Argentina imposes shipping rules to the falklands.

Amp34 said:
True, bit like oil sands, cos a fortune but with oil prices rising they are economical. Lets be honest here, other than a few dips the overall trend is always going to be upwards so fair game.
Click to expand...
I would be very surprised if oil recovery in the Falklands is anywhere close to $80 a barrel, assuming the geoligists are right that there's multibillion barrels there, I doubt their economics are based on anything more than $40 a barrel tops. Oil sands are in a completely different league to conventional oil production cost wise.

The likely environment isn't different to anywhere else that is already producing, particularly as regards climate and water depth (most of which isn't that bad).
 
K1LLSW1TCH said:
LOL @ the 'Permanent naval presence'.

:D
Click to expand...

What's so funny?

There's probably at least one of these down there and I'd say that's definitely a presence.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trafalgar_class_submarine


Anyway the way I see it all is that Argentina are just being lairy and trying to get their share of (any) oil $$$.

They haven't got a chance of retaking the islands. Remember in 1982 the islands were basically undefended and it came as a suprise..

Now we have:
Typhoons that are superior in everyway to the arg aircraft. (more can be flown over as needed, im sure)
Rapier surface-to-air
HMS York
Mount Pleasant..

Probably a lot of MI6 attention on Buenos Aires aswell.. I'm sure if they got any wind of a build up for an attack there'd be a tomahawk party somewhere..
 
Andyroo said:
They haven't got a chance of retaking the islands. Remember in 1982 the islands were basically undefended and it came as a suprise..

Now we have:
Typhoons that are superior in everyway to the arg aircraft. (more can be flown over as needed, im sure)
Rapier surface-to-air
HMS York
Mount Pleasant..

Probably a lot of MI6 attention on Buenos Aires aswell.. I'm sure if they got any wind of a build up for an attack there'd be a tomahawk party somewhere..
Click to expand...
Whilst I agree entirely, two of those things (okay in 1982) completely dropped the ball last time. One was the MI6 Buenos Aires station (severely undermanned) and the Rapier system (first generation didn't work well - a handful of hits).
 
I would think Tomahawk cruise missle strikes on the air bases of argentina would shift the power of balance.
We can do this now with our attack subs and some of the surface fleet, we also know that the argy navy is next to useless.
Again it would come down to air cover being the overall winner for the first few days.
We know their troops are no match for ours.
A lot of people here seem ignorant to the fact that the yanks did help us out last time.
Remember ronnie loved maggie and he would not see his main Nato partner get chumped by a third world power.
The new lima sidewinders were just a start.
 
No but ronnie did offer F14-s for air airsupremacy and 24 RAF pilots flew from RAF ST Athens to train on them.
Now where do you thing these long range fighters would have been based.?
 
meghatronic said:
Whilst I agree entirely, two of those things (okay in 1982) completely dropped the ball last time. One was the MI6 Buenos Aires station (severely undermanned) and the Rapier system (first generation didn't work well - a handful of hits).
Click to expand...

The current Rapiers detected and targeted a US f117 when it flew by once didn't they? :D
 
Tefal said:
The current Rapiers detected and targeted a US f117 when it flew by once didn't they? :D
Click to expand...

Wasn't it a B2 they tracked while it was flying at low level at an airshow (Farnborough?)?

It kind of took the edge off the "Rapier tracks stealth" headline when you read into it.
 
john_s said:
Wasn't it a B2 they tracked while it was flying at low level at an airshow (Farnborough?)?

It kind of took the edge off the "Rapier tracks stealth" headline when you read into it.
Click to expand...
I remember seeing it following a F117 around at farnborough a few years ago
 
timmy222 said:
Remember ronnie loved maggie and he would not see his main Nato partner get chumped by a third world power.
The new lima sidewinders were just a start.
Click to expand...
cough cough GRENADA cough cough.

People need to read a lot more. I have about 20 books I can suggest.

The US did nothing outside its existing NATO obligations. The fuel was part of a pre-existing deal and the KC-135 aerial tankers loaned were to cover UK's existing NATO obligations in Europe whilst our own tankers were flying from Ascension island. The sidewinders were to replenish dwindling UK stocks, not for the Falklands. The They *had* to supply them whenever we asked or else it would've undermined our procurement policy.

Stop selling our country short you hippies.

But France and Norway did a LOT more than America. Half of the US administration wanted to use military FORCE to stop us ffs. They wouldn't lend us AWACS - which resulted in the loss of ships and British lives. They wouldn't give us more bandwidth on Defense Satellite Communications System (which as a NATO ally we get access to) which we desperately needed. I'm not saying America did nothing - but they certainly weren't pivotal, by any stretch.
 
Last edited:
Good point. If I'm remembering my documentaries correctly, the Argies were desperate to buy more Exocets, as it was the only really effective weapon they had, and the French pretended to be interested in selling, but stalled as long as they could - thus stopping the Argentinians looking elsewhere for Exocets!
 
matt_fsr said:
Good point. If I'm remembering my documentaries correctly, the Argies were desperate to buy more Exocets, as it was the only really effective weapon they had, and the French pretended to be interested in selling, but stalled as long as they could - thus stopping the Argentinians looking elsewhere for Exocets!
Click to expand...
Indeed, MI6 did this too, they pretended to be selling (to distract Argies) and then MI6 effectively outbid everyone else in real black markets. There were also SAS and SBS plans to destroy supplies and ships. It's all quite, cloak and dagger.

But nooo... the yanks won the war for us didn't they? Again. Like all of the wars.
 
meghatronic said:
The US did nothing outside its existing NATO obligations. The fuel was part of a pre-existing deal and the KC-135 aerial tankers loaned were to cover UK's existing NATO obligations in Europe whilst our own tankers were flying from Ascension island. The sidewinders were to replenish dwindling UK stocks, not for the Falklands. The They *had* to supply them whenever we asked or else it would've undermined our procurement policy.
Click to expand...

As i understand it the US had no NATO obligations with regards to the Falklands whatsover. The NATO treaty (article 5, IIRC) covers ONLY the northern hemisphere.

Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty said:
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked
Click to expand...
I'd be interested how you think this obligated the US to help, given that the Falklands are not in North America or Europe.

Furthermore, the AIM9-L were NOT on order by the UK at the time, so i don't know where the "undermines procurement policy" comment comes from...yet they were delivered within days, rather than the months or years under normal conditions. Dwindling stocks ? before the war ?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom