It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What would a new Falklands war look like?

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 20 2010 @ 08:02 AM
link   
Here is a link on the first Falklands war Falklands war of 1982. I remember watching this unfold on the news, and I remember things like Britain having to use cruise ships for use as troop transport ships.


Im curious about what type of weapons systems and training that has changed since the first Falklands War.

Could we expect a repeat of the first war or would it expand?




posted on Feb, 20 2010 @ 09:17 AM
link   
They also had to buy all the ship killing missiles they could from the French who would have been happy to sell them to the Argentinians. I wonder if that would happen again.

I doubt they would need to use cruise ships this time around but I would imagine a carrier group. On land paratroopers or British version of, special forces and after a while tanks mobile altilery.

The big factor would be who moved on to the Island first. If it was the British the Argentinians are gonna have a very hard job taking that island if they tried.

If the Argentinians get there first they have nothing to compare with the resources Britian could pour in there so again it would be a battle of taking the high ground ports ect.

A nasty and bloody war over some supposed oil that might not even be there sounds like a modern goverment to me. Also the Americans would come to help the UK if there is oil found.

So Agerntian is screwed if the jolly green giant gets involved.



posted on Feb, 20 2010 @ 09:33 AM
link   
Is it just me or are some people really up for a war with Argentina? and if so why? I dont imagine any of us will be signing up to go and fight. So people are willing to fight till the last drop of somebody elses blood.

I think this will all be played out diplomatically with any luck, so i'll leave this thread to the arm chair generals.



posted on Feb, 20 2010 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by LDragonFire


Could we expect a repeat of the first war or would it expand?



I don`t think this will escallate into a military conflict .
As shown by this statement from Argentina`s Deputy Foreign Minister, Victorio Taccetti .


Argentina insists that this time it will use peaceful means to press its case. “A military conflict is not on the horizon and they [the British] should not worry about that,” Victorio Taccetti, the Deputy Foreign Minister, said yesterday. He added: “They should know clearly that Argentina is not going to abandon this legitimate claim.”

The Times



posted on Feb, 20 2010 @ 10:13 AM
link   
A new Falklands War would be insane for the Argentines - utter suicide.

The British made it clear that we're not going all the way out there to fight again.

Instead, a nuclear submarine is parked permanently off the coast of the Falklands armed with 8 Trident nukes. It has been made very clear to the Americans and the Argentines, next time we won't be playing around with conventional weapons, we level 8 Argentine cities instantly if they come back again.

This is clearly documented in papers released from the early 1980's.



posted on Feb, 20 2010 @ 10:37 AM
link   
We do have a large standing military base on the island - not the few marines who did their best back in '82. We are talking full force contingent with RAF backup.

I know two men who have served at Port Stanley and have a good idea what they mean by "Fortress Falkland" as one of them put it.



posted on Feb, 20 2010 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply to post by aristocrat2
 


Lol fighting against terrorism? This is why Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wants to have big guns too



posted on Feb, 20 2010 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by jpmail
The big factor would be who moved on to the Island first. If it was the British the Argentinians are gonna have a very hard job taking that island if they tried.

If the Argentinians get there first they have nothing to compare with the resources Britian could pour in there so again it would be a battle of taking the high ground ports ect.


Well that;s a fairly moot point, us brits are already there in a fairly substantial way
4 Euro fighter, a type 42 frigate HMS Edinburgh subs with Tomahawks - you won't know which one or how many are anywhere near of course, no point having a sub the other guys can find!

Argentina are just shooting their mouths off, they wouldn't be so stupid as to set even one armed person on those islands - mind you saying that I don't know how good old PM Brown would handle it... Although he does need something to make the brits like him, this would be a very easy win should it ever kick off - nothing at all like 1982, the odds are staggeringly in our favour today.



posted on Feb, 20 2010 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by jpmail
They also had to buy all the ship killing missiles they could from the French who would have been happy to sell them to the Argentinians. I wonder if that would happen again.


Just to pull you upon this comment. The French authorities cooperated in removing Exocet weapons from the market. There are many sources to demostrate that this was the case, but start here with this rendomly selected link o The Daily Telegraph

On topic. An armed conflict just would not happen. Argentina is a democracy now and would not go downthe road of violence. I doubt the people would allow it, for a start. It would be political and and military suicide.

The Island can be rapidly reinforced. The small flight of Typhoons would have no problem with any Argentinean aircraft and the airfield defences are modern. The Island garrison would have no problems. Need I go on? No.

Regards



posted on Feb, 20 2010 @ 12:31 PM
link   
The British Navy would be screwed Militaristically wise, were so used to Modern Warfare that with Argentina's still post-20 year era airforce our weapon system capabilities would be tested to its maximum.

Plus remember the incident with Iran where the British Navy simply surrendered at Gunpoint, that was hardly a boost for our Morale. We've not had a Naval War since the last Falklands, and unless a submarine/Carrier fleet is already making its way down there, any sudden overthrow of the islands again by Argentina wont be fought with weapons.



posted on Feb, 20 2010 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by ROBL240
any sudden overthrow of the islands again by Argentina wont be fought with weapons.


Except for the ones on the Typhoon squadron based at RAF Mount Pleasant and those mustered by the 1,000 UK armed forces personnell stationed on the Islands, right?






posted on Feb, 20 2010 @ 01:15 PM
link   
Eurofighter Typhoons will be too busy engaging in air combat and airfield defense to be carrying payloads weighing them down to hit the Argentine Naval fleet. The Troops will also be loading the payloads, and keeping vital strategic points manned (which will likely get bombed in the first wave anyway.)



posted on Feb, 20 2010 @ 02:26 PM
link   
Argentina would get obliterated, just like they did before, only this time they would get obliterated even harder, case closed.



posted on Feb, 20 2010 @ 02:55 PM
link   
Sounds like a good excuse for Britain to expand its military again to me.

That's all.



posted on Feb, 20 2010 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by superrat
Geez, this is sort of like asking who would win a boxing match between two nuns. The British are Euro-pussies who pretty much surrender at the first sign of trouble and the Argentinians are South Americans who are lucky if they can figure out which end of the gun to fire. Aside from it's comic potential, nothing to worry about.

A battalion of US Marines would make short work of all of them in a couple of days.



oh you silly little man, please remind me when we surrendering Euro (Snip) last surrendered...unlike America and Vietnam.


and how on earth would 500 -1200 marines take on and defeat all of the personell on the Falklands and the entire Argentina millatry....





Mod Note: General ATS Discussion Etiquette – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 20-2-2010 by asala]



posted on Feb, 20 2010 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by antuk
and how on earth would 500 -1200 marines take on and defeat all of the personell on the Falklands and the entire Argentina millatry....


Going from the geographic knowledge some Americans are showing about Australia and New Zealand, the Americans would probably turn up on the West coast of South America looking for the Falkland Islands!



posted on Feb, 20 2010 @ 05:14 PM
link   
So they say at the moment theres a 1000 troops and 4 jets stationd there, and a sub in vacinty..? (most likely a secret)
If there was a war, hopefully our troops are dug-in enougth to await reinforcements. Only trouble is the talk about our Carriers and transport.
Although, i have faith in the British soldiers defending the Islands. They train there constantly so know the terrain, plus the 'standard' kit will transverse easier than what happed with Afghan and Iraq because the weathers similar to the UK.
And as a after thought, i think the US may help (for the Oil) or the French.. Well, at least the use of their vessles.
Oh, and i think the SAS have a house somewhere on the Island... 5 of them would be a head-ache if Argie's set foot on the land.

[edit on 20/2/10 by Esrom Escutcheon Esquire]



posted on Feb, 20 2010 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by aristocrat2
A new Falklands War would be insane for the Argentines - utter suicide.

The British made it clear that we're not going all the way out there to fight again.

Instead, a nuclear submarine is parked permanently off the coast of the Falklands armed with 8 Trident nukes. It has been made very clear to the Americans and the Argentines, next time we won't be playing around with conventional weapons, we level 8 Argentine cities instantly if they come back again.

This is clearly documented in papers released from the early 1980's.


Can you provide a link to info on these papers? Thanks.

While this will almost certainly not end up in a shooting match, the British would be victorious. As pointed out elsewhere, we have many battle-hardened troops in service right now.



posted on Feb, 20 2010 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by LDragonFire
 


I'd like to bring something to the attention of al those saying that the Argies would get a bum kicking.

The UK Military, at their own admission, is so stretched and lacking resources that they could hardly muster the troops and equipment to enter a food fight in Spain, let alone a full on Naval and Land War tens of thousands of miles away.

There are cutbacks in everything from training to tanks, a boy who complained of going out on patrol with NO RIFLE was killed just this week!

And you all believe the UK would be able to fight and WIN against Argentina!

If it came down to a battle on the Island (ie not strictly naval or air), then I'd give them a lot more respect, especially taking into consideration the woeful ability of the UK to maintain, supply and support the troops they have already fighting in the Mid-East.

I hope it won't come down to it, I'd hate more lives (theirs and ours) to be lost over Oil!

KF




new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join