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  
•       •       •

5713 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Jan 2013 at 9:36 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
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 32 of 132 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | 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


Report