Oil discovered in the Falklands

[idi banashapan]

Originally Posted by Chris

That would be a nuclear powered submarine. A different animal entirely.

lol

Originally Posted by Matt D

Yeah, 'cos Polaris really deterred them last time, didn't it?


Nukes aren't meant to be a deterrent against conventional attack. They're meant to be a deterrent against nuclear attack.

So, with most of our troops already deployed elsewhere and quite knackered when they get home from tour, not to mention having to go to Millets / Silvermans to replace thier worn out kit.

What else have we got Matt?

Maybe some harsh words will make do

[Tezcatlipoca]

Originally Posted by Tuftus

So, with most of our troops already deployed elsewhere and quite knackered when they get home from tour, not to mention having to go to Millets / Silvermans to replace thier worn out kit.

What else have we got Matt?

Maybe some harsh words will make do

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?!


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 ----------

Originally Posted by idi banashapan

lol

Come on, the only facepalm image worth using anymore is this one!

Originally Posted by Matt D

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?!


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.[COLOR="Silver"]

I guess the point I was trying to make was that most of our troops are overseas already, in warmer climes.

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.

[watzizname]

Originally Posted by Chris

That would be a nuclear powered submarine. A different animal entirely.

Nah, i'm pretty sure it was a submarine..

[the_neurotic_cat]

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.