Falkland Islands: Tensions Rising

[Tim Deegan]

Originally Posted by Kymmy

I've not used the word invincible, nor have a said that a victory is guaranteed.. What I have said is that the technology is the biggest advantage that anyone could have within the armed forces. It'll enhance an armies ability to defend, attack and is also the biggest deterrent that we have.

Now that you've attempted to put words in my mouth and failed whilst trying to defend your viewpoint I wonder if you'll finally realise that in a war no-one is right, these are purely opinions and you can't just include the size of the army or the closeness of the force in this discussion without considering the whole picture..

Argentine would be stupid to try to send in an attack, there's no way they could sneak in like last time and to get a major invasion force would be catastrophic for them when they attempt to deploy to the islands. The subs alone would have a field day never mind the type 45 and the typhoons.. It's not a case of when the 2nd conflict starts, it's more a case of are the argies willing to lose a lot more than they did in 1982 and still probably end up with no islands. I can also see attacks directly on military infrastructure on the mainland by TLAMs and the argies know that and also know that they can't defend against that. Argies have a lot to lose a lot more than us.

I'll say one thing Tim, you sure do make me laugh

It's what you haven't said that speaks loudest.

You are now saying

nor have a said that a victory is guaranteed

So why are you arguing against me? What I have been saying all along is that we could do with the aircraft carriers back, and we should boost our defences. Now that is just common sense in anyones book, if victory isn't guaranteed with the current status. Because a deterrent is only 100% effective if it puts the enemy in the mind that there is no way they could win.

---------- Post added at 18:47 ---------- Previous post was at 18:44 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

Another old rerporter's epithet is never let the facts get in the way of a good story. It's not one I lived by personally, but wasn't I saying only a moment ago how you liked to claim the experience of friends and family as your own.

I think if you're going to wade into a discussion as detailed and long-lasting as this particular thread, you owe it to yourself to rely on a little more than childhood memories. Your mis-remembering of the basic fact of the length of the war would have been immediately corrected had you gone no further than the Wikipedia entry for the 1982 conflict.

For you to make grand statements about how ex-service personnel in this thread are insulting the memories of soldiers who died is utterly pitiful given that you are prepared to advance arguments about the detail of the current situation without even the basic courtesy of trying to get your facts straight.

You don't have any idea about where I get my information from, except when I quote sources.

[Kymmy]

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan

It's what you haven't said that speaks loudest.

Yet again you assume and get it all wrong

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan

You are now saying So why are you arguing against me? What I have been saying all along is that we could do with the aircraft carriers back, and we should boost our defences. Now that is just common sense in anyones book, if victory isn't guaranteed with the current status. Because a deterrent is only 100% effective if it puts the enemy in the mind that there is no way they could win.

I'm not arguing instead just giving my all over viewpoint based on what I've experienced and sourced..

Why do you always want black and white? Do you think that the only outcome of a battle is either win or lose? Your viewpoint is extremely limited and deployment of more resources to the Falklands would cost this country millions for a war that might never materialise.. Do you think that this is the first time that the argies have reinforced their claim to the islands since the falklands conflict, you didn't see us panicking in '94 when the argies reaffirmed their commitment to the islands and added it to their constitution.

Also why do you have seem to have no confidence in the ability of our current forces within the area? You have very simplistic views based on the chance of a lucky strike against a type 45, if that was some ones view on life then they'd never go out of their house in case they were mugged or hit crossing the road.

This whole thing is about the argentinian politicians realising that there's resources that they can grab to make themselves rich, it's nothing about their claim to the islands just what treasures they can lay claim to and even they are not stupid enough to go to war over that.

[Tim Deegan]

Originally Posted by Kymmy

Yet again you assume and get it all wrong



I'm not arguing instead just giving my all over viewpoint based on what I've experienced and sourced..

Why do you always want black and white? Do you think that the only outcome of a battle is either win or lose? Your viewpoint is extremely limited and deployment of more resources to the Falklands would cost this country millions for a war that might never materialise.. Do you think that this is the first time that the argies have reinforced their claim to the islands since the falklands conflict, you didn't see us panicking in '94 when the argies reaffirmed their commitment to the islands and added it to their constitution.

Also why do you have seem to have no confidence in the ability of our current forces within the area? You have very simplistic views based on the chance of a lucky strike against a type 45, if that was some ones view on life then they'd never go out of their house in case they were mugged or hit crossing the road.

This whole thing is about the argentinian politicians realising that there's resources that they can grab to make themselves rich, it's nothing about their claim to the islands just what treasures they can lay claim to and even they are not stupid enough to go to war over that.

You are yet again proving how argumentative you are:

You don't actually read my posts at all. You always have to plan for the worst case scenario, because if you don't, and it happens, then you are in deep trouble. If the worst case scenario doesn't happen, then what have we lost?

As a weapons tech you should know that faults do happen on occasion. Just like on the fly on the wall documentary I watched where the Navy were showing off their defence system in an excercise, and the whole radar system suddenly died. If it had been a real situation then the ship would have been a sitting duck.

It may cost millions to send more forces to the Falklands, but it could cost a lot more if they don't. British forces are deployed all over the world, so they aren't exactly sat around on the barracks in the UK are they? So does it really cost any more to send some to the Falklands than it does to send them anywhere else in the world?

I do have confidence in our ability, but any good strategist should also have a 'what if?' plan. With only one type 45 in the area, there is no 'what if' plan. If it is taken out by 'a lucky shot', malfunction, or even a weapon that we didn't realise they had, then we are stuffed. I am personally expected to make decisions that could make the difference between life and death for both my crews, and the public. I wouldn't be very good at my job if I didn't also have backup plans in case situations changed. This is no different to the military.

The Navy has 99 ships. Now I don't know what type they all are, or what they are best used for. But many of them are sailing around the world's oceans at any one time. So you would think that a few more could divert to the Falklands on their route, maybe each staying in the area for a while.

[watzizname]

Has it not occured to you that the reason the Argentines have gone the route of bad mouthing us here, there and everywhere, is because they realise that the measures we already have in place are more than adequte to the task?

Increasing troop numbers, planes and ships in the area would not only cost us a hell of a lot more money, but would also demonstrate to the rest of the world that Argentina's claim that we were militarising the area, was in fact accurate after all.

[Tim Deegan]

Originally Posted by watzizname

Has it not occured to you that the reason the Argentines have gone the route of bad mouthing us here, there and everywhere, is because they realise that the measures we already have in place are more than adequte to the task?

Increasing troop numbers, planes and ships in the area would not only cost us a hell of a lot more money, but would also demonstrate to the rest of the world that Argentina's claim that we were militarising the area, was in fact accurate after all.

Read previous posts. All this has been discussed.

[Russ]

In a hap-hazard way.

[Digital Fanatic]

The cheek of them! I'm definately going to boycott all of their goods!

The Argentine government is calling on the country's top companies to stop importing goods from the UK, according to the state news agency Telam.

Industry Minister Debora Giorgi called the bosses of at least 20 firms to urge them to replace imports from Britain with goods produced elsewhere, it said.

The move is linked to the dispute with Britain over the Falkland Islands, which Argentina claims as the Malvinas.

Tension has been rising ahead of the 30th anniversary of the Falklands war.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-17200528

[boroboi]

A Type 45 being surprised by the Argentinian military... lol. The whole reason the HMS Daring is there is because it far eclipses anything Argentina could throw back at us. Infact, the Daring on it's own and maybe a sub for support could pretty much keep the Falklands secure through as to ward off any strike.

[AdamD]

It's almost comical, it amazes me how stupid people can be in such positions of high power and STAY in power.

I can only assume it's something to do with the oil that might lie around the island group.

[adzii_nufc]

Argentina can do nothing but throw empty threat's. Britain need not send anything to the Falklands as I doubt Argentina have the balls to go up against the United Kingdom in any military way.

[alferret]

Mate of mine has just returned from 3 weeks in Argentina. I asked him what was the word on the street concerning the Falklands & his words were "They dont give a toss about it, its all political"
So how far would the Argies go? Its all posturing!

[Digital Fanatic]

Argentina pursuing policy of confrontation, says No 10

Downing Street has accused Argentina of pursuing a "policy of confrontation" over the Falkland Islands.

It comes amid reports that top Argentine companies are being told by their government to stop importing goods from the UK.

PM David Cameron's spokesman said the move was "counterproductive" and was a misreading of British resolve over the disputed islands.

Mr Cameron's spokesman told reporters at a regular briefing in Westminster: "It is clearly very sad that Argentina continues with their policy of confrontation instead of co-operation.

"We think that is counterproductive and also a complete misreading of Britain's resolve on this issue.

"The UK is also a major investor in Argentina and we import goods from Argentina. It is not in Argentina's economic interest to put up barriers of this sort.

"The right approach here is one of co-operation, not confrontation," he added.

Linkage HERE

[Alan Fry]

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan

It was actually about three months. I just think of it as being a year because I was at my grandparents near Bognor Regis in the summer holidays one year, as the task force was being prepared to set sail. And I was there a year later as they were coming back.

---------- Post added at 17:27 ---------- Previous post was at 17:26 ----------



Apart from the fact that the UK will give BP the rights, rather than American companies. And the UK will get the revenue.

Don't forget Shell!

---------- Post added at 09:44 ---------- Previous post was at 09:43 ----------

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan

By front line I'm talking about going out on patrol, and getting shot at.

Anyway this is getting off topic.

You have to remember Kymmy, that this is a forum, where people are entitled to their own opinion. Just because you have a military background does not mean that you are the only person who could be right. It is just your opinion.

My opinion is that in order to be certain that Argentina won't try anything, we need aircraft carriers out there, as well as a bigger defence force. And it is my opinion that this will prevent loss of life.

One thing we don't know for sure, is how desperate the the Argentine government are to try and do something to win over public opinion. At the moment they are getting the public worked up on the issue. My personal opinion is that she is just sabre rattling to make it appear to the public that she is doing something, and to win the public over....but we really don't know for sure.

---------- Post added at 17:17 ---------- Previous post was at 17:14 ----------



It's over oil more than anything else. This is why USA won't back us, because they want to use their technology for oil exploration, and strike a deal with Argentina.

We need to spend more on defence, so that we will be ready to face Argentina (for public opnion or oil)

Originally Posted by Alan Fry

Don't forget Shell!

Do you mean Royal Dutch Shell, whose HQ is at the Hague, Netherlands?

[Digital Fanatic]

CFK to reopen BA-Falklands route

During her speech this afternoon at the opening of 2012's ordinary sessions in the Congress, President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner announced plans to re-open the Buenos Aires to Malvinas flight path. The President said she will instruct Foreign Minister Héctor Timerman to renegotiate the route to the Islands, underlining that flights go out of Buenos Aires rather than Chile, also upping flight frequency to three per month.

“We are going to instruct out foreign minister to renegotiate the possibility that instead of LAN flying from Chile twice a month to RÃ*o Gallegos, that there be three monthly trips, but going from Argentina, from Buenos Aires and using AerolÃ*neas Argentinas,â€� the President said.

http://www.buenosairesherald.com/art...mzlAWw.twitter

Hmm.. I wonder what her game is with this?