Posted on 05/06/2012 10:31:22 AM PDT by Perdogg
Alicia Castro tried to pull Argentina's immediate neighbours into the dispute, claiming UK diplomatic and business relations could be damaged if the islands were not handed over to Buenos Aires.
She said Las Malvinas – Argentina's name for the Falklands – would be better off if they cut their ties with the UK.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
So where did you find that map?
Queen Cristina just nationalized oil companies Repsol and YPF. No one in their right mind is going to put a dime in Argie!
Uruguay is looking good!
Thats a nice theory but the Brits have nil ability to project force compared to what they had in 82. - and that wasn’t much either.
Fortunately for them the Argentinian military isn’t up to much more than putting out a brush fire right now
No bombardeen Buenos Aires [YouTube]
The carpet bombing of Buenos Aires would be a crime against humanity. It is one of the world’s great cities. Even the Nazis didn’t carpet bomb Paris. Hitler wanted to do that for revenge, but cooler heads prevailed.
Hitler spared Paris only because the French gave up so quickly.
'Britain’s budget for defending the Falklands plummeted from £143million in 2005-06 to £69million in 2010-11.'
Countries ebb and flow. That is the nature of it. Demographics will change America, the UK, and the economic disorder will change the world.
If Britain wants to change its priorities, that would be a good thing. But, when the getting was good, they didn't make the necessary changes. They might be a step slow, but they are still many steps ahead of US when it comes to austerity.
“The carpet bombing of Buenos Aires would be a crime against humanity. It is one of the world’s great cities. Even the Nazis didn’t carpet bomb Paris. Hitler wanted to do that for revenge, but cooler heads prevailed.”
The same Nazis that killed tens of millions of people, including deliberate extermination of certain groups, did not want to bomb Paris due to their opposition to crimes against humanity? I am having very hard time believing that.
I guess my original post was meant to be sarcastic, but did not work. Anyway, the whole conflict is between UK and Argentina over a stupid island in the middle of the antarctican sea. They should be able to resolve that without bloodshed. If they do decide to hanky panky, at least do it through diplomatic means so that world economy isn’t further damaged.
Read “Is Paris Burning?” Hitler wanted to torch the city as the Allies were rolling eastward toward the French capital. The “cooler heads” were some senior officers on the Wehrmacht’s General Staff who overrode Hitler’s orders.
“A crime against humanity” was my term. I’m sure the motive that drove the General Staff to override Hitler’s orders was not so much humane, but to avoid the hangman’s noose when the Allies ultimately forced them to surrender.
For Argentina the Falklands issue has always been a childish game of kicking Britain on the shins and running away. I don’t support bombing Buenos Aires, but I don’t have anything against threatening Argentina with it until they get their good sense back.
That might take a while for them to get their good sense back. Maybe the Brits could lease us a couple of acres there so we can relocate the tangoes from Gitmo. I’d rather see KSM and his boyfriends freezing their butts off in the Falklands than basking in the warm tropical sun. Even the Argies wouldn’t complain about that. They’ve had a few issues with the moslems over the past few years.
On the other hand, the British Navy is a shell of what it was in 82. They decomissioned their last harrier squadron. I don’t know if they have the ability to project any air power in the South Atlantic.
Dear Argentina,
Though I would like to tell you bluntly what I think of this, the language necessary would a) get me rightfully banned for breaking the language rules and b) probably set the servers on fire.
If you wish a replay of ‘82, just give me a call. Might be a tad slower now - but my hands still don’t shake and I can still pick which eye to hit, half a mile away through a low light scope.
I remember your forces well around Port Stanley. Useless bunch of conscripts in the main, only too glad to surrender once the officers went down.
Not that I saw that in person. Half a mile is a fair walk in rough country, and some of the other guys deserved some fun too. Well, someone had to hang back and remove the officers .....
You want the Falklands - come and get them. You REALLY do not want to go there. We take personal choice seriously. Even had a referendum about the fate of the islands.
The Islanders almost unanimously wanted to stay with the Crown. Which means it is my duty and obligation to protect them.
Oaths don’t have time limits.
Regards,
EC.
To the gentle readers here - this constant crap by the Argies drives me nuts. My apologies for the somewhat aggressive tone, but I lost good friends there.
They have a nice little airbase on the islands now, with I think 4 Eurofighters based there. Which is about 3 more than you need to down the entire Argentine Air Force and hole any hostile ship that heads that way.
Britain has much better strategic power projection capabilities than she had in 1982, but perhaps slightly inferior tactical power projection capabilities.
The islands could be reinforced heavily within the space of 24-48 hours by heavy airlift if neccessary thanks to RAF Mount Pleasant’s large and capable runway. It would be hellishly hard for them to take the islands.
On the other hand if they did, things might be more difficult, although not having fixed wing aircraft might not be as much of a handicap as it was in 1982. I’m not an expert by any means but the ‘Daring’ class destroyer is an extremely capable AA platform that would probably completely deny Argentina use of the air, whilst Apache gunships filled some of the gap by providing an air support role that the harriers would have done had we still had them. We also have SSNs with Tomohawk cruise missiles, which means that the Royal Navy can strike anywhere the Falklands or even mainland Argentina at will with virtual impunity, unlike with the extremely tenuous ‘Black Buck’ Vulcan bomber missions we relied on back in ‘82.
Basically, despite the loss of the harriers, a British task force would still have considerable anti-air and and strike capabilities that are probably even better overall than they were in 1982..
Counting on destroyers as your primary air defense umbrella is tenuous. The Apaches could provide the ground support, but in 82, they kept the Argentine air force at bay, which still did a lot of damage. Without any fixed wing air craft. Let’s not forget that the UK ran out of missiles in Libya, and those things are not cheap to replenish. Also, Airlift can only move a fraction of the material that can be moved in the same time by sea lift. If Britain had to rely only on air to move the amount of men and materials necessary to fight an 82 style conflict they would be hard pressed. Their military sea lift capability would depend almost solely on borrowed civilian shipping. Argentina’s a basket case, and I’m sure the U.K. would prevail, but mainly because Argentina has disarmed to a greater extent than the British have.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.