![]() |
Oil discovered in the Falklands
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/10100769.stm
War likely : Just in time for a new Conservative leader (possibly). Maybe history is repeating itself. That's probably stretching it a bit but it is good news considering the problems we're currently in regarding energy and the economy. |
Re: Oil discovered in the Falklands
The Falklands do have lots of sheep so at least they have something to mop up any future oil spills.
|
Re: Oil discovered in the Falklands
Well the Argies will be ready to roll out the armarda to take the Falklands.
|
Re: Oil discovered in the Falklands
Quote:
|
Re: Oil discovered in the Falklands
Quote:
|
Re: Oil discovered in the Falklands
Quote:
Are we not, technically, looking the other way at the moment with most of our resources the other side of the globe in much warmer climes? |
Re: Oil discovered in the Falklands
Quote:
|
Re: Oil discovered in the Falklands
1 Attachment(s)
|
Re: Oil discovered in the Falklands
They can borrow BP's funnel when it goes wrong.
|
Re: Oil discovered in the Falklands
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:
http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/at...1&d=1273175736 |
Re: Oil discovered in the Falklands
Quote:
thats what i was looking for you swine :D |
Re: Oil discovered in the Falklands
What? Oil discovered in the falklands?
Now there is a surprise ;) |
Re: Oil discovered in the Falklands
I thought it was discovered in the 70's?
I remember being informed years ago that the then prime minister had a nuclear submarine routinely patroling the area, because of the oil.. |
Re: Oil discovered in the Falklands
Quote:
Nukes aren't meant to be a deterrent against conventional attack. They're meant to be a deterrent against nuclear attack. |
Re: Oil discovered in the Falklands
Quote:
|
Re: Oil discovered in the Falklands
Quote:
|
Re: Oil discovered in the Falklands
Quote:
What else have we got Matt? Maybe some harsh words will make do ;) |
Re: Oil discovered in the Falklands
Quote:
I'm not sure I get your point. "What else have we got"? What? So if they did decide to attack the Falklands to claim the oil, we would have to nuke them?! :confused: You said "Who says we do not need Trident then? ;)" which I took to mean you consider one need for it to be deterring or defending an Argentinian attack, given the subject of the thread. I replied with "Yeah, 'cos Polaris really deterred them last time, didn't it? ;", given that when the Falklands War took place in 1982, the fact that the UK possessed a sub-based Nuclear Deterrent in the form of Polaris (the predecessor to Trident) did not stop or deter the Argentinians at all... So why would Trident deter them if they considered attacking again? And if they did attack, how would Trident stop them? Nuclear Weapons are not a deterrent to attack with Conventional Weapons, and are not used in retaliation to, or defence against, an attack with Conventional Weapons. Nuclear Weapons are used as a deterrent against someone else's Nuclear Weapons, and as a retaliation against someone else's Nuclear Weapons if actually used. I'm not saying we should have no nukes. What I am questioning though is your comment which to me implied that our nuclear deterrent somehow has relevance to deterring or defending against any kind of conventional weapon attack by Argentina. ---------- Post added at 01:08 ---------- Previous post was at 00:50 ---------- Quote:
http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/av...ine=1272493898 |
Re: Oil discovered in the Falklands
Quote:
Leading to, the question - What else have we got? I know what you are saying about nukes as a deterrant etc, I guess my initial response was maybe political, however, if it does come to it down there where are we? Thousands of miles away with an ageing fleet and few troops to deploy that are battle ready. My guess is that in this economic climate we would just sell the Falklanders out. |
Re: Oil discovered in the Falklands
Quote:
|
Re: Oil discovered in the Falklands
I think the Argies will take a political and legal approach being as all they have now is peashooters and harsh language.
They're going to try and argue that the falklands are a colony of the uk and have no right to be there under the decolonization treaties of the UN. What gets me though is that Argentina exists because of colonisation. Only about 1% of the Argentinian population is of indigenous ancestry and the rest are of European lineage that speak a European language. Surely arguing for decolonisation is arguing for their own demise. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 00:31. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
All Posts and Content are © Cable Forum