Argentina imposes shipping rules to the falklands.

neil3k · 19 Feb 2010 at 21:30

after we slung a few tomahawks though their central command window's in BA they would pretty much give in i guess

meghatronic · 19 Feb 2010 at 22:25

Stolly said:
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.

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 ?

Why don't you read the *entire* thread and see that I've pointed out the NATO thing before? That exact treaty actually.

But you've misunderstood me anyway. The NATO treaty means they have no obligation to 'get involved' actively, but as a NATO ally we have access to any NATO resource, pretty much any time. It is a mutual thing. The fact we were at war isn't relevant, although America could've gone out of their way to up help us. The military wanted to, the then US Defence Secretary and State (Casper Weinberger^ and Lawrence Eagleburger respectively) wanted to, I suspect even Reagan* wanted to. But the majority of the administration didn't want to. And as I said, some were even vocal in suggesting using military intervention to stop *us*. Jeane Kirkpatrick (US UN Ambassador) for instance, was repugnant, even going to the Argentine embassy for dinner after they invaded British sovereign soil.

So get your tongue out of America's rectum. I wasn't saying they didn't help, but they didn't do anything other than expected. France, Norway, Chile, did.

* Although he did refer to the Falklands as "that little ice-cold bunch of land down there", and later betrayed the UK, Maggie and the "special relationship" with the Grenada invasion, so he can perhaps GTFO.

^ Weinberger was duly awarded a KBE for his dramatic support for Britain.

Stolly · 19 Feb 2010 at 22:41

meghatronic said:
So get your tongue out of America's rectum. I wasn't saying they didn't help, but they didn't do anything other than expected. France, Norway, Chile, did.

Furthermore, they supplied us with fuel that was not intended for us, and various items of satellite imagery that they were no obligation to share with us. You seem to be getting a little bit upset by these simple statements of fact, resorting to name calling. Perhaps you may want a short while to calm down ?

Stolly · 19 Feb 2010 at 22:45

Tefal said:
After Argentina committed an overt act of war against one her allies?

Yes.

They didn't attack America, yet you think they should have attacked Argentina ? Thats nonsensical. We are allied to France, Germany and various other countries. Expected them to have a go as well ?

Stringy · 19 Feb 2010 at 22:46

We are technologically superior to the extent that we could hit their centres of mavity in ways they could only dream of. The whimsical thought that they would try a military action against the falklands is laughable. As people keep alluding to, we wouldn't need to actually try to retake the falklands, just have a naval task force close enough to TLAM Argentina until they realised they were being stupid.

And they're not so stupid that they don't know this.

meghatronic · 19 Feb 2010 at 22:47

Stolly said:
Furthermore, they supplied us with fuel that was not intended for us, and various items of satellite imagery that they were no obligation to share with us. You seem to be getting a little bit upset by these simple statements of fact, resorting to name calling. Perhaps you may want a short while to calm down ?

I am calm, I just can't stand the America-love that goes on. They're not to be trusted, and that isn't said with a conspiracy hat on.

I documented the fuel (1.5 million gal) above - it was a routine arrangement. Also, the satellite imagery, whilst greatly received AS A NATO MEMBER (which we could get anytime we wanted, war or not), was largely useless owing to bad weather over the South Atlantic.

They do have an obligation under NATO (to share resources and intelligence) and, even if not that, as our ALLY ('special relationship' ring any bells?).

I've read so much about this, so please don't misinterpret my enthusiasm for malice!

Stolly · 19 Feb 2010 at 22:56

meghatronic said:
I am calm, I just can't stand the America-love that goes on. They're not to be trusted, and that isn't said with a conspiracy hat on.

I documented the fuel (1.5 million gal) above - it was a routine arrangement. Also, the satellite imagery, whilst greatly received AS A NATO MEMBER (which we could get anytime we wanted, war or not), was largely useless owing to bad weather over the South Atlantic.

They do have an obligation under NATO (to share resources and intelligence) and, even if not that, as our ALLY ('special relationship' ring any bells?).

I've read so much about this, so please don't misinterpret my enthusiasm for malice.

Wasn't in the least bit routine to have a USN tanker moored off Acension for the duration pumping JP-4 on credit. You can talk around that as long as you like, but it doesn't make it so.

Fact of the matter is that the US, like us, acts soley in its own national interest. It was in their national interest to support us, since we were and maybe even are more important to them than Argentina. This again is a simple statement of fact, not "crawling up their rectum" or whatever assinine immature comment you used.

Why people like you get all bent out of shape with this "can't trust them !" stuff is beyond me. We can trust them as much as they can trust us, that is when it is in our perceived national interest.

RDM · 19 Feb 2010 at 22:59

The US did more than it had to, but less than we would have liked. Does that sum it up?

PermaBanned · 19 Feb 2010 at 23:03

trent said:
As there is no way we are sharing that oil. This is our ticket to get rid of our deficit.

We don't need oil. We have as much wind as we need.

meghatronic · 19 Feb 2010 at 23:07

Stolly said:
Wasn't in the least bit routine to have a USN tanker moored off Acension for the duration pumping JP-4 on credit. You can talk around that as long as you like, but it doesn't make it so.

Fact of the matter is that the US, like us, acts soley in its own national interest. It was in their national interest to support us, since we were and maybe even are more important to them than Argentina. This again is a simple statement of fact, not "crawling up their rectum" or whatever assinine immature comment you used.

Why people like you get all bent out of shape with this "can't trust them !" stuff is beyond me. We can trust them as much as they can trust us, that is when it is in our perceived national interest.

I'm only bent out of shape as I have read hundreds of books and articles to do with the Falklands.

As for the trust thing, it is a one way street, they can trust us and that is where it ends. Grenada, again, being a fantastic example.

RDM said:
The US did more than it had to, but less than we would have liked. Does that sum it up?

I would argue they did what they had to, and nothing more.

Dave M · 19 Feb 2010 at 23:56

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!

Didn't they give us some codes or frequencies or whatever to disable them too?

meghatronic · 20 Feb 2010 at 00:01

Telescopi said:
Didn't they give us some codes or frequencies or whatever to disable them too?

Apparently:

Shortly after that, according to Magoudi’s unsubstantiated disclosures, Mitterrand told him during one of their sessions: "What an impossible woman, that Thatcher. With her four nuclear submarines on mission in the southern Atlantic, she threatens to launch the atomic weapon against Argentina – unless I supply her with the secret codes that render deaf and blind the missiles we have sold to the Argentinians.”
Magoudi said Mitterrand told him that he had ordered the Exocet codes to be handed over to the British at Thatcher’s insistence: "She has them now, the codes. If our customers find out that the French wreck the weapons they sell, it’s not going to reflect well on our exports.”

Mitterrand then complained to Magoudi: "To provoke a nuclear war for small islands inhabited by three sheep who are as hairy as they are frozen! Fortunately I yielded. Otherwise, I assure you, the metallic index finger of the lady would press the button.”

I <3 Maggie. Although I find all parts of this story a little fantastical.

EDIT - This is also a good read. Confirming what I've said all along: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...helped-us-win-Falklands-war-by-John-Nott.html

Settleddown · 20 Feb 2010 at 00:08

She had ermmmmm balls of steel

Sadly we don't get that today with our pushover budget cutting chimps.

meghatronic · 20 Feb 2010 at 00:11

Settleddown said:
She had ermmmmm balls of steel Sadly we don't get that today with our pushover budget cutting chimps.

"Defeat—I do not recognise the meaning of the word!"
This was Thatcher's response when, prior to the Falklands War, she was told that engaging Britain in such a seemingly irrelevant conflict thousands of miles from Europe could result in defeat.

Amp34 · 20 Feb 2010 at 00:29

I think America as a country did only what they were obliged however individuals in America definately did more than that. For example the men you singled out meghatronic as well as others, such as the Stingers, GPS and Sat coms which apparently were very much a helping hand from one group of military to another (or Delta special forces to SAS who were/are very friendly), with the nod from someone higher up, probably one of the guys you mentioned.

They almost certainly sped things up as well with regards to Americas obligation.

In no way however did America win the war for us, they helped and maybe saved a few men but we would have won either way!

meghatronic · 20 Feb 2010 at 00:33

Amp34 said:
I think America as a country did only what they were obliged however individuals in America definately did more than that. For example the men you singled out meghatronic as well as others, such as the Stingers, GPS and Sat coms which apparently were very much a helping hand from one group of military to another (or Delta special forces to SAS who were/are very friendly), with the nod from someone higher up, probably one of the guys you mentioned.

They almost certainly sped things up as well with regards to Americas obligation.

In no way however did America win the war for us, they helped and maybe saved a few men but we would have won either way!

A lot of the transfers that were done, were done solely on a handshake, thanks to Weinberger. Normal processes that would take weeks or even months to sort were sorted in a matter of hours. But as you said, the UK could more than handle the Argies. As well proven.

HOWEVER, an important lesson to take from this is that the UK in 1982 had a dwindling Navy - and massive cuts were on the way.... remind you of anything?

Amp34 · 20 Feb 2010 at 01:09

Yep, exactly.

Was just checking in one of my books for an interesting story I remembered and it's essentially this:

Couple of SAS blokes training with the FBI just before the invasion. They heard about the possibility and asked their commanders what they could do, they were told to head to Fort Brag and evaluate the top secret stingers and sat coms devices mentioned above. Apparently the (super top secret US weapons at that point) were ordered by Delta and stuck in a lorry waiting for the war to start. Once it did Delta "secretly" handed the truck over to the SAS blokes who subsequently drove them to an airport and flew them out the country.

Unfortunately in military matters ruling members never seem to learn and repeat the same mistakes. Just because we don't necessarily need a large navy at the moment doesn't mean we won't in the near future. IMO we need a navy that will comfortably defend our overseas territory, nothing less, but that costs too much apparently and the bare minimum is thus ordered...

meghatronic · 20 Feb 2010 at 01:14

Amp34 said:
Unfortunately in military matters ruling members never seem to learn and repeat the same mistakes. Just because we don't necessarily need a large navy at the moment doesn't mean we won't in the near future. IMO we need a navy that will comfortably defend our overseas territory, nothing less, but that costs too much apparently and the bare minimum is thus ordered...

They're not even expensive, ships, all being considered

ps. What book?

Amp34 · 20 Feb 2010 at 01:17

Yeah, we need some forethought. For example the American aircraft carriers, cost around $6Bn to build but are expected to last for almost 100 years with a few upgrades every now and then. I bet our Carriers will last around 30 and cost around $3Bn..

Ghost Force, The secret history of the SAS, pretty good book and quite funny in some ways. I have no idea how accurate it is but what he writes seems pretty "accurate".

meghatronic · 20 Feb 2010 at 01:20

Amp34 said:
Yeah, we need some forethought. For example the American aircraft carriers, cost around $6Bn to build but are expected to last for almost 100 years with a few upgrades every now and then. I bet our Carriers will last around 30 and cost around $3Bn..

Ghost Force, The secret history of the SAS, pretty good book and quite funny in some ways. I have no idea how accurate it is but what he writes seems pretty "accurate".

I have that - isn't it... fiction?

I've posted all the prices for the new Type 45s and Carriers on here. They are expected to last for a long time (and they're really good) but just two few in numbers. Same with the Astute subs. Too few. The more you buy, the cheaper (to a point) they get. Silly governments.