Argentina imposes shipping rules to the falklands.

Well apparently not. :p

However i'm always a bit suspicious about books written by ex-SAS, you never know how much truth there actually is in them.

I agree entirely, someone mentione earlier about buying American ships instead of the type 45's, good idea, lets buy some 20 year old ships from them and then have to modify them massively. Or we could od it properly and build our own. it's just a shame there were supposed to be 12 and now there are going to be 6 (possibly 4 last time I heard). With regard to the Astute, at the moment the government is planning to build the same number of subs as they are replacing, hopefully they won't be cut...
 
Well, there ar currently 4 of the Astute class built/in construction. I know the Astute is pretty much commissioned, I think its undergoing last phase of its sea trials, though I really do not know for certain.
 
PhillyDee said:
Well, there ar currently 4 of the Astute class built/in construction. I know the Astute is pretty much commissioned, I think its undergoing last phase of its sea trials, though I really do not know for certain.
Click to expand...
Yeah but only 7 of them overall. The US have 30 Virginia class planned. To go with there 3 Seawolf and 51 Los Angeles.
 
Stringy said:
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.
Click to expand...

We would never go this far, there would be so much hand wringing and worry about hitting civies and causing damage to non military infrastructure that people lke Brown would never have the balls to act in this way.

A conflict would come down to military vs military (which we would still win anyway)
 
"Deputy Foreign Minister Victorio Taccetti added that Argentina could do little beyond the new controls it had imposed on shipping to the islands."

"He said Argentina would use "all the legal means to restrict the access to the islands from the continent", but added: "I don't think we can go much further."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8525734.stm

There won't be any conflict militarily speaking based on the evidence. We'll see what the UN thinks next week but considering the democratic will of the islanders and the fact that Argentina never had any real governing rights over the Falklands at any time in history its hard to see how the UN would vote in their favour.
 
Seems like the Argentines are starting to tone down what they're saying in the face of the perceived buildup of British naval forces?
 
Why does everyone think that because nuclear weapons are mentioned that they are somewhat automatically pointed at a primary school in the middle of Buenos Aires? This isn't 1945, we can get them somewhere pretty accurately now.

If you just think of it of what it is, a big 'effin bomb, job is; locate military base filled with legitimate targets somewhere in Argentina, launch, does job that hundreads of sorties, and thousands of tonnes worth of conventional bombs/paveways/TLAM's would have to be used to do.

Muscles flexed to the hilt, willy waved right in their face, and everyone is back home sharpish for tea and medals.
 
Mucky_Pup said:
Why does everyone think that because nuclear weapons are mentioned that they are somewhat automatically pointed at a primary school in the middle of Buenos Aires? This isn't 1945, we can get them somewhere pretty accurately now.
Click to expand...

They might be accurate but to do maximum damage they're detonated before they hit the ground. They cause horrendous amounts of blast damage for miles around and radiation damage even further that lasts for years. Dropping a single nuke on a military base in the middle of nowhere is completely overkill and dropping one anywhere else would kill thousands of innocents.

I still reckon we nuke the snot of them though :D
 
Stolly said:
What did they HAVE to do ? What treaty ?

I think you may be wrong, and i would like you to explain further.
Click to expand...
As our ally, due to the "special relationship" and as we're NATO members.

Don't mention Article 5 (geographic restrictions) - that covers "the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area." Not military and civilian assistance. However this might cover it officially:
Article 3
In order more effectively to achieve the objectives of this Treaty, the Parties, separately and jointly, by means of continuous and effective self-help and mutual aid, will maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack.
Click to expand...

Either way, the late Secretary of State Haig (and others in the administration) agreed with me - to not help would undermine NATO and not look favorable to the Soviets.
 
All this talk of nukes reminds me of the thought processes of a 5 year old with a keyboard in their hand. In the event of any war, conventional weapons will always be used. Further, only attack vessels situated near disputed territories will be targeted, not Argentina.
 
Cryogenic said:
All this talk of nukes reminds me of the thought processes of a 5 year old with a keyboard in their hand. In the event of any war, conventional weapons will always be used. Further, only attack vessels situated near disputed territories will be targeted, not Argentina.
Click to expand...

Does it matter if I suggest we randomly nuke places? We're not going to go to war, if we did I'd happily participate in a constructive debate. As it'll end up with politicians moaning at each other I'll continue to suggest a full scale nuclear attack on Argentina.

Hell, might as well go after the French while we're at it too. Anyone who eats frogs and horses deserved to be vaporised.

:p
 
Cryogenic said:
All this talk of nukes reminds me of the thought processes of a 5 year old with a keyboard in their hand. In the event of any war, conventional weapons will always be used. Further, only attack vessels situated near disputed territories will be targeted, not Argentina.
Click to expand...
Britain was prepared to attack mainland Argentina last time, even going as far as having a botched recon attempt on the airfield they were planning to attack leading to an embarrasing incident in Chile when a burnt out Sea King was found. As said further back, we now have cruise missles that we would not hesitate to use to strike at targets that are a direct threat to operations in the Falklands area such as airfields, command centres etc.
 
Jokester said:
Britain was prepared to attack mainland Argentina last time, even going as far as having a botched recon attempt on the airfield they were planning to attack leading to an embarrasing incident in Chile when a burnt out Sea King was found. As said further back, we now have cruise missles that we would not hesitate to use to strike at targets that are a direct threat to operations in the Falklands area such as airfields, command centres etc.
Click to expand...
Operation Mikado was one of them, fantastically ballsy. And not really embarrassing.

There were many others, but I think the one you're talking about was impeded by heavy fog. The SAS team carried on, on foot to Argentina and the pilot destroyed the helicopter and went dark. They were called off eventually because of the potential for political fall out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom