Posted on 12/22/2011 5:05:36 AM PST by sukhoi-30mki
You picked the wrong state.
Missouri has many ports and a strong maritime business. In fact, the reason Missouri is what it is is because of the ports on the Rivers
Actually I said Joplin...
Obama wants to vacation in the islands? I recommend the Falklands. They’re like Hawaii....with sheep!
Paraguay is the bump on the butt of South America.
LLS
You are correct. But the Argentine Navy and Airforce were unable to maintain control of the sea/air around the Falklands, and so they in-turn lost.
The Gurkhas are an elite light infantry force. But if you put them in a static defense the enemy will simply pound them with heavy weapons to attrit them. Just a matter of time & ordnance.
Put some air tankers on the Falklands & run some air strikes against the Argentine mainland. Shame they retired the Vulcan bombers. There are a lot of things they could do to disrupt if there was a will to strike early enough.
I did a very detailed analysis of this for a paper last year.
The Argentine military is a joke, they're much worse off compared to 1982 than the British are. Most of their aircraft are inoperable. They've spent very little money on defense recently. They have lost a lot of capabilties they had in 1982.
I agree that the cuts in the Royal Navy are a shame, but there's been a lot of overheated rhetoric in the UK about the threat to the Falklands - the Argentinians can't realistically do a whole lot.
Even though the size of the RN has been drastically cut, at least now the whole Royal Navy has credible defensive weapons against sea-skimming missiles like the Exocet; they had almost none in 1982.
British submarines carry Tomahawks now, so if they wanted to do that, they don't need aircraft to do it.
Didn't the Brits bring one of the Vulcan bombers out of a museum for the run that cratered the runway on the Falklands when it was it Argentinian hands?
In order for the landing force to pound the Gurkas they will need to land and set up arty. Gurkhas nor any other Brits will be sitting around eating scones while this is happening. The Argentine Navy will be floating upside down if they attempt to shell from afar.
Brits on the other hand have been side-by-side with us in Iraq/'Stan. Multiple combat tours. The Argentine Army would be better off catapulting Jararacas at the Brits than trying to force a beachhead or holding one. Ain't worth it.
Kirchener knows this. Doubt very many of her citizens wish to die because Britain declared a penguin sanctuary on one of the islands...
Lastly, HRH Duke of Cambridge will be there next month. On the Falklands. Flying air rescue. Where he goes, many others follow...
That is true... and obama wants to put us on parity with Britain.
LLS
Please see number 33. Hit me by mistake...
Astute analysis.
I doubt you mean that, but if you do that would be a mistake of the highest order. If Britain wanted to punish Argentina (or 95% of the nations on Earth) it could easily do so with one Astute submarine. As long as the Brits don't try to 'nation build' (they would horribly fail at that since their military is incapable of that) but only needed to do conduct a powerful conventional strike, a single Astute off the coast of Argentina would be an impregnable/invincible/invisible strike platform that could launch land attack and ship attack tomahawks at any Argie asset with near-perfect impunity.
However, the moment they used nuclear weapons on 'the capitols of all nations involved' there would be consequences that are not good. For one, the measure for using nuclear weapons would be drastically reduced. So far nuclear/atomic weapons have only been used twice in anger, and since then there has been no use at all (even though they have proliferated, and some of the countries having them are not necessarily stable nor sane - I am looking at you Pakistan). There has been a very high standard for the use of nuclear weapons, and even when there has been pressure to use them they have not been used since WW2. The moment a 'moral power' like the UK uses nuclear weapons on civilian capital cities ...think about that, nuclear weapons against civilian targets because ships bearing a flag were banned from port ...the whole broth just got changed. What is top stop Pakistan from immediately nuking Delhi the moment they think an Indian counter-attack due to some nonsense similar to what happened at Kargil has gone too far? For that matter, what is to stop them from preemptively nuking the cities? After all, if the Brits can do it? Now, someone can say that because both are nuclear powers MAD will still rule. Alright ...what is to stop China from nuking Taipei with a low-yield tactical nuke?
I am not a dove. Goodness, I actually think Bush wasn't tough enough during the Iraq war (I believe when it is war it is war). However using nuclear weapons against civilian capital cities in an opening salvo would open a Pandora's box so big that it would replace the original myth. And the British would create a situation that the US would be forced to finish (as I used to tell my friends way back during the days we'd go out to nightclubs, don't start a fight I will have to finish). The UK nuking civilian capitals would create a situation that would immediately involve a) the US having to step in as other larger and smaller nuclear powers start acting in uncertain ways, and b) create a precedence of nuclear weapon use that just destabilized the world. Also c) the UK would be challenged again, just not by small weak countries like Argentina. Such an act would be the greatest gift China could get this Christmas, since suddenly all of Taiwan's measures to stop a conventional Chinese attack would pale against the new option of a tactical nuclear attack. After all, if the UK can attack the capitals of several countries, killing millions, because Argentina was acting funny about some island; what about China's case that Taiwan is a 'renegade province?'
Now, ofcourse, in the real world the UK will never nuke a civilian capital (actually, plural - civilian capitals), but even as an internet/FR thought experiment that would never happen. It would be like the US deciding to use nuclear weapons in Viet Nam. Result: The Soviets just started using them in Afghanistan.
The Brits would be starting something they could not possibly be able to finish, and it would be up to the US (yet again) to try and sort out the playground mess. There would also be a lot of 'moral permission' for other global players to use nuclear weapons. For instance, it would be very easy for China to make a comparison between the UK-Argentina situation (and the solution the UK opted for) and the China-Taiwan situation.
LLS
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.