# Falklands War Part 2



## comiso90 (Feb 23, 2010)

*if it seems unthinkable...well it was unthinkable in 1981 too!*

_The English are still threatening Argentina. Things have changed. We are no longer in 1982,” he warned. “If conflict breaks out, be sure Argentina will not be alone like it was back then.”_

Latin America backs Argentina as Britain begins Falklands oil quest - contains video


Do Central, South American countries practice joint war games? Would a outcome in 2010 be any different? Could Britain win against a South American alliance? I think the US would have to stay out of it.

Argentina proved that advanced missiles can be a threat to a modern Navy.. i doubt their brave aviators would make the same mistake this time around (poorly fused, old iron bombs).

Can Britain send forces there w/o impacting middle east deployments?

.


----------



## Erich (Feb 23, 2010)

you seriously think the Argentinians are ready for another butt kicking ? ........ maybe they are.


----------



## comiso90 (Feb 23, 2010)

Erich said:


> you seriously think the Argentinians are ready for another butt kicking ? ........ maybe they are.



Distractions are the best friend of failing politicians and this time Argentina may have Venezuela on its side too. 

Maybe Britain is spread too thin right now? Maybe Argentina has been stockpiling exocets (or whatever is used now). It may be a good time to challenge them.

.


----------



## timshatz (Feb 23, 2010)

If the Argentinians can get this one to the level of being a conflict between S. America and European Colonialist, they have a chance. Would need to pull more countries in on their side and for most of the counties in SA, but there isn't anything in it for them.

By the same token, I don't think the British Navy is in the same shape as it was during the Cold War. Been downsized a bit. 

I just have trouble seeing this as a big time shooting war and not a diplomatic war. 

The question is really going to be about Oil, If they find a lot of it in the area around the Falklands, the stakes go up exponentially.


----------



## comiso90 (Feb 23, 2010)

timshatz said:


> The question is really going to be about Oil, If they find a lot of it in the area around the Falklands, the stakes go up exponentially.




Maybe Exxon will own a surplus aircraft carrier someday!

.


----------



## Colin1 (Feb 23, 2010)

timshatz said:


> By the same token, I don't think the British Navy is in the same shape as it was during the Cold War. Been downsized a bit...


It's a big point
In 1982 the invasion of the Falklands took everyone by surprise. Yet we put together a task force, sailed 8,000 miles around the globe and set to against an enemy that had planned, executed and had time to dig in and consolidate its gains on a small, seemingly inconsequential island, and we did it simply because the inhabitants said "Hey, we're British subjects". 

We spanked them.

That was a good time to be a British serviceman, the roll-out of the Falklands operation was impressive, it showed that part of the world who plotted to harm our interests or undermine us that we could do impressive things. We made silly mistakes that cost us material assets and servicemens lives but overall, it was close to text book.

These days the RN is smaller, the Army is smaller and the RAF is smaller. We're stretched in Afghanistan by these same smaller numbers and more restrained budgets, let alone another sizeable campaign on the other side of the world. On the upside, we have a far more potent presence on the islands now than we did back then.

I'm not concerned by the rabid barking of Chavez, he talks a big fight with the US and now he's talking a big fight with us (someone's obviously bought him an atlas for his birthday) but getting into a scrap that's costing him losses might just get him tossed in the next elections and I hope he's too stupid to see that. Who else from S America is going to rally to Chavez on behalf of Argentina? Well, we can only wait and see but I'll be surprised if there's any takers.

If Argentina think they can risk another plunge then given the choice between poorly-fused iron bombs and a defensive back line of Harriers, or improved fusing for the iron bombs and a defensive back line of Typhoons, they had a far better chance in 1982. 

They could attempt to beach land forces but knowing what British soldiers are like in a guts-in-the-mud firefight, that probably won't go well...


----------



## comiso90 (Feb 23, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> If Argentina think they can risk another plunge then given the choice between poorly-fused iron bombs and a defensive back line of Harriers, or improved fusing for the iron bombs and a defensive back line of Typhoons, they had a far better chance in 1982.



How about the leadership in Britain now?

Was Maggie a "force multiplier" in 82? would English public opinion favor another war?

I would think the Argentines learned their lesson with iron bombs... i'd be surprised if they didnt have at least a few dozen Exocet type missiles by now.


_*Argentina's Tattered Armed Forces
Infamous for turning its arms against its own people and for the disaster Falklands Islands War, the Argentine military is at a crossroads. President Cristina Kirchner is patching relations with the military as it remains above the economic fray.*_
http://www.dailyestimate.com/article.asp?id=19255

.


----------



## Colin1 (Feb 23, 2010)

comiso90 said:


> How about the leadership in Britain now?
> 
> Was Maggie a "force multiplier" in 82? would English public opinion favor another war?
> 
> I would think the Argentines learned their lesson with iron bombs... i'd be surprised if they didnt have at least a few dozen Exocet type missiles by now.


Maggie was a leader you could rally behind
I didn't realise that then, I was never that politically minded but compare and contrast with the jackasses running the country now. If you're a serviceman, you go to war if you're so instructed but there's a difference between honouring your obligations, and being inspired to defend what's yours.

Tough call on public opinion but I think it's a different scenario to Afghanistan; we're in somebody else's country there, trying to do the honourable thing and help them straighten things out. However, if Argentina wants to come ashore on sovereign British soil again, that might just be the trick that did it.

Lobbing range is obviously alot greater with the Exocet but there is still a range they will have to come within. I don't know to be honest, I don't know what the RN's got up its sleeve to counter anti-shipping missiles since the war in '82.


----------



## Waynos (Feb 23, 2010)

As far as I understand it neither the Super Etendard or its Exocet missiles are in service with the Argentine forces any more. They have had budget cuts too.

What do we have that we didn't in 1982? The Typhoon has been mentioned, but remember also the Sea King ASaC7, the C-17 and the Tristar and VC-10's which, while elderly, are much more effective force multipliers than the Victor was, plus paveway IV, Brimstone and other goodies.

The grave error of retiring the Sea Harrier FA2 from service has been negated in this instance by having the Typhoon down there. As long as they turn up when required.

I really dont think the Argentines are seriously considering a fight, but if they were they would have an entrenched garrison with air cover to overcome this time, before we even started to reinforce it.

Also verbal support from neighbouring countries is one thing, going to war is something else


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 23, 2010)

This topic is the biggest jocke I seen so far in 2010.



> you seriously think the Argentinians are ready for another butt kicking ?



better butt kicking that butt ****ing dear erich.


----------



## timshatz (Feb 23, 2010)

In a sea brawl, the odds, to my mind anyway, go to the British Navy. While it is smaller, so is the Argentinian Force arrayed against it. One thing about socialist (meant as a political party, not a country), they may buy the ships and planes but rarely spend the money for training. That's just not impressive. I gotta believe the Argentinians are not as ramped up as they were in 1982. 

To put it another way, both forces have declined but the gap between them has probably gotten wider. 

But a lot of other things have changed too. Finding the British task force would probably be easier. Chavez may not have to actively join in, just keep tabs on the Brits from a distance. Further, he doesn't need to send his forces down there per se, they could always be "volunteers". 

I doubt the Argentinians will go to war over it though. That one didn't pan out the first time and it probably isn't on the radar. Blockade? Doubt they have the forces to do it effectively. A case in the World Court would probably be the way this one plays out.


----------



## comiso90 (Feb 23, 2010)

CharlesBronson said:


> This topic is the biggest jocke I seen so far in 2010.
> .



*it seemed like a joke in 1982!*
You obviously have a perspective that typical North Americans dont. How about sharing instead of ridiculing?

The press up here is full of news about Venezuela acting out and insulting the US every chance it gets. It doesnt seem like a joke to me that some South American allies could distract from their own issues by taking advantage of a weaker England and at least attacking the RN units already in the Falklands.


.


----------



## Erich (Feb 23, 2010)

Charles I am not sure that Argentinians want to do any butt licking either. the whole thing is a sham from the beginning, lets all hope and think you would agree friend that working at the table is far better than what happened over 20 years ago as most of this forum membership was not even born yet nor even remembered the terrible events for both sides at the very young age.......what a crap waste of life. You may think the thread is a joke but reality in this world of this event is not.

v/r E ~ if you find offense in my words apoligiies to you but you can understand what I am trying to say


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 23, 2010)

I dont found offensive any of your words, is just that probably I am a bit touchy because all the bussines sound too ridiculous to me.



> it seemed like a joke in 1982!
> You obviously have a perspective that typical North Americans dont. How about sharing instead of ridiculing?



Ok, i ll share, the military option are not in the mind of the argentine gov, and I am pretty sure isnt in the table of the British prime minster either.
In fact this Goverment is the one who had had less use for the Armed Forces ever since 1983.



> The press up here is full of news about Venezuela acting out and insulting the US every chance it gets. It doesnt seem like a joke to me that some South American allies could distract from their own issues by taking advantage of a weaker England and at least attacking the RN units already in the Falklands.



Fantasy, Who are those alleged south american allies may I ask ?... who ? Venezuela and Argentina ? wrong, there is no military alliance between both countries nothing signed, no one verbal agreement nada, niente.

The only importance that Venezuela have for Argentina is that it become an important market for agricultural and industrial exports since they dont manufacture anything, not even a nail, and we have a lot of agricultural and metallurgical products ( tractors, cars, harvesters, etc)

Chavez is stupid but no stupid enough to attack the Uk.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Feb 23, 2010)

The war always fascinated me, and the losses with the exception of air assets and prisoners were not that much different. IIRC a good chunk of the Argentinians killed were from their Cruiser that was torpedoed.

It seems as more issues pop up at home or places like Iran, the more rhetoric like this we hear - something to take the mind of the masses off the true problems.

I can see Chavez egging it on but staying in the back ground and he concerns me more then anybody else in South America. That fruitcake cannot leave soon enough for my tastes


----------



## comiso90 (Feb 23, 2010)

Thank you Charles ...


----------



## timshatz (Feb 24, 2010)

The more I think of it, the more I think this one is going to be settled diplomatically and in the courts. Neither country has the firepower or will to fight for it. Even if oil is found, it will only make the noise more intense. 

I could see this thing coming down to an economic split of the monies from the oilfields with the Brits on the Islands staying British. When you get right down to it. both countries are in the hole economically and oil proceeds would help in a big way. 

An interesting idea would be something like the Jersey Islands. Or maybe dual citizenship for the peoples of the Falklands. One this is pretty sure, this one is not going away. The Argentinians have a claim on this thing and I think they're figuring out how to work it.

Warfare probably isn't the option they are going to pursue.


----------



## comiso90 (Feb 24, 2010)

As the Ice sheets recede, Denmark and Canada have some contested island too. I bet that will end up in court.


----------



## Torch (Feb 24, 2010)

Wouldn't it be a thought if Argentina and Britain actually used their talents to produce the oil together as a "corporation", both could share the wealth/benefits without a conflict.


----------



## timshatz (Feb 24, 2010)

Torch said:


> Wouldn't it be a thought if Argentina and Britain actually used their talents to produce the oil together as a "corporation", both could share the wealth/benefits without a conflict.



I think that is what happens up in the North Sea now, or something similar. The oil fields up there have Norway, Denmark and England involved in them. But I don't know the specifics. I was figuring something similar might happen in the case of the Falklands.


----------



## Waynos (Feb 24, 2010)

The UK has offered to share the oil proceeds with Argentina, but they have refused to discuss it as they feel that accepting such an offer will mean accepting British Sovereignty of the Falklands.

As Sovereignty is settled and will not change they are cutting off their nose to spite their face, though I do understand the principle involved. Their loss.


----------



## Colin1 (Feb 24, 2010)

Waynos said:


> The UK has offered to share the oil proceeds with Argentina but they have refused to discuss it ...
> 
> ...I do understand the principle involved


I sure as hell don't


----------



## Glider (Feb 24, 2010)

The sad thng is that Argentina are missing a massive opportunity here, not for the oil but the support. If the largest estimates are realised then there is as much oil off the Falklands as there is in the North Sea. Argentina is the nearest country and the infrastructure needed to support such an oilfield is huge, simply huge. Vast sums would be need to be invested and they are in a significant position to hold the vast majority of the business.

But no, they get on their high horse and stand every chance of losing it all as no one will invest if they believe that the people in power could use that investment as a political pawn.


----------



## Waynos (Feb 25, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> I sure as hell don't



Its because they feel that agreeing, or even discussing, to share with Britain automatically means that they legitimise Britiains position, ie why negotiate with the squatter who has taken up residence in your shed when you think they should just leave.

Like I said, I understand what they say. Doesn't mean I agree with it as they are working from a false premise anyway.


----------



## timshatz (Feb 25, 2010)

Didn't know there had been an offer and a refusal. Ok, now I get it. 

No military conflict, standard negotiating tactics. You always turn down the first offer, well, most of the time. And that's what Argentina did. All the noise going around is just fluff. Everybody's arguements, listed above, are good and are doubtless going to be used. Hell, I could even see some of the parties involved reading the posts just to get some ideas and feelings on the matter. You may think it's odd, but that's the way it's done. Feedback on the opposition is scarce.

If there is oil under there, then there is a lot of money at stake. The Brits maybe offering 80/20 and the Argies want 40/60. And there may be other terms in there too. Very complicated when you're talking about a project this big. 

Somebody made a good point about infrastructure (tip the hat to Gliderr), there is a ton of profit in the infrastructure. That could be the real deal. Ship the raw product to England and refine it there or do the same in Argentina. Big, Big Money. Crack spreads and all that.


----------



## Glider (Feb 25, 2010)

Appreciate the comment. Re the Infrastructure its a lot more than the oil. I once had to go to Scotland to look at a new rig repair/overhaul facility and it blew me away. On an almost totally deserted part of Scotland where the nearest small town was around 15 miles away they had built this facility. 
It was huge and had started from nothing just bare rock. Roads, bridges, power, water, sewerage, port facilities, docks big enough to take rigs dismantle them and rebuild them, accomadation, shops, wharehouses, a small heliport, an all weather landing strip plus a hundred other things had to be built from nothing. The money involved I can only guess at but all this is up for grabs and Argentina would do well to look at this kind of benefit or it is danger of losing the lot.


----------



## comiso90 (Mar 2, 2010)

BBC News - Gordon Brown says UK is prepared in Falkland Islands

The UK has made "all the preparations that are necessary" to protect the Falkland Islands, Prime Minister Gordon Brown has said.

However, the Ministry of Defence has denied reports that a naval taskforce is on its way to the Falklands.

Argentina has brought in controls on ships passing through its waters to the islands over UK plans to drill for oil.

Shadow foreign secretary William Hague told the BBC the Royal Navy's presence in the region should be increased.

The Sun newspaper reported that up to three ships were to join the islands' regular patrol vessel.

BBC defence correspondent Caroline Wyatt understands the destroyer HMS York and the oil supply tanker RFA Wave Ruler are in the area, as well as HMS Clyde, which is permanently based there.

However, the MoD said Britain already had a permanent naval presence in the South Atlantic as well as more than 1,000 military personnel on the islands.

'Very clear'

Speaking on Gateshead-based Real Radio in the North East, Mr Brown said he did not expect to send a taskforce to the area.

ANALYSIS
BBC defence correspondent Caroline Wyatt
Caroline Wyatt, BBC defence correspondent

It's clear that Britain has the military assets it needs in or around the Falkland Islands to back up its diplomacy with Argentina - on the principle that diplomacy succeeds best when a nation can talk softly but carry a big stick.

The MoD will only say that it is "maintaining" a deterrent force in the area, and that this is not a new taskforce - but it leaves little doubt that the UK has the means to defend the Falkland islanders already in place to back up its diplomatic stance.

But at the same time, the British government does not want to escalate the current row with Argentina, even as it remains firm on Britain's right to explore for oil around the Falklands, with the prime minister and others emphasising that they see "sensible discussions" prevailing.

Earlier this week, Air Chief Marshal Sir Stephen Dalton, the head of the Royal Air Force, drew attention to the situation in the South Atlantic in a speech to the International Institute of Strategic Studies, referring to the "increasingly tense situation" around the Falkland Islands to stress the need for maintaining air superiority.
Q&A: The Falklands oil row
Oil boom or no boom?
Have Your Say: How serious is row?
'We always feel threatened'

He said he hoped "sensible discussions" with Argentina would prevail, adding: "We have made all the preparations that are necessary to make sure the Falkland islanders are properly protected."

Foreign Secretary David Miliband said all UK oil exploration in the area was "completely in accordance with international law".

He added: "We maintain the security of the Falklands, and there are routine patrols continuing."

After Argentina's invasion of the Falklands in 1982, a UK taskforce seized back control in a short war that claimed the lives of 649 Argentine and 255 British service personnel.

The BBC's Andrew Harding in Buenos Aires said it was difficult to find anyone in Argentina who believed the Falklands were in danger of being at the centre of a military conflict.

But Argentine Deputy Foreign Minister Victorio Taccetti said his country would take "adequate measures" to stop oil exploration.

Meanwhile, speaking on BBC Radio 4's Today programme, Mr Hague called for "some sort of increased naval presence - it may just be one more ship visiting more regularly" in the region.

He added: "That kind of thing would show very clearly to Argentina - with whom, again, we want friendly relations - that we will be very firm about this. It would send a signal not to misunderstand British intentions.

"One of the things that went wrong in the 1980s is that the Argentines thought we weren't really committed to the Falkland Islands. So, we mustn't make that mistake again. Our commitment should be very clear."

Buenos Aires claims sovereignty over the Falkland Islands, which it calls Islas Malvinas.

It has previously threatened that any company exploring for oil and gas in the waters around the territory will not be allowed to operate in Argentina.

Ocean bed

On Tuesday, Argentine President Cristina Fernandez signed a decree requiring all vessels travelling between Argentina and the islands, or those wanting to cross Argentine territorial waters en route to the Falklands, to seek prior permission.

But a drilling rig from the Scottish Highlands, the Ocean Guardian, is nearing the islands and is due to start drilling next week, the UK-based company Desire Petroleum has said.

Last week, a ship carrying drilling equipment was detained by Argentine officials.

Geologists say the ocean bed surrounding the Falklands could contain rich energy reserves.

Last year, Argentina submitted a claim to the United Nations for a vast expanse of ocean, based on research into the extent of the continental shelf, stretching to the Antarctic and including the island chains governed by Britain.

It is due to raise the issue at the UN next week.


----------



## skeeter (Mar 2, 2010)

The UK needs a carrier like the Nimitz (class) to project itself during disputes like this. Can you imagine Argentina or any conglomerate of Latin countries seriously taking on, or wanting to take on, a Nimitz type carrier and its' task force? I cannot. This is not to say that America would with the current Administration in power.


----------



## parsifal (Mar 3, 2010)

Its unrealistic to assume or advocate the RN operating a carrier the size of the Nimitz. the cost, the manning requirements, and aircraft complements are all quite beyond the capability of the middle powers.

In addition, unless adequately protected a single hull carrying all the assets is highly vulnerable. It is far far better to invest in multiple hulls with smaller less expensive airgroups attached. Sure, the Harriers carried by the Invincibles were far less capable than the F-14s of the Nimitz Class, but they could be had at a fraction of the cost, and were more than capable of achieving the force projection needs of Britain,

The British are in the process of building a 40000 ton carrier at the moment with fixed wing capability. unless they can field at least three of these hulls, I believe it will be at a disadvantage relative to the Invincible Class era, where the British were able to field multiple Hulls of small carriers.

Harriers proved more than adequate to deal with anything second line Navies airforces like those of Argentina were able to field. It is inconceivable that the british would ever be asked to fight a major power ever again on its own......


----------



## Glider (Mar 3, 2010)

Can someone give any indication as to what Hilary Clinton is playing at!!

Argentina celebrates diplomatic coup as Hillary Clinton calls for talks over Falklands - Times Online


----------



## Waynos (Mar 3, 2010)

Completely agree Parsival, and in the FA.2 version the Sea Harrier was the ideal fleet defence fighter for the UK with anti missile capabilities that would have made such a difference during the 1982 disagreement. Its early retirement with some airframes only three years old was crimial in my opinion. The GR.9 is a capable enough attacker, but nowhere as a fighter.


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 3, 2010)

Glider said:


> Can someone give any indication as to what Hilary Clinton is playing at!!
> 
> Argentina celebrates diplomatic coup as Hillary Clinton calls for talks over Falklands - Times Online



Sure... Clinton for President. Clinton the Great Pacifier. Clinton the Junior Senator Carpetbagger *** International Appeaser. Clinton the ... [you insert positive trait that would be loved internationally].

Don't buy it. She is nothing but farsical hypocrosy.


 Too much politics. Mr. C should delete my post. Honestly.


----------



## parsifal (Mar 4, 2010)

Matt

its only political if its not true.....I think your post should stay


----------

