Argentina imposes shipping rules to the falklands.

Settleddown said:
Ermmm this is getting silly now.


The UK has 12 active Nuclear subs, the Argies wouldn’t even dare declare war on a Nuclear superpower with 185 active warheads.

Its all codswallop in here.
Click to expand...

11, of which 4 can carry Tridents.

But yes, the Argies wouldn't dare
 
I expect I'll be called a nancy or something, and perhaps I am overreacting or whatever, but I am shocked that so many in this thread are treating this topic like it were the next game of CoD, or like it is a sporting event. Talking about war in such a trivial manner is frankly disturbing, or perhaps just a shock reminder of how little people actually give a **** about human life.
 
a1ex2001 said:
It's not quite that simple, she is fully decomissioned it would be months before her engines could even be run, sending her to war would be like trying to recomission a musem ship.
Click to expand...

It wouldnt be about sending her to war, it would be sending the other two and getting her ready in reseve,

and given the right team and 24hour work i could see her running in a week,
 
Is it me or have most people here missed the point? All the talk of military intervention is pointless, it won't come to that. That's not to say non-military means won't be potentially highly damaging to British interests though.

If the Argentinians decide not to give a permit to any oil exploration ship and impound any ship without a permit, the oil is worthless in the ground. We can't just send the navy in, how would that look to the international community?

This is a battle for the diplomats, not the armed forces.
 
But wouldn't it be nice to have a war we can acutally win for once?

It'd still be movitated by oil, but that's not the point :p
 
Burnsy2023 said:
Is it me or have most people here missed the point? All the talk of military intervention is pointless, it won't come to that. That's not to say non-military means won't be potentially highly damaging to British interests though.

If the Argentinians decide not to give a permit to any oil exploration ship and impound any ship without a permit, the oil is worthless in the ground. We can't just send the navy in, how would that look to the international community?

This is a battle for the diplomats, not the armed forces.
Click to expand...



why on earth would any right minded ship ask for a Permit from Argentinia to work in british territories?
 
Burnsy2023 said:
Is it me or have most people here missed the point? All the talk of military intervention is pointless, it won't come to that. That's not to say non-military means won't be potentially highly damaging to British interests though.

If the Argentinians decide not to give a permit to any oil exploration ship and impound any ship without a permit, the oil is worthless in the ground. We can't just send the navy in, how would that look to the international community?

This is a battle for the diplomats, not the armed forces.
Click to expand...
I think you're confused - or I am. I assumed the permit was to enter Argentine waters.

If anyone so much as touches a ship in British waters, the UN would be raping.

EDIT - I'm right: "Argentina has announced new controls on shipping through its waters to the Falkland Islands in a growing dispute over British oil drilling plans. A permit will be needed by ships using Argentine waters en route to the Falklands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands - all UK controlled."
 
Argentina's economy is in a worse state than ours. They just want a share of the revenue.

It'll be worked out diplomatically and Argentinian companies will be given certain contracts etc.
 
Burnsy2023 said:
Is it me or have most people here missed the point? All the talk of military intervention is pointless, it won't come to that. That's not to say non-military means won't be potentially highly damaging to British interests though.

If the Argentinians decide not to give a permit to any oil exploration ship and impound any ship without a permit, the oil is worthless in the ground. We can't just send the navy in, how would that look to the international community?

This is a battle for the diplomats, not the armed forces.
Click to expand...

The dificulty is the UK won't recognise there claims to the sea way so won't recognise the permit scheme which mean impounding a British ship would technically be piracy.

This is all just more posturing which both sides are guilty of from time to time, just weight maybe we'll send a ship or two on exercise in the area just to show that we can play games too.

If war were to come I wouldn't imagine Argentina would anounce it quite like this.
 
territt said:
why on earth would any right minded ship ask for a Permit from Argentinia to work in british territories?
Click to expand...

That all depends where the oil actually is. International treaty gives Argentina exclusive rights to resources 200nm from their coast (or 150nm if you take the median from the Falkland islands). Depending where the reserve is, depends on who can extract it.

Either way, my main point is that this won't come to armed conflict. Let the FCO deal with it, not the MOD.
 
Cyanide said:
11, of which 4 can carry Tridents.

But yes, the Argies wouldn't dare
Click to expand...

at the time of the last Falklands war we had 4 Resolution class submarines carrying polaris nuclear missiles which didn't seem to convince them not to invade I see the current nuclear weapons being of no greater deterent as we will never use them in a first stirke against a non-nulear enemy that is not threatening the UK mainland.

The major new option that our current subs bring to the table is the use of conventionally armed cruise missiles either against the Falklands or the Argentine Mainland without exposing themselves to attack. This is something I'm sure the commanders at the time of the last war would have loved having in the locker.

Burnsy2023 said:
Either way, my main point is that this won't come to armed conflict. Let the FCO deal with it, not the MOD.
Click to expand...

Totally agree this is not the trigger that could provoke conflict.
 
Last edited:
The Argentinians can complain all they like, but nobody cares and nobody will listen.

Am a little biased due to owning shares in a Falklands exploration company :D
 
Burnsy2023 said:
That all depends where the oil actually is. International treaty gives Argentina exclusive rights to resources 200nm from their coast (or 150nm if you take the median from the Falkland islands). Depending where the reserve is, depends on who can extract it.

Either way, my main point is that this won't come to armed conflict. Let the FCO deal with it, not the MOD.
Click to expand...

Same goes for us though, we get 200 miles from the Falklands. So there's an overlap which means neither country can do anything without the consent of the other.
 
Cyanide said:
Same goes for us though, we get 200 miles from the Falklands. So there's an overlap which means neither country can do anything without the consent of the other.
Click to expand...

It's not quite like that.

Generally a state's EEZ extends to a distance of 200 nautical miles (370 km) out from its coastal baseline. The exception to this rule occurs when EEZs would overlap; that is, state coastal baselines are less than 400 nautical miles (740 km) apart. When an overlap occurs, it is up to the states to delineate the actual boundary.[1] Generally, any point within an overlapping area defaults to the most proximate state.[2]
Click to expand...
 
I don't think that there is any serious risk that they are going to attack. For very simple reasons. They lost last time and it hurt their pride bad. They would not want that again. We now appear to have far more to protect this time. We have vastly superior technology too. They can have 2 million soldiers but you have to get them to the area for those numbers to count. A couple of modern destroyers would shoot the AAF out of the sky like a clay pigeon shoot and the Typhoons wouldn't have to even warm up their engines. Said destroyers could quite easily take apart any naval forces. In fact it would most likely end up in such a slaughter it would be not too far away from Highway 80 in Kuwait.
 
dowie said:
I think you'll find the 71,800 troops are in Argentina - good luck trying to get them to the falklands with the current force we have there.... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Calm down, no need for the rolley eyes! :p

What if they wait until they're playing/beating us in the World Cup? No one would notice them sneaking up until it's too late.

The only option we have is to ban TV's for all our troops stationed in the Falklands.
 
Burnsy2023 said:
That all depends where the oil actually is. International treaty gives Argentina exclusive rights to resources 200nm from their coast (or 150nm if you take the median from the Falkland islands). Depending where the reserve is, depends on who can extract it.

Either way, my main point is that this won't come to armed conflict. Let the FCO deal with it, not the MOD.
Click to expand...

The law on that is changing (or already has, they still get what the normally get I think it’s 150nm) but the country in question has to put in a claim. Country can claim up to 300nm from the shoreline or the contentail sea shelf (whatever comes first). But they have to put in a claim. A lot of survey work has been done over the last 10 years to put in these claims. But I have no idea if Argentina has done this or the British government has. But then again it won’t make much deference has the Falkland’s are so close to Argentina.

But from survey data, they are available online iirc (was looking at them for a part of a coursework), it looks like most of the oil is in Falkland waters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom