(Despite conflicting thoughts) I have released this idea for debate, due to Argentina’s increasing hostility towards the vast majority people living
on the Falkland Islands, and all those who defend them (i.e. the United Kingdom). News…
Supply Route Threatened: news.sky.com...
Missile Targets Burn Jack: www.youtube.com...
Similar Events: www.telegraph.co.uk...
Points 1 to 5 explain the politics required; skip to point 6-15 for purely: “How to win a nuclear war without killing anybody”.
1. Argentina attacks the Falklands and establishes a permanent presence.
2. President Obama (having recently won his second term against Mitt Romney) continues his anti-European, anti-Western, and generally ant-white
ideology, by making it clear that Britain’s repayment for losing 179 troops in America’s Iraq war, and 397 in Afghanistan, see pictures of the
Is zero repayment!
I.e. America will remain neutral in the conflict, whilst being politically hostile by actively advocating the Falklands sovereignty be determined by
the UN, rather than the actual Falklands residents. He does this knowing that Britain is a permanent UN member, and that the British electorate would
never forgive their electorate for not vetoing anything short of full victory.
3. Britain attempts a counter attack, but bad military decisions, together with the loss of military equipment caused by David Cameron’s continued
defence government cuts, causes the loss of another ship, extending a death toll that can only further enrage the British public-electorate.
4. Realising that Britain does not have the (conventional) military ability to reclaim the Falklands, David Cameron attempts a UN compromise, but the
compromise fails when: A jubilant Argentinean government feels unable to give the British victory-concessions needed, and opinion polls indicate the
British public (and particularly those within our army) grow increasingly restless at our illusion of “democracy”.
Meanwhile the new Labour Party leader (it won’t be Edd Milliband, he’s due to be overthrown before 2015) decides to appeal to the floating
Conservative electorate, by declaring “that under me, the fight to preserve the Falklander’s sovereignty, and to self determination will never be
surrounded” “–that the war must continue indefinitely, until one year, whenever that may be, Britain is victorious” i.e. politically similar
to Britain’s 35 war against the IRA, nearly 6 year war against Hitler, or indeed 15 year war against Napoleonic France.
5. So: A 3rd offensive is made. By then Britain’s military has already been substantially weekend (and even more demoralised) by Argentina’s
(Top) secretly the British government is fully aware that this attempt will fail (in military terms) and that it can only embolden the British
public’s anger. This however, is precisely its purpose.
6. The new government announces to the world (& particularly Argentina!) that its presently debating an act through parliament, legally authorising
the following: “Britain to withdraw from the nuclear test ban treaty, together with (certain aspects) of the Non Proliferation Treaty.”
7. That (unless Argentina fully withdraws within 28 days) Britain will be forced to detonate a nuclear device above the Argentinian capital (Buenos
Aires) but that it will be detonated so far above the city, that it’s blast will not kill anyone. Instead merely the electromagnetic pulse will
destroy almost every electronic device in the capital –even including car batteries.
To see Exactly how this is possibly you need to watch this You Tube video of a UK, atmospheric nuclear test, conducted in 1952. It’s only 1.8
megatons, but is fairly adequate
the two min mark is the detonation, but I feel all before then is worth watching. I understand most
radiation from these nukes is blasted into space (at 30,000 feet atmospheric pressure is less; along with air friction), or it’s distributed so
finely it becomes insignificant.
8. Argentinians are invited to evacuate their city, by that specific date. It is also explained to them that should they overthrow their government,
or withdraw from the Falklands then the detonation will be cancelled.
9. It is also explained that the proposed “test” is 1 of 3 called operation:
“Bright Fright” “Fair Warming” and “Operation Vaporization” that these will be conducted 2 weeks apart over the Argentinian capital, until
there is nothing left.
10. By which time: The “testing ground” for British nuclear weapons will become Argentina’s second biggest city Córdoba, followed by Rosario
and Mendoza ect. That the destruction of Buenos Aires will coincide with the wider use of “nuclear warnings” but that the destruction Cordoba will
be complete within 3 weeks, and that it will be 2 weeks for Rosario.
11. At every stage: it will be emphasized to the world that Argentina’s will be given time to evacuate, not least as (far from being an asset to
their countries war effort) the prospect of millions of them homeless, will become it’s single greatest liability.
What government –people on Earth could survive the (almost) completely harmless detonation of nukes above its population centres?
Barring in mind that: Every computer hardrive has been erased, and that it’s a precursor to permanent, mass, homelessness?
12. Speech to the World Community regarding Sanctions: The British PM will also make clear that whilst it is every countries right to level
sanctions, any losses suffered by British companies from foreign sanctions (levelled by any country, against Britain as a whole, for its war) will be
compensated 150 percent by the British Treasury (150 percent as that figures takes into account bureaucratic, application processing, delays) and that
Britain will seek to repay its compensation payments, through War Reparations against Argentina.
13. That once nuclear weapons have been used against Argentina the objective is no longer to simply regain the Falkland Islands, but rather to cause
“regime change” in Argentina, together with war reparations, together with the complete and permanent disbarment of all it’s military, for its
present day military to be redirected to the UK military, as it is this that will now defend their sovereignty from invaders in future (as a British
The reason why “regime change” is included in this statement is so that later on, Britain can show flexibility in negations by
settling merely for the demilitarization of Argentina, together with permanent war reparations.
14. That for everyone of the 2967 Falklander killed: They will be replaced until 10 Britain’s have voluntarily decided to take up long term
residence on the Island, guaranteed by British “cash incentives”.
15. That whilst the ratio between Argentinian’s and Falklanders is 13620 makes direct revenge “too barbaric for Britain to compliment” we are
less likely to look upon their own civilians deaths as significant, the more of our civilians they kill.
[size=125]In my View…
Nuclear weapons have saved literally tens of millions, of people’s lives…
During WW2 between 60 and 70 million are thought to have died. The only thing that had made the conventional technology of the cold war
different, is it had become more lethal, cheaper to mass produce (at least for the Soviet Union), and both sides had all the time they needed to
During “the Cold War the Left Wing of politics” predicted nuclear weapons would make the Cold War even more bloody than WW2. Some delirious idiots
even predicted it would destroy the world (because it could). Rather than advocating something sensible (like missile defence) to stop those missiles
ever landing, and some dangerous actually fought making the West perfect for communist invasion by getting rid of nukes would make war somehow less
(Like much of left wing ideology) it later got completely ridiculed by reality…
Instead: (At most) about 3 million died during the Cold War (that’s if you include the 1.1 million Vietnamese killed during Vietnam, together with
other wars both sides waged by proxy).
We have the Iraq War: During the first one we left Saddam in power precisely because he had WMD’s, and because we realised that if he
was overthrown there would be a period of anarchy in which his WMD’s could be claimed by terrorists –rogue political forces. With Israel well
within Iraqi range, we could not afford to jeopardise the entire population of this 6 million holy sands land. Not with e.g. anthrax –other
We told Saddam: “He would have nothing but peace and prosperity” if only he disarmed Iraq of WMD’s. He duly did (by 1995) and in 2003 faced
nothing but war, poverty, and of course his own televised hanging, instead.
We had Libya in which Gaddafi had a WMD programme. The stupid animal (and he really is spoilt stupid, for making this mistake) saw
what had just happened to Saddam, and actually believed us, he “would have nothing but peace and prosperity” if only he got rid of his WMD’s!
A few years later (after it became clear Iran wasn’t making the same mistake)
Nato & the West, duly paid, organised, and armed, “rebels” (i.e. mercenary like terrorists) to cease power in Libya; whilst NATO bombed anyone
brave enough to help Gaddafi resist the invasion of their country (a country that had grown too rich-tempting under Gaddafi).
Israel-Isteal does have a
right to exist, and that right is a real as blue is blue. The rights called: “nuclear
weapons” and it’s one I find 100% adequate (I mean how does anyone sanely-practically get rid of Israel, if this involves numerous mushroom
So if I (ever) went into politics, I’m never wasting my time dogging bullets from Mossad (or going out of pocket!) just to uphold the rights of 4.2
million Palestinians –“rag heads?” whilst opposing 7.6 million, completely Westernised & quite friendly (to us) Jews.
If Israel didn’t have nuclear weapons I could consider opposing them –i.e. their governments collapse wouldn’t make much world difference. But
as long as we’re dealing with real reality, I will always support them. Frankly deforestation, & plastic pollution bother me literally ten times
more (these issues effect so many more than 4.2-7.6 million people).
We tell Iran to get rid of it’s WMD’s, and say it’s because they led by a suicidal cult that therefore cannot be trusted with
WMD’s. We also say they are led by completely amoral politicians-men who would go to hell even by the standards of Islam, if only God knew what they
had done (which if there is one, he does). I.e. we effectively say an “Ayatollah Nuclear” of Iran will fear the heat of a nuclear blast, as much
(if not slightly more) than the average atheist.
Fact is: As long as Iran has biological weapons, they are probably safe, nuclear weapons just guarantees it.
Falkland Island Defence: A Summary…
Now: We have Argentina thinking they can steel territory from Britain, “steel” because it has never been any of their lifetimes, but it has
always been British land in all of our lifetimes.
Steel because they have a crazy politics, that encourages them to behave much like the ant who attacks the British Lion.
A lion –almost supernatural country when it comes to war, that’s never been conquered once in almost 1000 years –a period of time so great that
almost anyone involved in past conquest, and got left behind, is now today the ancestors of people who are all firmly British.
The Falkland Islands is like a gravestone to the British Empire, and it is imperative for the principle of law, majority rule, and self-determination,
that this Empires gravestone not have its spirit disturbed. E.g. by an Argentinian army spray painting their flag onto its tombstone.
Or else: It will rise up (like as a vengeful political ghost) that can never ever rest, but which is equipped with modern weapons.
And it will rise up in people like me –millions of them (literally). But in my view anyone who doesn’t agree with me we could-should use nuclear
weapons as the ultimate deterrent against Falklands attack is well entitled to disagree.
But anyone who doesn’t believe we should defend the Falkland’s isn’t in my view British, isn’t in my view even fit to be used as target
practice. I have no respect for such people, and long for the day anybody may burn their passports. I would want to defend the Falklands if they were
uninhabited, the fact they are so (and have oil) merely confirms that if Argentina stoops to using the barbarity of war –brought force, to uphold
its primitive will; then so should we, too.
edit on 090705 by Liberal1984 because: Format