UK REJECTS ARGENTINA'S FALKLANDS CLAIM

chronicle.gi ^ | January 19 2010 | chronicle.gi

[Weslo]

The Brits got lucky last time around. The only reason they didn’t go home earlier (with their tails between their legs) was because the Argentine pilots didn’t arm their bombs properly when they dropped them on British ships. Many bombs landed on British ships & carriers and a number of them didn’t explode because the fuse timing was off, due to the low altitude drops. Whoops! A few lucky duds saved their butts, as far as the Brits were concerned. American assistance in a number of areas also helped them limp to a marginal victory. They could never do that again, especially these days.

[spetznaz]

The UK is an awfully patriotic country, I can’t see them just allowing them to give this away without a fight if this were to be invaded again.

Hopefully it does not become like that sad case reported last week where a family found squatters in their home and couldn't get them out ...the thread was on FR.

Seriously though, I hope you are correct. However, I do wonder where that patriotism was when the navy sailors got 'napped by the Iranians.

[Jim Noble]

"They are sovereign to the United Kingdom and we condemn attempts by any foreign governments to assert otherwise."

OK, Minister, but what about England?

[Hillarys Gate Cult]

I heard the most painful news story ever about this when the Argys took the Falklands. The reported that “to support the war, many Argentinians had to sell their family jewels.” Ouch!

[agere_contra]

The Falkland defenses are 50 times stronger than they were. Moreover: we now have ultra-quiets (the Astute class) to nullify their surface navy. No-one in Argentina is going to want another ‘Belgrano’.

Plus everyone on the island is British - there’s zero demographic pressure.

The Argies will never get it back.

[agere_contra]

The low altitude drops were forced errors caused by the extraordinary (for the day) power of Seawolf missiles.

Plus all those bomb UXBs were on destroyers - unsurprisingly, as those were the perimeter ships. Britain could have lost many more DDs than it did, and still have won - the Carriers (and harriers) were the only critical assets, and they were never in serious danger.

In a repeat, Britain could still rely on the help of Chilean radar. It would also have the unsinkable aircraft carrier known as “The Falklands”.

[Vanders9]

No, they won’t.

The RN would struggle to muster the force to recapture the islands again, but they wouldnt have to.

This time we got a substantial force on the Islands - thousands of military personnel and fixed wing jet fighters on 24/7, as opposed to 1982 when the garrison was 81 men and a 3” mortar with a cracked tube.

[Vanders9]

Would the British public be willing to pour blood and treasure there ? I doubt it. Argentines are quite manic about a few rocks in the South Atantic.

After untold millions spent, four fine warships sunk, and several hundred deaths, so are we.

[Vanders9]

The vaunted US military hasn’t managed to win a war in Afghanistan (which is half way round the world) either.

[Vanders9]

If If If If.

Lost wars are always down to “bad luck”. OK modern warfare is an occasion where there are fewer, more powerful weapons so the vagaries of fortune are more acute, but in the end it all evens out. The Brits were unlucky too - for example losing most of their helicopters by one unlucky hit on a transport. That meant they had to walk all the way - the argentines wouldnt be able to “count” on that again.

No bombs landed on British carriers. As for the bombs not going off because of low altitude drops, why do you think the Argentines were at such low altitudes anyway? Because they had been forced down by British air defences, is why. So how much of that is down to luck?

[Vanders9]

Tragically, Astute is not in service yet.

[Vanders9]

I’m not so sure we could count on Chile. Relations between them and Argentina are much cosier these days.

[VOA]

“
UK REJECTS ARGENTINA’S FALKLANDS CLAIM
“

I think the venacular term is
“P-SS OFF, You Buggers!!!”

[Virginia Ridgerunner]

So, who would break an Argentinian blockade of the islands and resupply the garrison if it came to that?

Half of Royal Navy’s ships in mothballs as defence cuts bite

THE STRANGE DEATH OF THE ROYAL NAVY

[6ppc]

Deja vu all over again!

[Rebelbase]

“Looks like they are bound and determined to get their nose bloodied a second time”

The existing forces and rapidly deployed forces could take care of it. Technology is much different than in the early 80’s.

I don’t think Britain has the political stones to mount an invasion fleet like then did 30 years ago.

[chuck_the_tv_out]

BULL!!! :D

Gwondanaland is a dumb myth. There is no WAY it was like that.

[Vanders9]

Half of the navy’s ships are always in mothballs. In an emergency they could be reactivated. Half of the fleet in 1982 was reactivated! Anyway, the Argentine navy has also receded. They have no carriers now. They have no cruisers. They have no long range anti-aircraft defence system of any kind. So what are they supposed to blockade us with? Submarines? Low endurance Diesel electric submarines at that?

[Vanders9]

I disagree.

Any British government that lost the Falklands would be out of office and the politicos are well aware of the fact.

[Vanders9]

I’ve always thought it a very nice myth. I’ve fought many hypothetical wars between Gondwanaland and Pangea :)