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
    More: Followup, Falkland Islands, Argentine Republic, Britain, Falklands War, UN resolution, Kirchners, British Forces, Self-Government  
•       •       •

5733 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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 132 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
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