chance. What few intellectuals they had were murdered in the series of dictatorships that ran the island; they had no educated people, few craftsmen. Even today, any Haitian with any sort of marketable skill is probably living in Broward or Miami-Dade. It's sad.


Haiti right now, has 1 aid worker for 1 haitian. they're now being victimized by toxic charities.
 
2013-01-03 10:37:32 AM  

Satanic_Hamster: He had some funny rants on how much he hated Americans who considered him to be just another Hispanic due to his name / country of origin.


CSB - my dad was named something similar to "Rolando MacManus" and looked Latin. His friends in America called him "Wopscotch"
 
2013-01-03 10:37:54 AM  
www.falklandwoolgrowers.co.uk

Voting for Autonomous Collective.
 
2013-01-03 10:41:30 AM  

AntonChigger: The wonderful travels of a turd: Uhm, doesn't anyone remembers that prior to the British colonisation the Falklands were basically inhabited. It has never been Argentinian to begin with, despite some Spanish claims from before Argentine's independence on it.

This was my understanding as well, why does Argentina even want them? Do they have valuable resources or something?


Rich fishery, oil potential and territory that bolsters British claims to potential future explotation of offshore Antarctic resources.
 
2013-01-03 10:42:23 AM  
Falkland Wars II
Argentina needs more than one lesson
 
2013-01-03 10:42:46 AM  
i1283.photobucket.com
Approves
 
2013-01-03 10:44:19 AM  

Mike_1962: AntonChigger: The wonderful travels of a turd: Uhm, doesn't anyone remembers that prior to the British colonisation the Falklands were basically inhabited. It has never been Argentinian to begin with, despite some Spanish claims from before Argentine's independence on it.

This was my understanding as well, why does Argentina even want them? Do they have valuable resources or something?

Rich fishery, oil potential and territory that bolsters British claims to potential future explotation of offshore Antarctic resources.


Exploitation even. (Stupid mobile)
 
2013-01-03 10:46:28 AM  

Nem Wan: Their one aircraft carrier in service. Which has helicopters and no planes.


Still, the Argentines appear to have nothing four Typhoons and a Type 45 Destroyer can't pluck out of the air.
 
2013-01-03 10:49:06 AM  
Hmm, maybe a good old fashioned war is what we all need... i mean, apart from the innocent people who will die.. and the service men and women... but hey an old fashioned bad guys good guys war would probably be a break for the British soldiers after Iraq, Afghanistan and the recent Northern Ireland flare ups!
 
2013-01-03 10:50:54 AM  
Borges said it best:

"Two bald men fighting over a comb."
 
2013-01-03 10:51:28 AM  

King Keepo: Nem Wan: Their one aircraft carrier in service. Which has helicopters and no planes.

Still, the Argentines appear to have nothing four Typhoons and a Type 45 Destroyer can't pluck out of the air.


The Brits don't need a carrier. They can use the Falklands as an airbase.

If Argentina wants to provoke war once again over the Falklands, it will be over rather quickly again with the same result. I don't think the Argentinian government will attack the Falklands because they already know that they do not have the military capability to do this.
 
2013-01-03 10:52:14 AM  
Why the fark does anybody care about this godforsaken bunch of rocks in the middle of nowhere, anyways?
 
2013-01-03 10:52:35 AM  

Biness: [www.forces80.com image 794x1061]

love this cover


Me too.

Too bad what's left of the Royal Navy has neither carriers nor Harriers.
 
2013-01-03 10:53:10 AM  

Dorf11: dittybopper: /Don't get your history from rock musicians.

Weird. I always interpreted the lyrics as taking a British fleet halfway round the world to project sovereignty (not sinking the Belgrano). Kinda works both ways, I guess.


I was commenting on the accuracy of the part that I have bolded below:

And Maggie, over lunch one day, took a cruiser with all hands, apparently to make them give it back.

The phrase "with all hands" in this context means that no one survived the sinking, which I pointed out wasn't true. That's why I said "don't get your history from rock stars".

Plus, recent signals intelligence revelations pretty much square perfectly with the Belgrano being a proper military target, and part of an integrated threat to the British task force. Not that it should matter: Did the British shy away from sinking U-boats that were heading back to their pens in WWII? Of course not.
 
2013-01-03 10:56:16 AM  

belhade: Why the fark does anybody care about this godforsaken bunch of rocks in the middle of nowhere, anyways?


same reason people care about a god forsaken pile of sand... Oil
 
2013-01-03 10:58:51 AM  

AntonChigger: The wonderful travels of a turd: Uhm, doesn't anyone remembers that prior to the British colonisation the Falklands were basically inhabited. It has never been Argentinian to begin with, despite some Spanish claims from before Argentine's independence on it.

This was my understanding as well, why does Argentina even want them? Do they have valuable resources or something?


Strategic sheep purposes.
 
2013-01-03 11:02:25 AM  
They oppose colonialism? Then they'll be going back to Spain any day now?
 
2013-01-03 11:03:57 AM  

gblive:

The Brits don't need a carrier. They can use the Falklands as an airbase.

If Argentina wants to provoke war once again over the Falklands, it will be over rather quickly again with the same result. I don't think the Argentinian government will attack the Falklands because they already know that they do not have the military capability to do this.


Yup, there are four Typhoons and the Dauntless stationed there already, and the chances are that a Trafalgar class nuclear sub is floating around too. That's pretty much all you need to dispatch an ageing air/naval force.
 
2013-01-03 11:13:16 AM  

gblive: King Keepo: Nem Wan: Their one aircraft carrier in service. Which has helicopters and no planes.

Still, the Argentines appear to have nothing four Typhoons and a Type 45 Destroyer can't pluck out of the air.

The Brits don't need a carrier. They can use the Falklands as an airbase.

If Argentina wants to provoke war once again over the Falklands, it will be over rather quickly again with the same result. I don't think the Argentinian government will attack the Falklands because they already know that they do not have the military capability to do this.


There is a problem with this: Argentina has more fighters and other attack aircraft within range of the Falklands then a handful of fighters can handle, and the Brits only have a couple of airports that can handle them: Mount Pleasant, and Stanley. Add to that the logistical problem of getting more fighters and other attack aircraft into the area: The UK doesn't fly fixed wing aircraft from it's single aircraft carrier anymore, so it would have to ferry them, a long and arduous process that is vulnerable to attack.

Argentina, if it was willing to pay the price, could yet again take over the Falklands, and to my thinking, it could actually retain them for a bit longer than they did in 1982 because the UK doesn't have as many offensive naval assets today that it had back then. However, it would be harder to initially accomplish than it was in 1982, because the Brits have more troops and more equipment on the ground there now.

The current British strategy in the Falklands is one that is often used but rarely recognized: You don't have to be able to *WIN*, you just have to make it so expensive that they won't try it in the first place.
 
2013-01-03 11:13:28 AM  

Flakeloaf: 1. Invade islands.
2. Fill them with your own people.
3. Have the people vote democratically on which country they want to belong to.


The islands were uninhabited except by a small military garrison when the British "invaded" them, and their ownership had never been settled either by treaty or war. The first permanent settlers of the islands were British, in 1840. The islands are located nearly 300 miles from Argentina, well outside their 200-mile exclusive economic zone. Argentina's claim is worse than tenuous.
 
2013-01-03 11:15:05 AM  

dittybopper: Argentina, if it was willing to pay the price, could yet again take over the Falklands, and to my thinking, it could actually retain them for a bit longer than they did in 1982 because the UK doesn't have as many offensive naval assets today that it had back then. However, it would be harder to initially accomplish than it was in 1982, because the Brits have more troops and more equipment on the ground there now.


That price would probably include the Brits stationing a couple of nuclear submarines a few hundred miles off their coast and raining Tomahawks down upon them
 
2013-01-03 11:16:29 AM  

Clash City Farker: If they try anything, they will get the same thing again. Britain will send down one of their aircraft carriers full of Harrier jets and take back the islands. Rule Britania!


That's a troll, right? I mean, everyone knows that Britain is between carriers at the moment (got rid of their Harriers because of the defense cuts, waiting for F-35 to come on line to be air wing for their super carriers that are under construction).
 
2013-01-03 11:21:28 AM  

King Keepo: gblive:

The Brits don't need a carrier. They can use the Falklands as an airbase.

If Argentina wants to provoke war once again over the Falklands, it will be over rather quickly again with the same result. I don't think the Argentinian government will attack the Falklands because they already know that they do not have the military capability to do this.

Yup, there are four Typhoons and the Dauntless stationed there already, and the chances are that a Trafalgar class nuclear sub is floating around too. That's pretty much all you need to dispatch an ageing air/naval force.


Oh, I think the Argentines *COULD* take the islands again if they were willing to pay the price, which would likely be very steep. But they could do it by throwing everything they have at it all at once. They'd be decimated, of course, but because the British on the islands can't resupply quickly, it's likely that the Argentines would win in the short term.

I'd even bet that although the British would eventually take back the islands, the Argentines could retain them for a bit longer then they did in 1982. Much of the "long arm" capability of the UK, which was weak back in 1982 to begin with, is weaker still today, or even non-existent. For example: No fixed-wing carrier aircraft. Hard to shoot down attack aircraft, even turboprop ones like the Pucara, with helicopers.
 
2013-01-03 11:25:27 AM  
So does this mean this song will hit the charts again?

♪ The face of a nation was split with a smile today
As we were politely informed of the fun and games
Oh yeah, there's a ship on our sea, shall we send it down?
It's only a toy in the tub, shall we sink it now?

Light up the home fires, run up the flags
Happy days are here again
Just like the old days, riches to rags
Happy people don't complain

Now, ask your leaders for their reasons,
Why is blue the colour of the season?
Ask your father, ask your mother
Better still don't breathe a word at all. ♫

/back when the Shamen were awesome
 
2013-01-03 11:27:36 AM  

gblive: King Keepo: Nem Wan: Their one aircraft carrier in service. Which has helicopters and no planes.

Still, the Argentines appear to have nothing four Typhoons and a Type 45 Destroyer can't pluck out of the air.

The Brits don't need a carrier. They can use the Falklands as an airbase.

If Argentina wants to provoke war once again over the Falklands, it will be over rather quickly again with the same result. I don't think the Argentinian government will attack the Falklands because they already know that they do not have the military capability to do this.


Once again, if the Argys are willing to tolerate the losses, they could likely retake and this time likely hold the Falklands.

For starters, the four Typhoons and lone Type 45 aren't enough. They'd be overcome by sheer force of numbers alone.

Secondly, they can't be everywhere at once. Absent AEW aircraft, to detect inbound threats, the Type 45 would have to be radiating and could be easily avoided. A Typhoon could act as a quasi-AEW platform, but then you're down to three for use as interceptors.

The Argy air force has 14 Mirage III/Vs and 34 modernized A-4 Skyhawks. The navy has 6 or so operational Super Etendards. That's a total of more than 50 competent strike aircraft - more than a dozen 4 ship strike packages. Send them all in on a multi-wave, multi-directional attack that avoids the Type 45. The Typhoons will kill the first dozen or so, but then they'll be out of gas and/or missiles. The Rapier SAMS will get a few more, but the following raids will destroy the remaining Typhoons on the ground.

Once they're gone the Argy's 30+ Pucaras, 20 or so AT-63 Pampas, and 20+ Tucanos would join the remaining fast jets in pounding the air defenses and ground troops until they surrendered when the ground troops landed.

And yes, the ground troops would land. Just as with the Typhoons, there aren't enough naval assets to stop them. The SSN would be devastating, but could only really engage a single task force. The Type 45 would be all but useless. It's Aster missiles (unlike the Sea Darts of the old Type 42s) are not capable of engaging surface targets and it doesn't carry Harpoons. All it has as an anti-ship weapon is the 4.5" gun, and if it is close enough to engage with guns it can also be engaged with guns.

Once taken, it would take the entire RN to effectively maintain a blockade of the island, but they don't have the sea lift to transport an invasion force. It would be at best a stalemate.
 
2013-01-03 11:28:12 AM  

Forbidden Doughnut: I see the Falklands going to Argentina about the same time Gibraltar is given back to Spain....

/ not anytime soon


Or California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas are given back to Mexico as they were stolen by colonialist invaders.

/as per the standards set by Argintena
 
2013-01-03 11:31:45 AM  

dittybopper: There is a problem with this: Argentina has more fighters and other attack aircraft within range of the Falklands then a handful of fighters can handle, and the Brits only have a couple of airports that can handle them: Mount Pleasant, and Stanley. Add to that the logistical problem of getting more fighters and other attack aircraft into the area: The UK doesn't fly fixed wing aircraft from it's single aircraft carrier anymore, so it would have to ferry them, a long and arduous process that is vulnerable to attack.

Argentina, if it was willing to pay the price, could yet again take over the Falklands, and to my thinking, it could actually retain them for a bit longer than they did in 1982 because the UK doesn't have as many offensive naval assets today that it had back then. However, it would be harder to initially accomplish than it was in 1982, because the Brits have more troops and more equipment on the ground there now.

The current British strategy in the Falklands is one that is often used but rarely recognized: You don't have to be able to *WIN*, you just have to make it so expensive that they won't try it in the first place.


Here's the thing; only way that they could take the islands would be the complete elimination of the air defenses and aircraft by surprise and then being able to air drop in enough troops to take the island before England responds. They have one day to do this.

That means they have to sneak past the Brits radar, take out the planes on the ground, destroy or take the air port, and take out the garrison, which is larger and better equipped then it was in the 80's. England has the ability to fly planes straight to the islands now (due to new air bases elsewhere and in-flight refueling). They have VERY modern fighters and missiles. On top of that, Argentina's armed forces haven't changed greatly since the 80's. Their planes have had a few modernization programs but only to a few models. Their missile inventories are crap and 20 years obsolete.
 
2013-01-03 11:32:44 AM  
Is she dead yet? Is she dead yet? Is she dead yet? Is she dead yet?


seriously


Is she dead yet?
 
2013-01-03 11:33:01 AM  

JustGetItRight: Once again, if the Argys are willing to tolerate the losses, they could likely retake and this time likely hold the Falklands.


The minor flaw in this argument is that it assumes that the US wouldn't be willing to lend a hand to one of their closest and longest standing allies. After Iraq and Afghanistan, it'd be nice to think the help went both ways.
 
2013-01-03 11:33:25 AM  

JustGetItRight: gblive: King Keepo: Nem Wan: Their one aircraft carrier in service. Which has helicopters and no planes.

Still, the Argentines appear to have nothing four Typhoons and a Type 45 Destroyer can't pluck out of the air.

The Brits don't need a carrier. They can use the Falklands as an airbase.

If Argentina wants to provoke war once again over the Falklands, it will be over rather quickly again with the same result. I don't think the Argentinian government will attack the Falklands because they already know that they do not have the military capability to do this.

Once again, if the Argys are willing to tolerate the losses, they could likely retake and this time likely hold the Falklands.

For starters, the four Typhoons and lone Type 45 aren't enough. They'd be overcome by sheer force of numbers alone.

Secondly, they can't be everywhere at once. Absent AEW aircraft, to detect inbound threats, the Type 45 would have to be radiating and could be easily avoided. A Typhoon could act as a quasi-AEW platform, but then you're down to three for use as interceptors.

The Argy air force has 14 Mirage III/Vs and 34 modernized A-4 Skyhawks. The navy has 6 or so operational Super Etendards. That's a total of more than 50 competent strike aircraft - more than a dozen 4 ship strike packages. Send them all in on a multi-wave, multi-directional attack that avoids the Type 45. The Typhoons will kill the first dozen or so, but then they'll be out of gas and/or missiles. The Rapier SAMS will get a few more, but the following raids will destroy the remaining Typhoons on the ground.

Once they're gone the Argy's 30+ Pucaras, 20 or so AT-63 Pampas, and 20+ Tucanos would join the remaining fast jets in pounding the air defenses and ground troops until they surrendered when the ground troops landed.

And yes, the ground troops would land. Just as with the Typhoons, there aren't enough naval assets to stop them. The SSN would be devastating, but could only really engage a single t ...


Bugger it, get old Tommy to fix bayonets and dig in and give the Argys the ol' Bargy! HA... they don't like it up 'em! a foot of Sheffield steel to the goolies!
 
2013-01-03 11:34:02 AM  

Norfolking Chance: Forbidden Doughnut: I see the Falklands going to Argentina about the same time Gibraltar is given back to Spain....

/ not anytime soon

Or California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas are given back to Mexico as they were stolen by colonialist invaders.

/as per the standards set by Argintena


Not to nitpick, but I think you'd have to exclude Texas. They usually get lumped in with the rest, but it was really a separate transaction.
 
2013-01-03 11:34:31 AM  

mbillips: Flakeloaf: 1. Invade islands.
2. Fill them with your own people.
3. Have the people vote democratically on which country they want to belong to.

The islands were uninhabited except by a small military garrison when the British "invaded" them, and their ownership had never been settled either by treaty or war. The first permanent settlers of the islands were British, in 1840. The islands are located nearly 300 miles from Argentina, well outside their 200-mile exclusive economic zone. Argentina's claim is worse than tenuous.


Ah, so I got both the history AND the geography wrong. Thanks for that.

/seriously
 
2013-01-03 11:37:37 AM  

Satanic_Hamster: That means they have to sneak past the Brits radar, take out the planes on the ground, destroy or take the air port, and take out the garrison, which is larger and better equipped then it was in the 80's. England has the ability to fly planes straight to the islands now (due to new air bases elsewhere and in-flight refueling). They have VERY modern fighters and missiles. On top of that, Argentina's armed forces haven't changed greatly since the 80's. Their planes have had a few modernization programs but only to a few models. Their missile inventories are crap ...


Not to mention that Britain's personnel is significantly better and more experienced. But I agree that Argentina would win if it were willing to sacrifice a lot of personnel.

However, this whole thing is just another Kirchner-dangled shiny metal object to distract the people from the abject failure of her economic policies. Having a bunch of the people die in a stupid war kind of defeats her purpose.
 
2013-01-03 11:37:46 AM  

Suede head: They oppose colonialism? Then they'll be going back to Spain any day now?


Would the Spanish want them back? IIRC, both the Argentinian and Spanish economies are pretty farked up right now...
 
2013-01-03 11:41:22 AM  

Norfolking Chance: Forbidden Doughnut: I see the Falklands going to Argentina about the same time Gibraltar is given back to Spain....

/ not anytime soon

Or California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas are given back to Mexico as they were stolen by colonialist invaders.

/as per the standards set by Argintena


Well, there are some M.E.Ch.A. and La Raza folk that think we should do just that.....( and that would be a disaster, IMHO. )
 
2013-01-03 11:46:50 AM  

DammitIForgotMyLogin: JustGetItRight: Once again, if the Argys are willing to tolerate the losses, they could likely retake and this time likely hold the Falklands.

The minor flaw in this argument is that it assumes that the US wouldn't be willing to lend a hand to one of their closest and longest standing allies. After Iraq and Afghanistan, it'd be nice to think the help went both ways.


It isn't a flaw, it is merely an analysis comparing the 1982 situation with today.

I would 100% support giving the Brits anything they needed, but you can never ever count on what our political leadership will do. The Reagan administration could have probably stopped the 1982 war with a phone call, but failed to do so.

Again, to make a point - taking and holding the islands would take a willingness to absorb WWII type losses and the Argys aren't going to go that far. I'm just pointing out that they're in a far better position to succeed today than most people think.
 
2013-01-03 11:51:00 AM  
Don't forget the UK has the ability to drop a tomahawk or 10 on the Argentinian mainland. Last time we had to fly a Vulcan to the south atlantic to threaten their cities.
 
2013-01-03 11:51:19 AM  
Is Britain still willing to nuke Buenos Aires?

/would you like to know more?
 
2013-01-03 12:11:05 PM  

stitchface: Don't forget the UK has the ability to drop a tomahawk or 10 on the Argentinian mainland. Last time we had to fly a Vulcan to the south atlantic to threaten their cities.


there's a fascinating book about that called vulcan 607.
 
2013-01-03 12:22:44 PM  

JustGetItRight:

For starters, the four Typhoons and lone Type 45 aren't enough. They'd be overcome by sheer force of numbers alone.

Secondly, they can't be everywhere at once. Absent AEW aircraft, to detect inbound threats, the Type 45 would have to be radiating and could be easily avoided. A Typhoon could act as a quasi-AEW platform, but then you're down to three for use as interceptors.

The Argy air force has 14 Mirage III/Vs and 34 modernized A-4 Skyhawks. The navy has 6 or so operational Super Etendards. That's a total of more than 50 competent strike aircraft - more than a dozen 4 ship strike packages. Send them all in on a multi-wave, multi-directional attack that avoids the Type 45. The Typhoons will kill the first dozen or so, but then they'll be out of gas and/or missiles. The Rapier SAMS will get a few more, but the following raids will destroy the remaining Typhoons on the ground.

Once they're gone the Argy's 30+ Pucaras, 20 or so AT-63 Pampas, and 20+ Tucanos would join the remaining fast jets in pounding the air defenses and ground troops until they surrendered when the ground troops landed.

And yes, the ground troops would land. Just as with the Typhoons, there aren't enough naval assets to stop them. The SSN would be devastating, but could only really engage a single t ...


The Type 45 tracks 1000+ targets out to 400k and can bring them down at 120k and below. The four Typhoons can be fitted with up to 13 AAMs. And for goodness sake, the Pucara is an anti counter-insurgency/ground attack turbo prop! A turbo prop! The Tucano is a ground attack trainer and the Pampas is a trainer/light attack craft as well. After the A4s have gone it would be like swatting flies.

An all out assault would require some pretty good timing considering the ceilings/top speeds of everything that needed to be involved. The 45 has some anti-ship defence, but most likely not enough to stop the entire Argentine navy should it get involved. And magically arrive shortly after the array of different flaming aircraft parts.
 
2013-01-03 12:46:38 PM  
It's largely a moot point, as my understanding is that the Argentine government is talking about the Falklands at least partially to distract from its own dismal record.
 
2013-01-03 12:48:05 PM  

Forbidden Doughnut: I see the Falklands going to Argentina about the same time Gibraltar is given back to Spain....

/ not anytime soon


About that...
 
2013-01-03 12:53:54 PM  

mbillips: Clash City Farker: If they try anything, they will get the same thing again. Britain will send down one of their aircraft carriers full of Harrier jets and take back the islands. Rule Britania!

That's a troll, right? I mean, everyone knows that Britain is between carriers at the moment (got rid of their Harriers because of the defense cuts, waiting for F-35 to come on line to be air wing for their super carriers that are under construction).


Yup. Not everyone knows they dont have the capability they used to. No matter though, as long as they keep anything with a gun on the island, it means they aim to defend it. Thats the reason the first war started. Due to budget cuts, they got rid of the one gun boat they had down there. Argentine took that as a signal that GB would no longer defend the place. Of course, they were mistaken and many sheep were killed.
 
2013-01-03 01:02:53 PM  

Flakeloaf: 1. Invade islands.
2. Fill them with your own people.
3. Have the people vote democratically on which country they want to belong to.


This. I'm not a fan of colonialism, but I am a fan of popular sovereignty. Was the invasion of the Falklands by the British fair? No. Nothing was in those days, and you have to remember that the Brits were snatching everything they could get their hands on. They were the most powerful empire in the world, and just about everyone had to give up something to them. Besides, in Argentina the Falklands are a dog whistle to get the people to look away from something else. I hope Argentina will respect the result of the Falklands referendum, but they won't, because oil patriotism. I wonder if Spain would respect a similar referendum in Gibraltar; probably not; I doubt Morocco would respect the results of referendums in Ceuta and Mellila. And I seriously doubt that China would've respected referendums in Hong Kong and Macau before their respective handovers.
 
2013-01-03 01:14:21 PM  

Paris1127: Flakeloaf: 1. Invade islands.
2. Fill them with your own people.
3. Have the people vote democratically on which country they want to belong to.

This. I'm not a fan of colonialism, but I am a fan of popular sovereignty. Was the invasion of the Falklands by the British fair? No. Nothing was in those days, and you have to remember that the Brits were snatching everything they could get their hands on. They were the most powerful empire in the world, and just about everyone had to give up something to them. Besides, in Argentina the Falklands are a dog whistle to get the people to look away from something else. I hope Argentina will respect the result of the Falklands referendum, but they won't, because oil patriotism. I wonder if Spain would respect a similar referendum in Gibraltar; probably not; I doubt Morocco would respect the results of referendums in Ceuta and Mellila. And I seriously doubt that China would've respected referendums in Hong Kong and Macau before their respective handovers.


replace "invasion" with "settlement"
 
2013-01-03 01:14:27 PM  

FlashHarry: stitchface: Don't forget the UK has the ability to drop a tomahawk or 10 on the Argentinian mainland. Last time we had to fly a Vulcan to the south atlantic to threaten their cities.

there's a fascinating book about that called vulcan 607.


Long, but interesting video on the subject.
 
2013-01-03 01:28:25 PM  

JustGetItRight: And yes, the ground troops would land. Just as with the Typhoons, there aren't enough naval assets to stop them. The SSN would be devastating, but could only really engage a single task force. The Type 45 would be all but useless. It's Aster missiles (unlike the Sea Darts of the old Type 42s) are not capable of engaging surface targets and it doesn't carry Harpoons. All it has as an anti-ship weapon is the 4.5" gun, and if it is close enough to engage with guns it can also be engaged with guns.


One way the Argentines could get most of their invasion force to the islands unscathed is to simply disperse them.

If the UK has a single SSN and a single destroyer in the area (both of which have to look out for the Type 1700 subs the Argentines have: Capable conventional boats), then the Argentines can simply spread their invasion fleet piecemeal across a 180 degree arc from the Falklands, separated by tens or hundreds of nautical miles. They could especially do that by commandeering a lot of relatively small fishing vessels. A nuclear submarine has few viable options when dealing with a bunch of small widely separated targets. Sure, it might get a couple, but it will have to haul ass (and in the process make noise and advertise it's position) in order to make any kind of a dent in such a fleet, and in the end it might not be worth it to fire 5 torpedoes at 4 different targets and ending up merely taking out the equivalent of a company of infantry, and exposing yourself in the process.

That would be especially true if you placed those 1700 boats in areas where they might reasonably expect a Brit SSN to go blistering past to the next target.
 
2013-01-03 01:41:52 PM  

FLMountainMan: EngineerAU: . This is obviously a political distraction meant to take some heat off of the Argentine president but that doesn't change the fact that when Britain took over the islands, they removed the local population and stocked it full of their own people.

Hmmm.....are Argentinians all "the local population" in Argentina? So funny.

Similarly, I continue to be amazed at the total pass that white hispanics get on racism, colonialism, and slavery. It's really brilliant
1. Find new land in the Americas
2. Invade, set up shop and import slaves or exploit the few natives who didn't die from disease or bloodshed
3. Profit for centuries off of racism, segregation, and exploitation of darker people.
4. Use the wealth acquired thereby to move to America.
5. Take advantage of racial preferences designed to remedy the exact injustices you profited off of.
6. Scream bloody murder whenever those preferences are threatened.
7. Profit.

/White hispanic, but from Chile, so the screed above doesn't apply to me.


Same as Spain being pissed off at the British having a tiny enclave, Gibralter, on the coast of Spain and demanding the British surrender it etc. But Spain has two tiny enclaves on the coast of Morocco, Ceuta and Melilla and doesn't see any reason to give them up...
 
2013-01-03 01:53:34 PM  

Biness: Paris1127: Flakeloaf: 1. Invade islands.
2. Fill them with your own people.
3. Have the people vote democratically on which country they want to belong to.

This. I'm not a fan of colonialism, but I am a fan of popular sovereignty. Was the invasion of the Falklands by the British fair? No. Nothing was in those days, and you have to remember that the Brits were snatching everything they could get their hands on. They were the most powerful empire in the world, and just about everyone had to give up something to them. Besides, in Argentina the Falklands are a dog whistle to get the people to look away from something else. I hope Argentina will respect the result of the Falklands referendum, but they won't, because oil patriotism. I wonder if Spain would respect a similar referendum in Gibraltar; probably not; I doubt Morocco would respect the results of referendums in Ceuta and Mellila. And I seriously doubt that China would've respected referendums in Hong Kong and Macau before their respective handovers.

replace "invasion" with "settlement"


When white people do it, it's always an invasion.

/Poor me.
 
2013-01-03 01:53:51 PM  

dittybopper: Dorf11: dittybopper: /Don't get your history from rock musicians.

Weird. I always interpreted the lyrics as taking a British fleet halfway round the world to project sovereignty (not sinking the Belgrano). Kinda works both ways, I guess.

I was commenting on the accuracy of the part that I have bolded below:

And Maggie, over lunch one day, took a cruiser with all hands, apparently to make them give it back.

The phrase "with all hands" in this context means that no one survived the sinking, which I pointed out wasn't true. That's why I said "don't get your history from rock stars".

Plus, recent signals intelligence revelations pretty much square perfectly with the Belgrano being a proper military target, and part of an integrated threat to the British task force. Not that it should matter: Did the British shy away from sinking U-boats that were heading back to their pens in WWII? Of course not.


Years later it was revealed that Belgrano had been ordered to rendezvous with other Argentinian forces inside the exclusion zone and attack British forces. Thatcher knew this before ordering the sinking but didn't reveal it to keep British codebreaking a secret.

Also the exclusion zone was meaningless, the UK had formal warned Argentina it would attack in or out of that zone. From several accounts the senior Argentinian nave officers were unhappy with the sinking, obviously, but never thought it illegal or a war crime. They'd have done the same to any British ship they found in the area.
 
2013-01-03 01:56:40 PM  

Flint Ironstag: dittybopper: Dorf11: dittybopper: /Don't get your history from rock musicians.

Weird. I always interpreted the lyrics as taking a British fleet halfway round the world to project sovereignty (not sinking the Belgrano). Kinda works both ways, I guess.

I was commenting on the accuracy of the part that I have bolded below:

And Maggie, over lunch one day, took a cruiser with all hands, apparently to make them give it back.

The phrase "with all hands" in this context means that no one survived the sinking, which I pointed out wasn't true. That's why I said "don't get your history from rock stars".

Plus, recent signals intelligence revelations pretty much square perfectly with the Belgrano being a proper military target, and part of an integrated threat to the British task force. Not that it should matter: Did the British shy away from sinking U-boats that were heading back to their pens in WWII? Of course not.

Years later it was revealed that Belgrano had been ordered to rendezvous with other Argentinian forces inside the exclusion zone and attack British forces. Thatcher knew this before ordering the sinking but didn't reveal it to keep British codebreaking a secret.

Also the exclusion zone was meaningless, the UK had formal warned Argentina it would attack in or out of that zone. From several accounts the senior Argentinian nave officers were unhappy with the sinking, obviously, but never thought it illegal or a war crime. They'd have done the same to any British ship they found in the area.


kinda boils down to alls fair in love and war
 
2013-01-03 02:00:33 PM  

Biness: meanmutton: EngineerAU: Norfolking Chance: It doesn't matter what Argentina wants

It doesn't matter what Britian wants.

All that matters is what the Falkland Islenders want.

The sovereignty referendum in a few months time will once and for all settle what the Falkland Islanders want.

The islanders are mostly people from Britain and the descendants of those from Britain. Hardly seems fair.to stuff the place full of one nation's people and then say it's up to them to decide. This is obviously a political distraction meant to take some heat off of the Argentine president but that doesn't change the fact that when Britain took over the islands, they removed the local population and stocked it full of their own people.

It's amazing how stunningly ignorant people can be of a topic that gets so much play on Fark.

alot of it, i think, is just knee jerk hate of the west. standard white guilt.


Argentina is west of the UK.
 
2013-01-03 02:07:02 PM  

meanmutton: It's amazing how stunningly ignorant people can be of a topic that gets so much play on Fark.


It's amazing how someone can view only one side of an issue and declare themselves to be all knowing. Sorry, but the history of the islands goes back quite a long way and as others have pointed out, they've been abandoned and switched hands over and over again. Stop being an absolutist and pretending that the islands were discovered by Britain and occupied by them for their entire history. That's simply not the case. You sound like one of those tools in every single thread about Israel who insists that it has belonged to the Jews/the Palestinians from the start of time and the other guys are the entire problem.

It's all rather moot anyway. Argentina isn't going to invade again. It's a distraction from the economic problems at home. If they did invade, the UK wouldn't have to make the slightest military effort. They could easily destroy Argentina economically.

At least take ten minutes to read the Wikipedia article (yeah, I know, hur dur, Wikipedia is wrong about anything you don't agree with). Link
 
2013-01-03 02:08:09 PM  

King Keepo: The Type 45 tracks 1000+ targets out to 400k and can bring them down at 120k and below.


Radar works by line of sight. Take that "400km" range with a grain of salt. Assume for the sake of argument that the mast height is 50 meters, or 160 feet. Radio horizon is going to be 1.4*SQR(160) = 18 statute miles. If you have a plane that is traveling at the same height as the radar, the soonest that radar can possibly see that aircraft is 18+18 = 36 miles.

The only way it can see an aircraft that is 400 kilometers away is if it's flying at 35,000 feet, an unlikely occurrence in a military situation. It can target planes that are 120 kilometers away, but only if they are flying above 2,000 feet.

Plus, you can detect that radar far enough away that you can target the ship or avoid it as necessary. It *MUST* be radiating to provide a warning, btw: Radars that are turned off in order to avoid giving away your position are useless for early warning or targeting purposes.


The four Typhoons can be fitted with up to 13 AAMs. And for goodness sake, the Pucara is an anti counter-insurgency/ground attack turbo prop! A turbo prop! The Tucano is a ground attack trainer and the Pampas is a trainer/light attack craft as well. After the A4s have gone it would be like swatting flies.


Those Typhoons have to land somewhere, and they have to have fuel and armaments and personnel to maintain them. That's what the Pucaras, A4's, and Tucanos would be would be attacking, while the 4 Typhoons were busy dealing with the fighter aircraft. Might even be lucky enough to catch one or more of them on the ground.

An all out assault would require some pretty good timing considering the ceilings/top speeds of everything that needed to be involved. The 45 has some anti-ship defence, but most likely not enough to stop the entire Argentine navy should it get involved. And magically arrive shortly after the array of different flaming aircraft parts.

Interesting thing about those A-4s: The Argentines bought 30-some from the US with upgraded avionics based on the F-16. They aren't necessarily going to be easy meat for the Typhoons or the Type 45.
 
2013-01-03 03:00:28 PM  

King Keepo: The Type 45 tracks 1000+ targets out to 400k and can bring them down at 120k and below.


You should google more than specs.

Point 1
It does not have a radar that can see through the curvature of the earth. Here's a quick visual.
www.rfcafe.com
The further away, the higher an aircraft can fly and go undetected by radar, hence the importance of airborne platforms.

Point 2
Radar works like a flashlight in the dark. It can be 'seen' (detected) at a far greater distance than which it can be used to illuminate an object. If the Type 45 is radiating, every reasonably capable ELINT platform in the south Atlantic will know her exact location and thus easily avoid her. If she isn't radiating, then she's reduced to listening for Argy emissions and the mark 1 eyeball.

These aren't knocks against the Type-45/Aster system. A lone American Burke/SM-6 would face the exact same limitations.

King Keepo: The four Typhoons can be fitted with up to 13 AAMs.


In theory. In practice, they'll carry no more than 6 - with two of those being short range Sidewinder or ASRAAM. Even if you loaded them up completely, you've still got to target each individual attacker and provide midcourse guidance long enough for the weapon's active seeker to get in range. All the while, the rest of the attacking force is either targeting you or continuing on to complete the attack. Also, if you load them up completely then no external fuel tanks, severely limiting your ability to loiter on station and use afterburner. Furthering the point, I seriously doubt the fighters have more than a couple dozen AAMs available to them anyhow.

King Keepo: And for goodness sake, the Pucara is an anti counter-insurgency/ground attack turbo prop! A turbo prop! The Tucano is a ground attack trainer and the Pampas is a trainer/light attack craft as well.


The last time I looked, ordinance didn't care one whit about the propulsion system of the launch platform. The rockets, bombs, and cannon shells still go boom. The Pucara and Pampa have internal cannon and roughly 3,000 pound payloads. The Tucano has a payload of around 2,000 pounds. All have the range to make the trip to the island. They're much less vulnerable and much more capable against infantry and fixed targets than an attack helicopter. They would be very effective once any aerial opposition was eliminated.

King Keepo: After the A4s have gone it would be like swatting flies.


In order to swat flies, one must be equipped with a flyswatter. When the Typhoons are gone, the Falklands won't have one.
 
2013-01-03 03:05:21 PM  

dittybopper: JustGetItRight: And yes, the ground troops would land. Just as with the Typhoons, there aren't enough naval assets to stop them. The SSN would be devastating, but could only really engage a single task force. The Type 45 would be all but useless. It's Aster missiles (unlike the Sea Darts of the old Type 42s) are not capable of engaging surface targets and it doesn't carry Harpoons. All it has as an anti-ship weapon is the 4.5" gun, and if it is close enough to engage with guns it can also be engaged with guns.

One way the Argentines could get most of their invasion force to the islands unscathed is to simply disperse them.

If the UK has a single SSN and a single destroyer in the area (both of which have to look out for the Type 1700 subs the Argentines have: Capable conventional boats), then the Argentines can simply spread their invasion fleet piecemeal across a 180 degree arc from the Falklands, separated by tens or hundreds of nautical miles. They could especially do that by commandeering a lot of relatively small fishing vessels. A nuclear submarine has few viable options when dealing with a bunch of small widely separated targets. Sure, it might get a couple, but it will have to haul ass (and in the process make noise and advertise it's position) in order to make any kind of a dent in such a fleet, and in the end it might not be worth it to fire 5 torpedoes at 4 different targets and ending up merely taking out the equivalent of a company of infantry, and exposing yourself in the process.

That would be especially true if you placed those 1700 boats in areas where they might reasonably expect a Brit SSN to go blistering past to the next target.


I purposely left out the need for high speed to engage dispersed targets, but you're exactly right. Once the SSN drew its first blood, the Argys would have a rough idea of her position. If she tried to catch up to another target, their ASW assets (they have P-3 Orions and upgraded S-2 Trackers in addition to their surfaces forces and subs) would stand a fair chance of detecting her.
 
2013-01-03 03:12:10 PM  

dittybopper: King Keepo: The Type 45 tracks 1000+ targets out to 400k and can bring them down at 120k and below.

Radar works by line of sight. Take that "400km" range with a grain of salt. Assume for the sake of argument that the mast height is 50 meters, or 160 feet. Radio horizon is going to be 1.4*SQR(160) = 18 statute miles. If you have a plane that is traveling at the same height as the radar, the soonest that radar can possibly see that aircraft is 18+18 = 36 miles.

The only way it can see an aircraft that is 400 kilometers away is if it's flying at 35,000 feet, an unlikely occurrence in a military situation. It can target planes that are 120 kilometers away, but only if they are flying above 2,000 feet.

Plus, you can detect that radar far enough away that you can target the ship or avoid it as necessary. It *MUST* be radiating to provide a warning, btw: Radars that are turned off in order to avoid giving away your position are useless for early warning or targeting purposes.


The four Typhoons can be fitted with up to 13 AAMs. And for goodness sake, the Pucara is an anti counter-insurgency/ground attack turbo prop! A turbo prop! The Tucano is a ground attack trainer and the Pampas is a trainer/light attack craft as well. After the A4s have gone it would be like swatting flies.

Those Typhoons have to land somewhere, and they have to have fuel and armaments and personnel to maintain them. That's what the Pucaras, A4's, and Tucanos would be would be attacking, while the 4 Typhoons were busy dealing with the fighter aircraft. Might even be lucky enough to catch one or more of them on the ground.

An all out assault would require some pretty good timing considering the ceilings/top speeds of everything that needed to be involved. The 45 has some anti-ship defence, but most likely not enough to stop the entire Argentine navy should it get involved. And magically arrive shortly after the array of different flaming aircraft parts.

Interesting thing about those A- ...


Damn. I get caught up actually doing work and someone makes almost the exact same post as the one I was typing.

Nice work.
 
2013-01-03 03:26:41 PM  

JustGetItRight: Damn. I get caught up actually doing work and someone makes almost the exact same post as the one I was typing.

Nice work.


Yours has nice graphics, which is important when dealing with idiots who don't understand the limitations of things.
 
2013-01-03 03:38:41 PM  
So, British control of the Falklands is a legacy of colonialism. Has she looked in a mirror lately?
 
2013-01-03 03:46:06 PM  
Looking forward to a sequel to the final cut album.
 
2013-01-03 04:11:16 PM  

dittybopper: Much of the "long arm" capability of the UK, which was weak back in 1982 to begin with, is weaker still today, or even non-existent.


Britain doesn't have much long-range capability, but what they do have arrives with a nuclear tip.
 
2013-01-03 04:13:37 PM  

Norfolking Chance: Or California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas are given back to Mexico as they were stolen by colonialist invaders.

/as per the standards set by Argintena


Per standards set by Argentina, Mexico would have to be given back to Texas. Texas is the older continuous political body.
 
2013-01-03 04:17:58 PM  

dittybopper: If the UK has a single SSN and a single destroyer in the area (both of which have to look out for the Type 1700 subs the Argentines have: Capable conventional boats), then the Argentines can simply spread their invasion fleet piecemeal across a 180 degree arc from the Falklands, separated by tens or hundreds of nautical miles. They could especially do that by commandeering a lot of relatively small fishing vessels. A nuclear submarine has few viable options when dealing with a bunch of small widely separated targets. Sure, it might get a couple, but it will have to haul ass (and in the process make noise and advertise it's position) in order to make any kind of a dent in such a fleet, and in the end it might not be worth it to fire 5 torpedoes at 4 different targets and ending up merely taking out the equivalent of a company of infantry, and exposing yourself in the process.

That would be especially true if you placed those 1700 boats in areas where they might reasonably expect a Brit SSN to go blistering past to the next target.


You're thinking wrong. The SSN just has to be willing to trade Buenos Aires for Stanley. You don't have to move and swat 1700 little boats when you can not move and make Argentina's biggest city disappear single-handedly.
 
2013-01-03 04:34:20 PM  

Biness: Gunther: EngineerAU: that doesn't change the fact that when Britain took over the islands, they removed the local population and stocked it full of their own people.

From wiki:

When the Clio arrived, there were 33 genuine resident civilian settlers. Captain Onslow gave them a free choice of staying or leaving; he applied no pressure on them to leave and indeed encouraged some to stay. Only four of them chose to leave

I note that at this point Argentina had settlers on the islands for 4 years (1829-1833). while England had settlers as far back as 1760 (though they lost the islands to the Spanish, who lost them to Argentina), and have continuously settled the islands for the past 180 years.

that seems exceedingly fair on the part of Onslow


He truly was the second greatest Onslow in history
upload.wikimedia.org

/nice
 
2013-01-03 04:36:01 PM  

This text is now purple: You're thinking wrong. The SSN just has to be willing to trade Buenos Aires for Stanley. You don't have to move and swat 1700 little boats when you can not move and make Argentina's biggest city disappear single-handedly.


That can only be done with a nuclear weapon, which SSNs do not carry. The British Vanguard SSBNs don't have to get anywhere close to Argentina to turn it into a wasteland, but it is irrelevant because (a) the same threat existed in 1982 and it didn't stop Argentina and (b) you can take it to the bank that the British would not use a nuclear weapon on a civilian population unless similarly attacked first.

Since your next post will be 'but, but , but the Tomahawks', I'll go ahead and address those too. They're basically no more than a single 1,000 pound bomb with it's own delivery platform. The entire Royal Navy doesn't possess enough to level a single Buenoes Aires neighborhood - much less the entire city. Further, every single one carried on a SSN takes the place of a weapon that can be used against a ship.

There's a single SSN in the area. Say it has 8 Tomahawks. That's about the payload of one 4 aircraft A-4 Skyhawk strike. It won't even put a single airfield out of action. They also can't be reloaded at sea (well, they can but both the USN and RN have long retired their sub tenders) so it must sail to a friendly port. The nearest safe one under British control is Ascention Island - a two week trip.

If every single sub in the RN was in theater and launched at the same time, it would be no more than a single good attack against a target like a major airfield or power infrastructure. After that strike, you're done. Your choices are to have your most effective anti surface platform vacate the area to reload or simply accept the fact that your ability to act offensively against the enemy's operating bases has been exhausted.
 
2013-01-03 04:57:07 PM  

Rannuci: Biness: Gunther: EngineerAU: that doesn't change the fact that when Britain took over the islands, they removed the local population and stocked it full of their own people.

From wiki:

When the Clio arrived, there were 33 genuine resident civilian settlers. Captain Onslow gave them a free choice of staying or leaving; he applied no pressure on them to leave and indeed encouraged some to stay. Only four of them chose to leave

I note that at this point Argentina had settlers on the islands for 4 years (1829-1833). while England had settlers as far back as 1760 (though they lost the islands to the Spanish, who lost them to Argentina), and have continuously settled the islands for the past 180 years.

that seems exceedingly fair on the part of Onslow

He truly was the second greatest Onslow in history


/nice


So glad someone took the bait!

RIP Onslow
 
2013-01-03 04:58:03 PM  

JustGetItRight: This text is now purple: You're thinking wrong. The SSN just has to be willing to trade Buenos Aires for Stanley. You don't have to move and swat 1700 little boats when you can not move and make Argentina's biggest city disappear single-handedly.

That can only be done with a nuclear weapon, which SSNs do not carry. The British Vanguard SSBNs don't have to get anywhere close to Argentina to turn it into a wasteland, but it is irrelevant because (a) the same threat existed in 1982 and it didn't stop Argentina and (b) you can take it to the bank that the British would not use a nuclear weapon on a civilian population unless similarly attacked first.


It may give Argentina a little more pause this time, given that it came out in 2005 that Britain had deployed an armed Polaris to the theatre in 1982 that would have launched had one of the carriers been sunk, and that it seems some of their surface ships were also carrying nuclear munitions.

Considering how many kevlar kids Britain has on the Falklands, I'm not sure Argentina can rely on Britain not using their best weapon to defend their citizens. Although if it came to it, the US may be willing to defend the Falklands themselves.
 
2013-01-03 05:15:49 PM  

Mad_Season: FlashHarry: stitchface: Don't forget the UK has the ability to drop a tomahawk or 10 on the Argentinian mainland. Last time we had to fly a Vulcan to the south atlantic to threaten their cities.

there's a fascinating book about that called vulcan 607.

Long, but interesting video on the subject.


watching it now.
 
2013-01-03 05:17:45 PM  

This text is now purple: it came out in 2005 that Britain had deployed an armed Polaris to the theatre in 1982 that would have launched had one of the carriers been sunk


'It came out' is nothing more than a pure rumor. It would have never happened in 1982 and it won't happen today. No western nation will ever use one again unless similarly attacked or faced with utter defeat and occupation of their home territory. I'm not sure that defeat and occupation would even be enough in some cases.

As far as the surface ships go, not one single Royal Navy surface ship of the time was capable of employing a nuclear weapon. There is a story that some carried nuclear bombs designed for aerial delivery, but these were supposedly offloaded prior to entering the combat zone. Even if they weren't, the only platform capable of delivering them was the Sea Harrier - which could have only reached the mainland on an unopposed one-way trip. They could, of course, have dropped one on the island but that would pretty much have defeated the task force's purpose.

I would hope the US would aid Britain, but as I said earlier sometimes we go all wobbly.
 
2013-01-03 05:23:34 PM  

stitchface: Don't forget the UK has the ability to drop a tomahawk or 10 on the Argentinian mainland. Last time we had to fly a Vulcan to the south atlantic to threaten their cities.


The Black Buck raids accomplished almost nothing of military significance against the forces on the island and a lone Vulcan would have had zero chance of reaching the Argentine mainland.

It is moot anyhow. You don't have any more Vulcans and Tornadoes don't have the legs.

I already addressed the Tomahawks earlier.
 
2013-01-03 05:43:19 PM  

JustGetItRight: stitchface: Don't forget the UK has the ability to drop a tomahawk or 10 on the Argentinian mainland. Last time we had to fly a Vulcan to the south atlantic to threaten their cities.

The Black Buck raids accomplished almost nothing of military significance against the forces on the island and a lone Vulcan would have had zero chance of reaching the Argentine mainland.

It is moot anyhow. You don't have any more Vulcans and Tornadoes don't have the legs.

I already addressed the Tomahawks earlier.


Fair points, but how much do regular Argentinians really care about the islands? Enough to put up with buildings randomly exploding downtown? Could go either way I suppose, uniting people against their own govt, or the UK
 
2013-01-03 05:52:20 PM  

JustGetItRight: This text is now purple: it came out in 2005 that Britain had deployed an armed Polaris to the theatre in 1982 that would have launched had one of the carriers been sunk

'It came out' is nothing more than a pure rumor. It would have never happened in 1982 and it won't happen today. No western nation will ever use one again unless similarly attacked or faced with utter defeat and occupation of their home territory. I'm not sure that defeat and occupation would even be enough in some cases.

As far as the surface ships go, not one single Royal Navy surface ship of the time was capable of employing a nuclear weapon. There is a story that some carried nuclear bombs designed for aerial delivery, but these were supposedly offloaded prior to entering the combat zone. Even if they weren't, the only platform capable of delivering them was the Sea Harrier - which could have only reached the mainland on an unopposed one-way trip. They could, of course, have dropped one on the island but that would pretty much have defeated the task force's purpose.

I would hope the US would aid Britain, but as I said earlier sometimes we go all wobbly.


We aided them last time, we would again, Barry not withstanding.
 
2013-01-03 05:59:40 PM  

stitchface: Fair points, but how much do regular Argentinians really care about the islands? Enough to put up with buildings randomly exploding downtown? Could go either way I suppose, uniting people against their own govt, or the UK


For the most part, I doubt they really care much at all. She's just stirring this up to create a distraction for her domestic problems - which is exactly why Galtieri did it. I suspect (hope) she's a bit saner and won't do more than saber-rattle.

As far as the impact of random buildings exploding goes, history seems to indicate that the result is really counter intuitive. In no way did the carpet bombings of WWII break the will of civilian populations. Likewise, the NATO actions in the Balkans didn't cause a civilian uproar.
 
2013-01-03 06:00:51 PM  

Clash City Farker: We aided them last time, we would again, Barry not withstanding


Not directly. Only with intel and weapons (AiM-9L all aspect sidewinders).

This time they'd need a whole lot more.
 
2013-01-03 06:02:37 PM  

JustGetItRight: Clash City Farker: We aided them last time, we would again, Barry not withstanding

Not directly. Only with intel and weapons (AiM-9L all aspect sidewinders).

This time they'd need a whole lot more.


We also refueled their planes. But, yeah I do not think they are in much of a position to react this time.
 
2013-01-03 06:52:51 PM  

This text is now purple: It may give Argentina a little more pause this time, given that it came out in 2005 that Britain had deployed an armed Polaris to the theatre in 1982 that would have launched had one of the carriers been sunk


No, they wouldn't have.

You don't destroy a civilian city because someone sank your naval ship in a war zone, especially not with nuclear weapons.
 
2013-01-03 06:57:40 PM  

JustGetItRight: s far as the impact of random buildings exploding goes, history seems to indicate that the result is really counter intuitive. In no way did the carpet bombings of WWII break the will of civilian populations. Likewise, the NATO actions in the Balkans didn't cause a civilian uproar.


If anything, it tends to steel the resolve of the people, and unite those who aren't necessarily advocates for war with those who are.

Bombing civilians is just counterproductive.
 
2013-01-03 07:01:05 PM  

This text is now purple: You're thinking wrong. The SSN just has to be willing to trade Buenos Aires for Stanley. You don't have to move and swat 1700 little boats when you can not move and make Argentina's biggest city disappear single-handedly.


Oh, btw, when I said this:

That would be especially true if you placed those 1700 boats in areas where they might reasonably expect a Brit SSN to go blistering past to the next target.

I meant the two Type 1700 submarines the Argentines had. Sorry it was ambiguous, I noticed that after I posted it, but Fark doesn't allow you to edit.
 
2013-01-04 09:08:33 AM  

Clash City Farker: JustGetItRight: Clash City Farker: We aided them last time, we would again, Barry not withstanding

Not directly. Only with intel and weapons (AiM-9L all aspect sidewinders).

This time they'd need a whole lot more.

We also refueled their planes. But, yeah I do not think they are in much of a position to react this time.


No.

The only RAF missions that required aerial refueling were the previously mentioned Black Buck raids. They were conducted by RAF Avro Vulcan bombers refueled by RAF Handley Page Victor tankers staging out of Ascension Island. Each raid (conducted by lone bombers) required a tremendous number of refueling operations. The usual strike package was a lead Vulcan bomber, spare Vulcan bomber, and 11 or so Victor tankers. The Vulcan is a huge delta winged aircraft and the Victor has a very sleek, elegant, and incredibly distinctively British appearance. US tankers then and now are converted airliners. The mere appearance of a US tanker would have been known by everyone on the island and the implications of one or more leaving in conjunction with a RAF strike package (which coincidentally included fewer than normal Victors) would have been clear to Ray Charles.

The one thing we did that was quite possibly war-winning was supplying the Royal Navy with Aim-9L Sidewinders. All Sidewinders use heat-seeking guidance, but unlike earlier Sidewinders used by both sides or the Magics used by Argentina, the -9L is an all aspect weapon. It could be fired at a target approaching head on. The Harriers could directly intercept an inbound strike and make a killing shot without fear of having to evade a return one. That ability is taken for granted today, but in 1982 it was a huge step forward.
 
Displayed 132 of 132 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report