Falkland Islands: Tensions Rising

[Alan Fry]

Originally Posted by Kymmy

I never said we can never be beaten, what I am saying is that 40 year old technology has a tendency of always being beaten by up to date technology.. The argies haven't updated any of their aircraft, armaments..etc since the last so called war.. This time they can't sneak up on us (I wonder how many military sats UK/US..etc are pointing at their coastline/bases) and the current complement (with or without the type 45's even) could cope with an invasion comparable to what they did in the 80's..

If anyone has got a defeatist mentality then go join up..

What if Iran, Russia and China gave milltary aid to Argentina? (just to annoy the UK!)

[Kymmy]

If they haven't done by now I doubt if they will do.. Argentina had to go the round about route last time to buy the exocets.. You can't just also buy an up to date missile without an up to date aircraft to launch it, which also means up to date training for the crew. Even those weapons would have difficulty penetrating a type 45's defences.

As for the Taliban in the previous post it's a totally different scenario.. We're not going in to a country where part of the indigenous population is acting as a guerilla force.. I doubt if Argies could hide amongst the population and there's few other places to hide.. So the recent conflicts in Iraq/Afghanistan is not comparable.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Alan Fry

What if Iran, Russia and China gave milltary aid to Argentina? (just to annoy the UK!)

If that happened then I can see the yanks joining in on our side. They'd be watching any military action by the above 3 countries VERY closely and I reckon they'd join us as a big brother (although no doubting wanting any action taken to be "US-led" )

[Tim Deegan]

Originally Posted by Kymmy

I never said we can never be beaten, what I am saying is that 40 year old technology has a tendency of always being beaten by up to date technology.. The argies haven't updated any of their aircraft, armaments..etc since the last so called war.. This time they can't sneak up on us (I wonder how many military sats UK/US..etc are pointing at their coastline/bases) and the current complement (with or without the type 45's even) could cope with an invasion comparable to what they did in the 80's..

If anyone has got a defeatist mentality then go join up..

I really hope you are right. But I believe you are being far too cocky, and that's exactly what Maggy did in the 80's. And that's why we very nearly lost the "so called war" as you put it.

I can't believe you seriously think that 1200 troops, 4 fast jets, and three ships (including only 1 type 45), can take on a whole country's military, that is only 200 miles or so away, if they were really determined. If they did decide to invade, then yes, we could put up a far better defence. But it all depends on how much they throw at us, as to how long we could hold out for. Even to resupply our troops we have to go 1000's of miles.

Lets just take a scenario where Argentina are determined to take out the only type 45 that we have in the area. And they launch 30 fast jets armed with whatever anti ship missile they have these days, in a simultanious attack. Now in theory I'm sure the type 45's are capable of taking out more than one missile ar fast jet at a time....but 30???

So like I said, we shouldn't get so cocky. And we need our aircraft carriers recommisioned.

Oh, and don't forget. Obama isn't backing us on this one.

[Alan Fry]

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan

I really hope you are right. But I believe you are being far too cocky, and that's exactly what Maggy did in the 80's. And that's why we very nearly lost the "so called war" as you put it.

I can't believe you seriously think that 1200 troops, 4 fast jets, and three ships (including only 1 type 45), can take on a whole country's military, that is only 200 miles or so away, if they were really determined. If they did decide to invade, then yes, we could put up a far better defence. But it all depends on how much they throw at us, as to how long we could hold out for. Even to resupply our troops we have to go 1000's of miles.

Lets just take a scenario where Argentina are determined to take out the only type 45 that we have in the area. And they launch 30 fast jets armed with whatever anti ship missile they have these days, in a simultanious attack. Now in theory I'm sure the type 45's are capable of taking out more than one missile ar fast jet at a time....but 30???

So like I said, we shouldn't get so cocky. And we need our aircraft carriers recommisioned.

Oh, and don't forget. Obama isn't backing us on this one.

So why don't we send more of the UK armed forces to the Falklands!

Also, draw up a list of passenger ships that could be used in a future war, like the Cunard and P&O cruises fleets!

[Kymmy]

As they say one bomb can outweigh an army of a thousand..

The argies have no decent weaponry, yes they could win a hand to hand fight army to army based on the current south atlantic deployment but once you bring in weaponry and technology we have a good 10-1 advantage.

It's a shame to the memory of those who have fought and died for this country that some people here have such a defeatist attitude.

[DocDutch]

in some ways Tim has a point with the Type 45's yes they can beat quite a few planes in 1 go but how many SAM's have they got on board for replenishment?

Alan, if the UK would put more troops on the islands now it is shown as a hostile act and at the moment DC isnt desperate enough yet in the government or polls to do such a thing.

Another thing Alan, you think we have enough boats to protect say 3 passenger ships like that?

[Kymmy]

Originally Posted by DocDutch

in some ways Tim has a point with the Type 45's yes they can beat quite a few planes in 1 go but how many SAM's have they got on board for replenishment?

Probably a lot more than the Argies have planes and/or excocets

[Russ]

If the number of troops was a problem how about training up some failed asylum seekers with the proviso that if we went to war with Argentina and they play an active part then they would be granted citizenship on their return?

[Kymmy]

The argentine army was mainly conscripts, look how they did on the falklands

[Tim Deegan]

Originally Posted by Kymmy

As they say one bomb can outweigh an army of a thousand..

The argies have no decent weaponry, yes they could win a hand to hand fight army to army based on the current south atlantic deployment but once you bring in weaponry and technology we have a good 10-1 advantage.

It's a shame to the memory of those who have fought and died for this country that some people here have such a defeatist attitude.

Yet again Kymmy, you completely miss my point. I'm not being deeatist at all. We may have a 10-1 advantage if we send enough of our military to the area. But we haven't, so that 10-1 adantage could easily be negated.

My point is that we should massively boost our defences of the Falklands, so that they wouldn't think for a second that they stand a chance. That way there would be no bloodshed at all.

As it stands at the moment, they may be confident of launching a successful invasion. And even if they fail, there could be a huge amount of bloodshed as they make their attempt.

I don't know what your agenda is, but mine is to prevent them to even attempting an invasion, to save British lives. I know people who fought in the last Falklands war, and lost many friends. We don't want that to happen again. And don't play down the last war, because it was a war, where many British servicemen were killed...don't forget that.

[Alan Fry]

Originally Posted by DocDutch

in some ways Tim has a point with the Type 45's yes they can beat quite a few planes in 1 go but how many SAM's have they got on board for replenishment?

Alan, if the UK would put more troops on the islands now it is shown as a hostile act and at the moment DC isnt desperate enough yet in the government or polls to do such a thing.

Another thing Alan, you think we have enough boats to protect say 3 passenger ships like that?

So what if Argentina thinks it is a "hostile act"

In their eyes everything the UK does is a hostile act

We have 98 ships in the Royal Navy and we could "borrow" Aircraft Carriers and even recommision HMS Illustrious and HMS Ark Royal!

[Tim Deegan]

Originally Posted by Kymmy

The argentine army was mainly conscripts, look how they did on the falklands

That's because they sent conscripts in the belief that the Falklands would be a walkover.

[Alan Fry]

Originally Posted by Kymmy

The argentine army was mainly conscripts, look how they did on the falklands

The Army in Argentina no longer have conscripts and the milltary has a force of 104,000

[Tim Deegan]

Originally Posted by DocDutch

in some ways Tim has a point with the Type 45's yes they can beat quite a few planes in 1 go but how many SAM's have they got on board for replenishment?

Exactly...and we only have one type 45 in the area.

Originally Posted by DocDutch

Alan, if the UK would put more troops on the islands now it is shown as a hostile act and at the moment DC isnt desperate enough yet in the government or polls to do such a thing.

No matter how Argentina complain about it being a hostile act. The fact is that it isn't hostile as we aren't planning to invade Argentina. It is just a defensive measure to protect against possible Argentine aggression. And that's how most of the UN would see it, as we have a right to protect our territory.

Originally Posted by DocDutch

Another thing Alan, you think we have enough boats to protect say 3 passenger ships like that?

In the last Falklands war, we did use merchant cruise ships as troop carriers, and I believe a hospital ship. And those plans are already in place, just in case we need to use them again.