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.

 

Why Argentina WILL Invade the Falklands & How Iran are Involved

page: 12
25
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 07:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by sapien82
reply to post by tommyjo
 


tommyjo , thats not what I meant by special agents , as in the special ops services of the military.

I meant subterfuge , as in turn the people of falklands against the british government over a period of time
make them call for independence and get rid of the army then invade!

I have never been to the falklands , not somewhere im planning on going , are there any nice beaches ?


Sorry, not a chance in hell of convincing the population using such methods. Yes, there are some lovely beaches. I have been there four times while serving in the military. A good tour if you want to save money!




posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 07:46 AM
link   
Iran should deploy a few shahab-3 missiles in Argentina.In case Britain attacks Iran.Iran can retailate and help Argentina in liberating the islands from the british imperialists.



posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 07:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mister_Bit

You don't think they may have learnt from past mistakes? Built up plans for the past 30 years? Rebuilt their armed forces?
Whereas the UK has all but dismantled theirs.

They haven't built up anything. If they had then they would have built up their amphibious landing capability three fold. The file for the re-invasion plan is empty. They have nothing under successive Argentine Civilian governments that have kept their purse strings tightly closed for a reason. It would take years of investment and re-equipping to gain the capability to re-take the islands. They know this themselves that is why the Argentine President is simply bumping her gums purely for political grandstanding.



posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by mkgandhas
Iran should deploy a few shahab-3 missiles in Argentina.In case Britain attacks Iran.Iran can retailate and help Argentina in liberating the islands from the british imperialists.



Yeah, you could then bet your bottom dollar, that Argentina would then be turned into a glass car park.

If you love the Persians so much, why not go and live there?



posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 09:42 PM
link   
The power of music, sometimes politicians should just stfu and maybe learn a lesson from such things.....



At one point I think Noel nearly shed's a tear or two.

I know it probably doesn't add anything to the discussion but I think it's a timely reminder that people are people regardless of nationality and we should concentrate on the many things that unite us rather than the few that divide us.
edit on 20/2/12 by Freeborn because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 04:25 AM
link   
Argentina are now pushing to take over the commercial flights to the Falklands from Chile.

They want the contract with Chile to be scrapped and awarded to the main Argentine air carrier.

Is it just me or is that a little bit obvious?



posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 11:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Power_Semi
 


Argentina needs to make up their minds. One minute they are attempting to blockade the Islands and threatening a trade dispute with the UK and now they want (er) the Brits to award a commercial monopoly contract to them.

All seems rather too much. All stinks of crass politics at the Argentinean end, but we have all clocked that already.

Regards



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 04:24 AM
link   
Could be that it's what it's been all about, getting some commercial monopoly, but really it's value would be small potatoes to go to such lengths.

What I was thinking was that at present Argentina wouldn't easily be able to launch an attack on the Falklands because of our air cover, they have no way to get troops over there, or attack the airfield without a significant response from our fighters & defences at Mount Pleasant.

But commercial airliners land at Mount Pleasant.

Pack a commercial airliner with explosives and/or commandos, land it on the runway, the commandos attack the aircraft, the explosives take out the runway.

No more air cover.

Awarding Argentina this contract would give them a way to easily get to the Falklands, more specifically to the heart of our defences.

It'd take a brave man to decide to shoot down a commercial airliner whatever intelligence you had about what was on board.

I can't see why Argentina have been so aggressive, then suddenly want to support the Falklanders when not so long ago they were talking about banning flights to them.

All smells very fishy.
edit on 3-3-2012 by Power_Semi because: typo



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 08:14 AM
link   
The Falkand Islands has always been about the oil

I did 2 tours down there 1989 and 1990 and it was a well known fact then that there were huge oil reserves off the Islands.

The Island is too well defended these days and reinforcements can be there in a day. This includes personell and aircraft. No way will argentina attack its all just posturing by the Argentian Government. In 82 we were unprepared now we are!

Still amuses me that the nickname for the locals was Bennys though. Be ause they all look like Benny from Crossroads



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 08:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Power_Semi
 


Never going to happen. The comercial airliners are escorted in by fighters. Plus there are some good ground forces on hand to repel any attack. It would be a suicide mission



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 05:22 AM
link   
There is something you should know about the Falklands War.

The deal was, in 1982, that in return for the unconventional help the British had in recovering the islands, the duplicated HMS Invincible, along with its entirely Urdu speaking, imposter crew ( most likely LeT) from Kashmir, was to be sent to the bottom of the South Atlantic, and all concessions made to the Kashmiri community were to be withdrawn.

The United Kingdom reneged on this deal.
edit on 10-6-2012 by Trafalgar1805 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 06:36 PM
link   
It seems to me that the military problem faced by Argentina isn't how to overwhelm British forces on the Falklands, it is merely a problem of how to disable the runway at Mount Pleasant. If Argentina can make that strip of concrete unserviceable then Britain could have 50 or 500 typhoons based there, it wouldn't matter. If they can't get into the air then whatever the Argentinian airforce has would give them air superiority. Put it this way, if the roles were reversed and the British military were faced with this problem, the Falklands would change ownership. The whole of the Falklands defence depends on that airstrip. I don't think it's beyond Argentinas capability to destroy 100 yards of concrete and keep it destroyed until the subsequent airborne invasion is completed. It could all be over in a few hours.



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 06:53 PM
link   
Britain has fullsized aircraft carriers by now. And if the brits cant cut it, Nato will show up. They can invade but they cant hold it.



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 


We haven't got any aircraft carriers and NATO don't want to know.



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 05:50 PM
link   
On the subject of disabling the airstrip on the Falklands. Can Argentina get hold of any kind of suitable missile for this purpose? Maybe from Iran? It seems very complacent of Britain to rely on a defence that hinges on a few yards of runway. The runway only needs disabling for a few hours. I'd have thought a couple of commando mortar teams could achieve that. So all Argentina has to do is get 20 men within a few miles of the runway undetected for a few minutes. Very, very stupid scrapping the Harriers, very, very stupid scrapping the aircraft carriers. It's almost like the UK government wants them to invade. If the runway is ever disabled the 120 or so infantry on the island can't possibly hold on to a land mass the size of Wales against the Argentinian Parachute Brigade. I think a second invasion of the Falklands is an entirely viable military proposition. Someone in Whitehall needs to wake up.



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 03:29 AM
link   
reply to post by prsjm3qf
 




Can Argentina get hold of any kind of suitable missile for this purpose?


Argentian tried to get Exocet missiles from France in '82 - perhaps you should research on how Thatcher dealt with that threat and her dealings with President Mitterand.
France were allegedly our ally at the time - imagine how the UK would deal with an enemy?



It seems very complacent of Britain to rely on a defence that hinges on a few yards of runway.


The UK strategy is anything but complacent.



The runway only needs disabling for a few hours.


And how are they going to achieve this?



I'd have thought a couple of commando mortar teams could achieve that.


And how are they going to get into position to achieve that?
Have Argentina got two 'commando mortar teams'?



So all Argentina has to do is get 20 men within a few miles of the runway undetected for a few minutes.


Argentina couldn't get 20 men within 200 miles of the runway let alone a few miles!



Very, very stupid scrapping the Harriers, very, very stupid scrapping the aircraft carriers.


Yeah, I agree with you - but probably for completely different reasons.



It's almost like the UK government wants them to invade.


That I wouldn't dismiss - but I doubt it.



If the runway is ever disabled the 120 or so infantry on the island can't possibly hold on to a land mass the size of Wales


There are 1200 British Army personnel stationed in the Falklands.
en.wikipedia.org...

HMS Dauntless is classed as the most advanced warship of it's type in the world.
Swiftsure and Trafalgar class nuclear submarines are on patrol in the region.
A squadron of Typhoon's can be at the Islands within 24 hours.
Rapier missiles are deployed throughout the islands.

Various other forces, from all three services, are on permanent stand by to be deployed immediately should the need ever arise.



against the Argentinian Parachute Brigade.


?



I think a second invasion of the Falklands is an entirely viable military proposition.


No it isn't.
And if they ever attempted it the Argentinian Navy and Air Force would be neutralised within hours.
We know this. Kirchner knows this.
Everyone knows this - apart from you apparently.

This is the reason Kirchner is using completely different tactics to highlight the Falkalnds issue and to publicise it on the world stage.

With all due respect you've shown a complete and utter lack of knowledge and understanding both of military issues and capabilities etc and the Falklands issue as a whole.



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Freeborn
 


I think you are wrong about my lack of understanding. British military history has many examples of overconfidence leading to a fall. Also, history teaches us that you don't have to be technically superior, or even the biggest, to win. All that is needed is the application of overwhelming force at the point where it counts - ie the runway. Gen. Sir Julian Thompson seems to agree with me (that there is danger here) and he also says that Argentina has a very good quality parachute brigade and a similar brigade of professional marines. If either of those get ashore it's game over. If the runway is disabled a parachute brigade can be landed in a few hours, that's what they're there for. As for asking if Argentina has 2 mortar teams, are you serious? That is just the sort of overconfidence and underestimation of the other side that I am trying to highlight. Also, there are 1200 military on the Falklands but only 120 are infantry. Reverse the roles, ask yourself this question, if the air cover were neutralised could the Falklands be held against our parachute regiment?.... the answer is Not a hope in hell! As for the Argentinian navy, they don't need it. Does the RAF have the capability of regaining and maintaining air superiority from Ascension within 24 hours? I doubt it. Within 24 hours the Falklands would be in Argentinian hands and then it's a whole different ball game. The Vulcan raid in 82 was a failure. But mainly I would ask you to reverse roles and re-assess the situation, I don't know if Argentina is up to it but if the roles were reversed we would be able to take the Falklands using low tech ww2 type methods and tactics. It doesn't take a lot to put a runway out of action, booby traps, time delay ordnance prevent and delay repair, etc., etc. For example, if an airliner from another S American country requested permission to land on the Falklands or be forced to ditch in the sea would they be allowed to land or be shot down? If not shot down then they can crash land on the runway and it IS disabled. If the roles were reversed we would already have men on the Falklands.
edit on 14-6-2012 by prsjm3qf because: point clarification



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 05:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Freeborn
 


It doesn't matter how many squadrons of typhoons we can get there in 24 hours if they have nowhere to land.

It would be easy for the Argies to get a small number of commandos onto the island undetected, ever heard of the cockleshell heroes?

Plus the runway is used for commercial airliners, since the Stanley runway is too small.

What would happen if a commerical airliner sent a mayday and requested landing there due to engine failure, or some other supposed problem?

They could hardly shoot it down. And what if that airliner had been adapted to drop a few bombs, or was full of explosives that would be detonated once it had landed on the runway.

The runway doesn't need to be out of action for long to give the Argies the opportunity to invade.

Yes it would still be tough, but in that scenario they'd have air superiority because we wouldn't be able to get anything in the air, and I don't believe the BS about the most advanced warship in the world, I bet it'd be kept well out of the way, or knocked out of action in about 5 minutes.

I don't for one minute believe it can take on an entire airforce, submarines, and whatever else they could throw at it.

The Bismark was the most advanced ship of it's day, but it couldn't shoot down fairy swordfish because they were too slow for the fire control predictors to target them.

There's always something you haven't thought of.



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 06:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Power_Semi
 


The simple FACT is that the Argentinian armed forces are in a worse condition than they were back in '82.

There is NO realistic military threat from Argentina.

Kirchner WILL NOT invade The Falklands and if she was stupid enough to do so, (Kirchner may be many things but she is far from stupid), then it would result in such a resounding and swift defeat that she would be consigned to history and would be remembered as a complete and total failure, the exact opposite of what she wants.

In addition, what support Kirchner has on the international stage would be eradicated if she ever attempted to mount an armed assault on the islands.

Why some people just want to belittle the UK's capabilities no matter what is beyond me.

I recognise and accept that the UK's military resources are not what they used to be and the ongoing running down of our armed forces is a national disgrace, but we are more than capable of dealing with any imaginary attack from Argentina.

I really don't want to go through the military capabilities of the Argentinian armed services but please have a look through what they have at their disposal and then compare to that which the UK have.

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

Nearly all of their planes are all but obsolete and nearly every other nation that have the same assault planes barring the likes of Zaire have decommissioned them.
Their Navy has no illusions to be able to carry out any sort of large scale military operation and are more designed to operate in support and conjunction with other Navy's etc.

And none of that is meant to ridicule - they have just realised that the military option against the UK is not a realistic, feasible or even desireable one.

Kirchner, despite chasing a lost cause and not looking after Argentina's long term interests, is actually being quite astute in raising both her own personal profile and highlighting the issue on the international stage.
edit on 15/6/12 by Freeborn because: spelling



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 08:52 AM
link   
Their airforce may be obsolete against modern fighters, but with no runway they are completely in control no matter how obsolete you might think they are, since there would be nothing else in the air.

The Fairey Swordfish was obsolete but it still crocked the Bismark.

Plus, the support they have from other South American countries, who have said they'll stand and fight shoulder to shoulder with the Argies, DO have much more modern and better equipped air forces.

There's a lot of oil and money down there, so don't be surprised for 1 minute that they'll try and take it militarily if they can.

I predict they'll wait until we have our hands full elsewhere, maybe in Hormuz, and then will strike.



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join