They are called The Falkland Islands ...

Sukerkin said:
Not your normal reasonable self today, Xue. I am sorry to be a source of annoyance.

As far as I am concerned you are well off-beam with your thoughts but I shall not try to argue with you about them.

All I would gently suggest is that you read a bit about the history of the islands and then form your views.
Click to expand...

(post deleted)

You know, on second thought, never mind…not worth the time... and one of us, or both of us, is missing the point
 
Last edited:
Here is an article that discusses the Falkland Islands and the relationship, militarily, between the old Britain and modern Britain.

http://bigpeace.com/phair/2011/07/05/why-doesnt-the-united-kingdom-own-argentina/

From the article:

Argentina continues giving the United Kingdom trouble over the Falkland Islands. This is troubling but I understand why Argentina does it: the U.K. seems militarily weak as demonstrated by its performance in Libya and by other reports of its deterioration. And when a state that is unencumbered by political correctness and principles, such as Argentina, sees an opportunity to take advantage of another nation, it is going to do so. Furthermore, even if the U.K. has the capabilities to fight back, history tells us that it will only minimally do so. In fact, the only reason Argentina exists today is that the U.K. didn’t do what it should have done in 1982 when Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands. Thomas Sowell hinted at this when he wrote, “Another war created by pacifism”:
Back in the 19th century, invading a British possession would bring certain retaliation, not just a military recapture of the islands by the British. In 1882, such an attack could mean British troops landing in Argentina itself, perhaps demolishing Buenos Aires and hanging those who had launched the aggression.


​
 
I do concur that wars are as often caused by perceived weakness as they are by unbridled aggression or fear. However, I do not think that otherwise what the author of the linked article had to say was really directed at the problem of potential Argentinian miltary overtures.

In the present international climate, wars of 'Empire' are not really the way the game is played anymore. That's something that I think is a good thing. After all, the British Empire shaped the modern world and look at the state things are in because of it. I happen to think that 'we' forged the Empire with the best of intentions and did a lot of good along the way {/whispers whilst nicking a lot of natural resources that the natives didn't know the worth of} but the consequences of our involvement are still felt in Africa and the Middle East down to this day.

As to the Falkland Islands tho', they're British soil. The fact that they are in Argentina's backyard is neither here nor there.

A domestic analogy is the fact that, at my old house, someone else owned the land behind it. That was intensely aggrivating to me but I didn't have a legal case to take possession of it. Despite the fact that for all the other houses in the row the land behind belonged to the house it was adjacent to, this was not the historical circumstance with regard to my house.

If the Falkland Islanders want to become part of Argentina then I'm sure accomodations will be made but until then ...
 
Sukerkin said:
I do concur that wars are as often caused by perceived weakness as they are by unbridled aggression or fear. However, I do not think that otherwise what the author of the linked article had to say was really directed at the problem of potential Argentinian miltary overtures.

In the present international climate, wars of 'Empire' are not really the way the game is played anymore. That's something that I think is a good thing. After all, the British Empire shaped the modern world and look at the state things are in because of it. I happen to think that 'we' forged the Empire with the best of intentions and did a lot of good along the way {/whispers whilst nicking a lot of natural resources that the natives didn't know the worth of} but the consequences of our involvement are still felt in Africa and the Middle East down to this day.

As to the Falkland Islands tho', they're British soil. The fact that they are in Argentina's backyard is neither here nor there.

A domestic analogy is the fact that, at my old house, someone else owned the land behind it. That was intensely aggrivating to me but I didn't have a legal case to take possession of it. Despite the fact that for all the other houses in the row the land behind belonged to the house it was adjacent to, this was not the historical circumstance with regard to my house.

If the Falkland Islanders want to become part of Argentina then I'm sure accomodations will be made but until then ...
Click to expand...

Sure. The Falkland Islanders are very British. They speak English and have British culture...you know, the culture of our strongest allies, the ones that have been willing to fight alongside us and die alongside us. That is hardly a trivial notion.

Referring to the Falklans as las Islas Malvinas not only snubs our allies but IMO its also a silly gesture to Argentina. It may appeal to the nationalist-minded folk who see the Falklands War as their country proudly taking a stand against an international behemoth. Why is such a matter not part of President Obama's talks? Because it is trivial matter to the rank and file Argentine people. The businesspeople down there would be more likely to say they would like affordable American cars, and precision machinery to keep their industrial base growing. Argentina may not enjoy the same standard of living that we have in the US/UK, but it is hardly a backwards nation. They are developing a strong economy in their own right and would like to progress further. They aren't going to realize those goals by annexing an archipelago of British folks who largely raise sheep...or even appealing to such a notion.
 
Last edited:
Problem for the Brits is a simple one. The risk of an inability to field a force to negate possible Argentinian aggression.
Lets look at this logically for a moment.

224,500 regulars
187,130 regular reserves

The British Army has had much of it's manpower tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan the past 10 years. The result is much of the regulars are unavailable due to current missions, or are recovering from years in theater. Assembling, arming and transporting an effective ground force ready for major combat could be a challenge, especially given the current economic state. Also a factor is a public tired of years of war. In their favor is a large number of combat experienced troops armed with the latest weapons, body armor and tactics.

The British navy is still formidable, but lacks the ability to bring air support, a vital ingredient in modern warfare. HMS Illustrious was reportedly converted to helicopter carrier. The other 2 carriers in the fleet, HMS Invincible & HMS Ark Royal, both have been decommissioned after almost 3 decades of distinguished service. If the Brits wish to field an airforce in theater, they will have to reach out to their allies, which includes an America with a Brit-phobic president prone to political gaffes.

The Royal Airforce has a history of bravery, and no one can honestly say their pilots lack ability. What they lack however is planes. Current estimates put about 200 combat fighters in the force, 136 Panavia Tornado's and 71 Eurofighter Typhoon's. The Tornado's are being phased out for the Typhoons, which are notable for 2 things. They cost a crap load of cash and require an ace to fly. 2 things the Brits currently lack I'm afraid if reports of budget cuts and a lack of trainers and training time are true.

By comparison, the Argentine navy has no carrier class ships, however the location of theater would allow for land based air operations. Sea combat would see them at a disadvantage due to a lack of capital class ships, and a relatively small navy (40 or so destroyer class or smaller). Air conflict also sees them disadvantaged in 1 on 1 conflicts due to fielding an outdated air fleet.

In a conflict, IF the Brits can bring their superior air craft to theater, and field enough capital ships with support, air and sea supremacy would most likely favor them. That would leave a land confrontation as a deciding factor. If the Brits can land enough of a fighting force, their superior arms and more recent combat experience would most likely inflict heavy losses on any Argentinian forces that made land, however they would be a long way from home and at risk of supply line disruptions should chance favor Argentina.


Suk, Tez, your thoughts on this analysis?
 
I hadn't realised that it wasn't common knowledge about the potential wealth available around the Falkland Isles - my apologies for not making that explicit. I do believe that, as well as the need for political advantage brought on by sabre rattling by the Argentine government, the revelation that there is money to be made is part of the reason for the recent agressive statements (tho' it is an almost annual event for the Argentines to threaten to take the Falklands back it has to be said (not that the islands were ever theirs in the first place)).

As to the potential for hostilities, they 'fooled' us once, which is shame on them (and a sound beating to drive the message home). If they fool us again then that is shame on us. We have the means to build up forces on the islands by air now, which is something we lacked last time. Put a deterrent force in place and this should die down once more. The problem is that we have deprived ourselves of carrier capability, something that makes me grind my teeth at the imbecility of such an action.

Tez is much better placed than me to give an informed response on the RAF perspective - I'm just a Royal Navy wannabe {a "should've been" in my book but that's a different tale}.
 
Bob Hubbard said:
Problem for the Brits is a simple one. The risk of an inability to field a force to negate possible Argentinian aggression.
Lets look at this logically for a moment.

224,500 regulars
187,130 regular reserves


The British Army has had much of it's manpower tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan the past 10 years. The result is much of the regulars are unavailable due to current missions, or are recovering from years in theater. Assembling, arming and transporting an effective ground force ready for major combat could be a challenge, especially given the current economic state. Also a factor is a public tired of years of war. In their favor is a large number of combat experienced troops armed with the latest weapons, body armor and tactics.

The British navy is still formidable, but lacks the ability to bring air support, a vital ingredient in modern warfare. HMS Illustrious was reportedly converted to helicopter carrier. The other 2 carriers in the fleet, HMS Invincible & HMS Ark Royal, both have been decommissioned after almost 3 decades of distinguished service. If the Brits wish to field an airforce in theater, they will have to reach out to their allies, which includes an America with a Brit-phobic president prone to political gaffes.

The Royal Airforce has a history of bravery, and no one can honestly say their pilots lack ability. What they lack however is planes. Current estimates put about 200 combat fighters in the force, 136 Panavia Tornado's and 71 Eurofighter Typhoon's. The Tornado's are being phased out for the Typhoons, which are notable for 2 things. They cost a crap load of cash and require an ace to fly. 2 things the Brits currently lack I'm afraid if reports of budget cuts and a lack of trainers and training time are true.

By comparison, the Argentine navy has no carrier class ships, however the location of theater would allow for land based air operations. Sea combat would see them at a disadvantage due to a lack of capital class ships, and a relatively small navy (40 or so destroyer class or smaller). Air conflict also sees them disadvantaged in 1 on 1 conflicts due to fielding an outdated air fleet.

In a conflict, IF the Brits can bring their superior air craft to theater, and field enough capital ships with support, air and sea supremacy would most likely favor them. That would leave a land confrontation as a deciding factor. If the Brits can land enough of a fighting force, their superior arms and more recent combat experience would most likely inflict heavy losses on any Argentinian forces that made land, however they would be a long way from home and at risk of supply line disruptions should chance favor Argentina.


Suk, Tez, your thoughts on this analysis?
Click to expand...

The Solution
 
There is a Garrison now on the Falklands so it won't be a case of having to send troops down, there are currently enough troops and aircraft on the islands to fend off attacks. There are 1500 troops in the islands about the same number deployed to Afghan, the tours between there and the Falklands are rotated. there are 'early warning' aircraft, search and rescue as well as fighters down there too. There is radar as well as navy warships on base off the coast, it's far from undefended. The RAF has 650 combat planes and helcopters out of 1002 overall aircraft. We have three Typhoon squadrons. The Army Air Corps has six squadrons of Apache attack helicopters. At the moment things aren't in such a state with the forces as some would have you believe, the money is there to support operations one of which is still defending the Falklands Islands.
 
Thanks Tez - I hadn't realised that our readiness state down there was so good. It is reassuring to hear it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Pies and glitter, left wing silliness?

Previous Thread

Whats Wrong With The Economy? In 2:15 minutes.

Next Thread

Similar threads

Sukerkin
The Falklands
2
Replies
25
Views
3K
Scott T
Scott T
Sukerkin
Here We Go Again
3 4 5
Replies
87
Views
8K
Sukerkin
Sukerkin
Clark Kent
JTO: Falklands war, round two?
Replies
0
Views
1K
Clark Kent
Clark Kent
Sukerkin
Now the Spanish are at it
2
Replies
21
Views
3K
granfire
granfire
kickcatcher
Lesson in realistic training: the Falklands War
Replies
2
Views
1K
still learning
S

Latest Discussions

Back
Top