Is England trying to stir the pot over the Falkland Islands?


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Politics : Is England trying to stir the pot over the Falkland Islands?

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 . . . 12 · Next
Author Message
Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12363
Credit: 6,667,947
RAC: 8,790
United States
Message 1191266 - Posted: 3 Feb 2012, 19:59:34 UTC - in response to Message 1191231.

Current battle ships have automated defense guns and missles as well as offensive missiles that are much easier to aim using the GPS onboard.

Ah yes GPS, that can be jammed into thinking the weapon is at home and should be disarmed as Iran recently demonstrated. That does a number on drones, less so on a piloted aircraft as the pilot can use other navigation methods but he can be reduced to his machine gun if all his other weapons have GPS.

As to taking out a task force, hard only because of the scale, but can England get a task force together, or would it be a light carrier and a couple support ships? Consider how far these islands are from the enemy mainland and from resupply ports. On the mainland you can get a lot of missile launchers and pound for a considerable time. You can put up an air force from the mainland. To win all you need do it keep the enemy out of the battle field range. I doubt England has the stomach to directly attack their mainland, which leaves a defensive war. [The USA has had considerable experience is loosing that kind of war.]

There needs to be a political solution to this.

____________

Profile Chris SProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 31378
Credit: 12,047,282
RAC: 29,382
United Kingdom
Message 1191282 - Posted: 3 Feb 2012, 20:50:40 UTC

Despite the Argentinian claims to what they call the Malvinas, the UK maintains that the Falkland Islands are ours, and as long as the Falklanders themselves wish to reamin British, we will support that.

The recent armed services cuts were mainly due to cost cutting, but also because it has been seen that future wars will mainly be fought as coalitions against a common enemy. Therefore nations do not need an independent deterrent. That means that the UK does not now have the operational capacity to mount a task Force as we did in 1982.

We were caught out 30 years ago by Argentina sneaking in by the back door and invading Georgia. This would not happen today with modern surveillance technologies. Also as alluded to before we have a number of nuclear subs on station all over the world at any one time, and we would be getting there a bit quicker than HMS Conqueror did.

It needs to be remembered that the UK never officially declared war against Argentina in 1982, so the question of whether we would directly attack their mainland either then or now, does not come into it. The Argentinian government is asserting its claim on the Falklands for mainly political reasons to remain popular with their voting population, and to get a slice of the action if any oil is found.

However, notwithstanding all the foregoing, the disagreement between the UK and Argentina over the future of these islands is seen internationally as a private spat, and it is highly unlikly that any other country would want to offer and supply military aid.

I just think that this will rumble on and on, but if one day Argentina ramps this up to include any form of miltary intervention, then they will be very foolhardy to say the least.

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12363
Credit: 6,667,947
RAC: 8,790
United States
Message 1191292 - Posted: 3 Feb 2012, 21:32:31 UTC - in response to Message 1191282.

Also as alluded to before we have a number of nuclear subs on station all over the world at any one time, and we would be getting there a bit quicker than HMS Conqueror did.

And how is a sub going to defend against a paratroop force? Surface and become a sitting duck to put up a radar antenna to fire SAM missiles, or use its deck gun? Argentina does not need to attack by boat. Don't assume your enemy has the same issues you do.

The USA has a long history of loosing defensive wars of attrition.

____________

Profile Chris SProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 31378
Credit: 12,047,282
RAC: 29,382
United Kingdom
Message 1191303 - Posted: 3 Feb 2012, 21:55:43 UTC
Last modified: 3 Feb 2012, 21:56:49 UTC

And how is a sub going to defend against a paratroop force?

By firing torpedoes at the ship launching the landing craft.

Next question ...

Argentina does not need to attack by boat.

Of course not. Machine gun emplacements have been proven to be fairly effective against parachutists.

The USA has a long history of loosing defensive wars of attrition.

Sorry to hear that. What have you been doing wrong?

bobby
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 1962
Credit: 14,732,972
RAC: 2,888
United States
Message 1191338 - Posted: 4 Feb 2012, 0:08:15 UTC - in response to Message 1191303.

And how is a sub going to defend against a paratroop force?

By firing torpedoes at the ship launching the landing craft.

Next question ...



Paratroopers parachute landing craft, land in them, then go ashore? Seems an awful lot of effort when they could arachute over land and avoid any possible encounters with torpedoes. I truly did not appreciate how much any oxymoron military intelligence was until now.

____________
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12363
Credit: 6,667,947
RAC: 8,790
United States
Message 1191340 - Posted: 4 Feb 2012, 0:11:48 UTC - in response to Message 1191303.

Argentina does not need to attack by boat.

Of course not. Machine gun emplacements have been proven to be fairly effective against parachutists.

So you expect them to be manned and in place after the cruise missiles. Good show old boy.

____________

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12363
Credit: 6,667,947
RAC: 8,790
United States
Message 1191341 - Posted: 4 Feb 2012, 0:13:09 UTC - in response to Message 1191338.

And how is a sub going to defend against a paratroop force?

By firing torpedoes at the ship launching the landing craft.

Next question ...



Paratroopers parachute landing craft, land in them, then go ashore? Seems an awful lot of effort when they could arachute over land and avoid any possible encounters with torpedoes. I truly did not appreciate how much any oxymoron military intelligence was until now.

I'm not sure Chris wants to be reminded that islands are sitting ducks. Ask Japan how to defend them.

____________

Profile Chris SProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 31378
Credit: 12,047,282
RAC: 29,382
United Kingdom
Message 1191346 - Posted: 4 Feb 2012, 0:38:27 UTC
Last modified: 4 Feb 2012, 0:43:22 UTC

The British SAS are quite capable of mounting an amphibious assault, in parallel with an airborne force. So we would be wise to assume that others might do so, of course with less success.

I'm not sure Chris wants to be reminded that islands are sitting ducks

You can remind me of anything you like if you wish. The USA ia a very large island come to that.

I truly did not appreciate how much any oxymoron military intelligence was until now

I'll excuse the grammar as it's late at night.

@Gary & Bobby - Look guys if you're gonna join forces to have a pop at yours truly, you're gonna have to do a bit better than this. OK old boy? :-)

bobby
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 1962
Credit: 14,732,972
RAC: 2,888
United States
Message 1191352 - Posted: 4 Feb 2012, 1:45:11 UTC - in response to Message 1191346.
Last modified: 4 Feb 2012, 1:48:20 UTC

The USA ia a very large island come to that.


I could've sworn we had land borders with other nations. Will have to check my atlas ;-).

I'll excuse the grammar as it's late at night.


Apologies for the mangled English, composing posts from an tablet is not my usual method. If I try it again I'll be sure to be more careful.

@Gary & Bobby - Look guys if you're gonna join forces to have a pop at yours truly, you're gonna have to do a bit better than this. OK old boy? :-)


Apologies, the post was meant to be humorous, hence the elaborate painting a picture. Though you have a point, a few smilies wouldn't have gone amiss.
____________
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12363
Credit: 6,667,947
RAC: 8,790
United States
Message 1191357 - Posted: 4 Feb 2012, 2:48:37 UTC - in response to Message 1191346.

You can remind me of anything you like if you wish. The USA ia a very large island come to that.

Thought you boys learned something in 1812, that while you can take over parts it is vary hard to hold onto if the enemy has the ability to make weapons and you have a long supply line.

The serious part is that if both of you went at is all out, I don't think England could do a defensive hold on them, they would have to go offensive on the Argentinian mainland. The islands are just a bit too close to Argentina for the English to keep resupplied.

Of course under the Monroe Doctrine, the FalkMalLandsVinas are the USA's anyway. :)

I honestly don't think there are enough resources there for an all out over them and both sides know it. Negotiate something.


Chris, did you actually say to machine gun paratroopers? Thought there was something in Geneva about that.

____________

Profile ignorance is no excuse
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9529
Credit: 44,433,274
RAC: 0
Korea, North
Message 1191389 - Posted: 4 Feb 2012, 5:18:16 UTC - in response to Message 1191357.

Monroe doctrine considered the Americas as the US's sphere of influence. Technically, we should be telling the Argentinians to back down.

You can't shoot the paratroopers but you can shoot their equipment. Like their helmets and webgear and rifles and their parachutes. If they are dumb enough to have those items then they may get shot in the act of destroying personal war equipment
____________
In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

End terrorism by building a school

Sirius B
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 10801
Credit: 1,574,517
RAC: 2,212
Israel
Message 1191413 - Posted: 4 Feb 2012, 9:02:49 UTC

Until warfare becomes a true technological affair without the need of manpower, to end/win a battle/war, boots will be needed on the ground.

I cannot see the EU or the US aid Britain should the Falklands kick off again & without that aid, Britain, this time around, cannot provide sufficient resources to attack, let alone retake the Falklands.

However, if the potential oilfield/s is large enough, then maybe the US will provide aid (basing this on the "Iraq Affair").
____________

Profile Chris SProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 31378
Credit: 12,047,282
RAC: 29,382
United Kingdom
Message 1191421 - Posted: 4 Feb 2012, 10:19:27 UTC

There are three points here, firstly it would be that much more difficult to defend territory in the South Atlantic than it was in 1982. Secondly we were not expecting Argentina to take Georgia then invade the islands. Thirdly and conversely, military technologies have improved in the last 30 years, so we wouldn't need to send up helicopters to drop chaff to confuse missiles etc.

Argentinas forces are most likely carefully monitored in many ways 24/7 and any large scale build up or deployment would be immediately seen, and appropriate action taken. PM Cameron chaired a COBRA meeting before Xmas on this very point and was quoted as saying that he was assured that we had the capability required to deal with it if neccessary.

However it is worrying when senior Military figures disagree Army Head. I would agree that if the islands were invaded again we would have a very difficult job to re-take them, but I don't see it getting that far. Neither do I think that we would consider attacking the mainland, in that case we would formally have to declare war.

I can't see there being a political solution in the short term either, they call them the Malvinas and say they are theirs, we call them the Falklands and say they are ours, two fairly entrenched positions. We might agree to possibly discuss oil reserves as a separate issue at some point. Every so often due to home political pressures, the Argentine government raise the Falklands issue, and I expect that will continue.



Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12363
Credit: 6,667,947
RAC: 8,790
United States
Message 1191461 - Posted: 4 Feb 2012, 15:33:52 UTC - in response to Message 1191421.

There are three points here, firstly it would be that much more difficult to defend territory in the South Atlantic than it was in 1982. Secondly we were not expecting Argentina to take Georgia then invade the islands. Thirdly and conversely, military technologies have improved in the last 30 years, so we wouldn't need to send up helicopters to drop chaff to confuse missiles etc.

Argentinas forces are most likely carefully monitored in many ways 24/7 and any large scale build up or deployment would be immediately seen, and appropriate action taken. PM Cameron chaired a COBRA meeting before Xmas on this very point and was quoted as saying that he was assured that we had the capability required to deal with it if neccessary.

However it is worrying when senior Military figures disagree Army Head. I would agree that if the islands were invaded again we would have a very difficult job to re-take them, but I don't see it getting that far. Neither do I think that we would consider attacking the mainland, in that case we would formally have to declare war.

I can't see there being a political solution in the short term either, they call them the Malvinas and say they are theirs, we call them the Falklands and say they are ours, two fairly entrenched positions. We might agree to possibly discuss oil reserves as a separate issue at some point. Every so often due to home political pressures, the Argentine government raise the Falklands issue, and I expect that will continue.

Chris, missile tech has also advanced 30 years. Second how many spy satellites does England launch? While I'm sure the USA is happy to give data when there is free time on our birds, with the situation in the world today our birds aren't looking at Argentina.

If you haven't turned them into Midway island I doubt you can slow down the invasion long enough to project enough force to prevent it. Once taken projecting sufficient force to retake is going to be next to impossible as Argentina will turn them into Midway.

The USA has a little experience in island warfare and it is very very nasty.

____________

Profile Chris SProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 31378
Credit: 12,047,282
RAC: 29,382
United Kingdom
Message 1191529 - Posted: 4 Feb 2012, 19:48:49 UTC
Last modified: 4 Feb 2012, 19:49:11 UTC

If the Argies want a punch up we'll give 'em one. I would not be at all surprised if extra SAS were not already there or on their way. You'd be quite surprised how quickly Hercules can get there via Ascension.

Sub deployment

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12363
Credit: 6,667,947
RAC: 8,790
United States
Message 1191626 - Posted: 5 Feb 2012, 0:49:54 UTC

Type 45 destroyer: Windows for Warships.

During its first major warfare sea exercise aboard HMS Daring the ship's Combat Management System crashed while under simulated air attack due to a power failure. The ship lost use of its combat management system, i.e. PAAMS. The ship's crew reverted to use of binoculars to spot incoming airborne threats until the CMS had been restarted.


____________

NickProject donor
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 11 Oct 11
Posts: 3903
Credit: 1,984,149
RAC: 1,160
United Kingdom
Message 1191692 - Posted: 5 Feb 2012, 8:34:38 UTC
Last modified: 5 Feb 2012, 8:53:06 UTC

Britain ceded control of the Falklands to the Spanish in the 1700's. During
this time Spain controlled Argentina and gave Argentina the responsibility
of managing this island. When Spain gave Argentina it's independence Argentina
took possession of the Falkland Isles. Britain did not like this so kicked
the Argentinians off the Island. So it boils down to what was in the written
agreement at the time, in the 1700's, between Britain and Spain. Did Britain
just give the Spanish control over the Falklands or did Britain actually
give the Island to them lock-stock and barrel. If the agreement was just to
give Spain the control over the Falklands then when Argentina gained their
independence this did not give Argentina the right to claim the Falkland Island.
Only if Britain ceded ownership of the Falklands to the Spanish during the
1700's could Argentina possibly now have a claim for this Island. My
suspicions are that Britain only gave Spain control of the Falklands and
not ownership because as soon as Argentina gained it's independence from
Spain, in about 1816, Britain quickly went over to the Falklands and turfed
off the Argentinians. Why, for as far as Britain was concerned it still owned
the Island and the controlling agreement over the Island was between Britain
and Spain but not with Argentina.

What's America's stance on this situation, all depends on who the president is.
Perhaps this Falklands issue will get discussed between Obama and Cameron
when Cameron flies over very shortly. Obviously the two are meeting up
to discuss the Syria issue and hence a joint operation together to bomb
that country.
____________
The Kite Fliers

--------------------
Kite fliers: An imaginary club of solo members, those who don't yet
belong to a formal team so "fly their own kites" - as the saying goes.

Profile John Clark
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 29 Sep 99
Posts: 16515
Credit: 4,418,829
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 1191699 - Posted: 5 Feb 2012, 9:34:44 UTC - in response to Message 1191692.
Last modified: 5 Feb 2012, 9:36:19 UTC

Obviously the two are meeting up
to discuss the Syria issue and hence a joint operation together to bomb
that country
.


I hope not, as Western intervention will not have any benefits to our interests, and will bring in Iran which will widen the issue.

Indirect intervention by Britain should be the way, as Syria is much more complex than Libya. That was not taken in to account, nor history, when we got involved in Afghanistan.

Nick

A good summary, and our involvement with the Falkland islands goes back many more years than the 1700s when our people landed there which was more than Argintina did..
____________
It's good to be back amongst friends and colleagues



Profile Chris SProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 31378
Credit: 12,047,282
RAC: 29,382
United Kingdom
Message 1191705 - Posted: 5 Feb 2012, 10:12:23 UTC

Looks like the French had a hand in it all as well at one point ...

Falklands history

NickProject donor
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 11 Oct 11
Posts: 3903
Credit: 1,984,149
RAC: 1,160
United Kingdom
Message 1191922 - Posted: 6 Feb 2012, 8:26:35 UTC - in response to Message 1191705.
Last modified: 6 Feb 2012, 8:34:47 UTC

Looks like the French had a hand in it all as well at one point ...

Falklands history


....and the Dutch too, for they were the first to place this Island on the
map of the world. You could say that Both Holland, France, Spain and the UK
have legitimate claims to the Falkland Island but certainly not Argentina.
There is suspicion that Argentina did land on the Falklands around about
the late medieval period but they did not lay a claim to it. Well it was
250 miles off from their coast line and one must assume that they did not
think much of this Island. Well this was their big mistake and the reason why
they are so sore about the UK having the sense later to claim it as their
own. Still, Argentina never officially laid claim to the Falklands until
around the late 1800's and no one took their claim seriously. Why H. Clinton
wishes to support the Argentinians claim today beats me other than she's out
looking desperately to make friends around the place...she must be a pretty
lonely girl...that or no one outside the Americas actually see's her as a
serious or worthy politician and this is playing on her mind. Perhaps she
feels she's still potential president material, unfortunately girl the
American population don't actually think this of you.
____________
The Kite Fliers

--------------------
Kite fliers: An imaginary club of solo members, those who don't yet
belong to a formal team so "fly their own kites" - as the saying goes.

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 . . . 12 · Next

Message boards : Politics : Is England trying to stir the pot over the Falkland Islands?

Copyright © 2014 University of California