Why Argentina WILL Invade the Falklands & How Iran are Involved

reply to post by Power_Semi


Power_semi. Your points are well thought out and I really liked your thinking regarding the names of the football league in refererence to propagana mechanisms.

You clearly think laterally and should not worry about some of the dumb #s comments in response to your post.

I notice that people tried to deliberatly misenterprett your comments as though you were talking about ethical issues, when you were actually talking about propaganda and its timing.

Great post. Got me thinking.

Thankyou.

PP3

Originally posted by Power_Semi

Originally posted by Aliensun
They will certainly need the help. An expert on NPR the other day said Argentina had only six ships available and 20 planes. I assume the six ships were warships of some kind and the planes were also some types of warbirds.

Britian has a few more of each unless they have recently done even more cuts.

They have far more than 20 aircraft, as do Venezuela (who have F-16's etc):

en.wikipedia.org...

Anyway, why would the Argentine Govt go through the process of making the Falklands a massive issue, pumping up their people, making them feel angry, bitter, and resentful, and then...

do nothing?

Where would all of those angry, bitter, resentful people vent their frustrations? At the useless Govt that winds them all up and then cant or wont do anything about it?

Rather than being short term political gain (and I don't see what that is - the Argentine general election was only last October, she has no need to try and gain short term gains), it could be political suicide.

OK, Argentina has about 22 fighters and 30 ground attack aircraft. All of these are way out of date and out of their league when faced by Typhoons and air defence assets. I am sorry it would be a massacre.

There is no way in hell that Argentina is going to try something militarily against the Falklands unless they really like suicide missions. They would need air superiority first which they just wont be able to obtain. Then they would need sea superiority, which just one RN Trafalgar Class submarine can take care of that problem and deny them. So then a ground force is totally out of the question.

Originally posted by Wotan

Originally posted by Power_Semi

Originally posted by Aliensun
They will certainly need the help. An expert on NPR the other day said Argentina had only six ships available and 20 planes. I assume the six ships were warships of some kind and the planes were also some types of warbirds.

Britian has a few more of each unless they have recently done even more cuts.

They have far more than 20 aircraft, as do Venezuela (who have F-16's etc):

en.wikipedia.org...

Anyway, why would the Argentine Govt go through the process of making the Falklands a massive issue, pumping up their people, making them feel angry, bitter, and resentful, and then...

do nothing?

Where would all of those angry, bitter, resentful people vent their frustrations? At the useless Govt that winds them all up and then cant or wont do anything about it?

Rather than being short term political gain (and I don't see what that is - the Argentine general election was only last October, she has no need to try and gain short term gains), it could be political suicide.

OK, Argentina has about 22 fighters and 30 ground attack aircraft. All of these are way out of date and out of their league when faced by Typhoons and air defence assets. I am sorry it would be a massacre.

There is no way in hell that Argentina is going to try something militarily against the Falklands unless they really like suicide missions. They would need air superiority first which they just wont be able to obtain. Then they would need sea superiority, which just one RN Trafalgar Class submarine can take care of that problem and deny them. So then a ground force is totally out of the question.

If Venezuela do support them and throw in their 24 Su-30's, 20 F-16's, and 16 CF 5's then they might well have air superiority.

Troops can be transported by helecopter and/or small ships.

They don't need sea superiority to fight a land battle, and we won't have sea superiority anyway if they have air superiority.

Take our subs out of the equation, which they are trying to do, and we may well have a major problem - although I doubt we'd remove the subs even if ordered to do so by the UN.

Originally posted by leveller33
reply to post by Power_Semi

 

Power_semi. Your points are well thought out and I really liked your thinking regarding the names of the football league in refererence to propagana mechanisms.

You clearly think laterally and should not worry about some of the dumb #s comments in response to your post.

I notice that people tried to deliberatly misenterprett your comments as though you were talking about ethical issues, when you were actually talking about propaganda and its timing.

Great post. Got me thinking.

Thankyou.

PP3

Thank you!

There's no way that Argentina would even attempt to invade and occupy the Falklands.

In the 1980s, Argentina was a military dictatorship. Argentina, today, is a democratic and socially advanced nation, and one of the economic powerhouses of the region.

It would make absolutely no sense whatsoever for them to instigate a war which they are certain to lose.

There's no genuine hostility towards Argentina in the UK, from those who aren't old enough to remember the Falklands War, and I'm sure the lack of enmity is generally reciprocated amongst younger Argentines.

If you asked most Britons of my generation about Argentina, then they'll probably associate the country with football and Lionel Messi, rather than any deep-seated hostility towards the nation's past actions towards this country and our territories.

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
There's no way that Argentina would even attempt to invade and occupy the Falklands.

In the 1980s, Argentina was a military dictatorship. Argentina, today, is a democratic and socially advanced nation, and one of the economic powerhouses of the region.

It would make absolutely no sense whatsoever for them to instigate a war which they are certain to lose.

There's no genuine hostility towards Argentina in the UK, from those who aren't old enough to remember the Falklands War, and I'm sure the lack of enmity is generally reciprocated amongst younger Argentines.

If you asked most Britons of my generation about Argentina, then they'll probably associate the country with football and Lionel Messi, rather than any deep-seated hostility towards the nation's past actions towards this country and our territories.

edit on 11-2-2012 by Sherlock Holmes because: (no reason given)

In Argentina they teach their children in school that Las malvinas belongs to Argentina and is being illegally occupied by Britain, so I don't share your optimism about how the youth of Argentina view Britain.

As for it being a democracy, it has very strong undertones of a dictatorship.

For my ten cents worth.....The Netherlands is a small country with a small armed forces and small defence budget.
Also a country who in the past, despite her size, carried a reputation as the country who invented and devloped the slave trade.
The Netherlands colonised and to this day, has territories a long way from her shores.
The Carribean being a big example of islands such as Curcao, Aruba and Surinam which remain under Dutch rule and control,(for want of a better word).
The Netherlands could not possible defend those islands or people from a foreign invasion, even if the inhabitants wanted to remain under Dutch rule.
But The Netherlands today is not he Netherlands of the past, just as Great Britain today is not even the Great Britain of the Thatcher Era.
What seperates Britains ability to defend her teritories is a Nuclear deterant.
The Dutch have no Nuclear Deterant but contribute in might and wealth no less or more than the UK.
The smallest country can ward off attack just through having a deterant. This says nothing about fighting ability however.
For all its problems and complexities. The world is a safer place because of Nuclear Deterants, and I hate to say this but I feel its true.
Tax free Jersey in the English Channel would be a lot more important to the french all of a sudden if it had huge oil reserves.
Would the French invade though?. No way. Why? ....Nuclear Deterant.
This is all about Fear, not ethics.
Ethics mean # in war .
The irony of nuclear weapons is though that there is mutually assured destruction if one attacks a country who also posseses Nukes.
Hence Israel and its Samson option. FEAR.

reply to post by leveller33


The English had Polaris submarines in 1982, 4 submarines each armed with 16 ICBM's, each ICBM with 3 city busting warheads.

And it didn't deter Argentina then. But something persuaded the Argentinians to invade.

What was it ? Perceived weakness on the part of the English.

Back in 1982, the English had long since abandoned the îles Malouines. They were protected by only a tiny commando force and an old survey ship. They weren't on Madame Thatcher's radar until they were invaded.

Her government decided in 1981 to slash the English Navy. The carriers, the landing ships, many of destroyers and frigates were either to be sold or scrapped. That encouraged the Argentinians to be bold.

And a generation of young Scottish and Welsh soldiers paid the price for Thatcher's government negligence (as with every war in Britain's name, a disproportionate number of casualties are always Scottish and Welsh).

The Argentines knew the nuclear weapon wouldn't be used. As such it deters nothing, it would be politically suicidal for the English to use it today against a non nuclear opponent, theirs would become a pariah state.

I think this is why the English government today sends the ships, the submarines and the Prince. To show they are strong. But the thing is ... they aren't !! The English navy is tiny, their ships are every bit one hit wonders as was HMS Sheffield, HMS Coventry, HMS Ardent and HMS Antelope ... all sunk by the Argentinians, some by exocets, others by old fashioned bombs dropped from airplanes.

This new ship HMS Dauntless is unproven, the type 45 destroyer has been criticised for it's complete and utter inability to attack other ships, for they rely on good weather to launch their helicopters and it's that which can attack enemy ships, submarines etc not Dauntless itself.

Anyway. English Trident submarines won't deter Argentina, not at all. Neither did Polaris.

Actually you are wrong on the nuclear issue. Margret Thatcher has been cited as saying that she was close to using the nuclear option during the 1982 war ...... so never say never.

Anyway, whatever BS you want to spout out, there is no way that Argentina is going to militarily try and take The Falkland Islands. It does not have the capability, nor the will.

As for Chevez, he is another one just jumping on the bandwagon - all mouth and trousers.

reply to post by leveller33


there you go argentina should invade holland

Originally posted by Power_Semi


If Venezuela do support them and throw in their 24 Su-30's, 20 F-16's, and 16 CF 5's then they might well have air superiority.

Troops can be transported by helecopter and/or small ships.

They don't need sea superiority to fight a land battle, and we won't have sea superiority anyway if they have air superiority.

Take our subs out of the equation, which they are trying to do, and we may well have a major problem - although I doubt we'd remove the subs even if ordered to do so by the UN.

Have a think about what you have written for a minute.

If Venezuala was stupid enough to try anything of this kind, dont you think it is likely that the UK would get some inkling that this was going to happen ...... we do have a thing called Military Intelligence. With this warning, it would not take long to re-inforce Fortress Falklands.

As with 1982, any aircraft flown from Argentina would only have a limited 'operational' time over the Falklands, whereas the RAF will not have this problem. The Argies would still have to find any RN ships and subs, so the RN would still be denying the Argies the sea, thus making landing of troops null and void.

In 1982, it only took one old sub, HMS Conqueror, to keep the Argie Navy in port. The Trafalgar Class that we have down there now is capable in its own right of denying the Argentinians access to the open sea and of using any of its airfields.

I really think you are overestimating Argentinian and Venezualan armed forces and are seriously underestimating the UK ones and our resolve to maintain the wishes of the Falkland Islanders to remain a British territory.

As a endpiece: Do not doubt for one minute that IF Chavez decided to throw in his lot with Argentina in a military adventure against the UK/Falklands that the US would come in on the UKs side.

reply to post by Wotan


The English admirals of the time said that they hadn't even thought about using the Polaris force de dissuasion nucléaire. It is long admitted that the English Navy sailed from le mont de Tariq with nuclear depth charges on it's destroyers, but that was because the armada was rushed to sea so quickly they hadn't the time to remove those weapons.

President Mitterand alleged that Madame Thatcher threatened to use nuclear weapons unless he gave her the codes to nullify the Argentinian Exocet missiles, I take that with a pinch of salt !

I think the next step in Naval war will be drone carriers. That is going to reshape the game.

Of course it is all about the oil, but Argentina isn't going to attack, because they know they would lose. Their goal is to sway world opinion that they should have the rights to the Falklands, even though the island, or islands, have been occupied by Brits for a long time.

It is all about the oil, and that is the only reason Argentina is interested. Don't underestimate the greed and the power of the people who control the world's oil supply.

How many ships can a nuke sub take out? More than is necessary in this case.

I think the U.S. military would love to go to war against Iran, so they would be very foolish to do something to provoke them.

Same thing goes for Venezuela.

reply to post by Wotan


That "old sub" Conqueror had only been in service 11 years when the Falklands war took hold.

Even the youngest Trafalgar submarine is older than that !

But here these submarines can bring a capability to the English Navy they didn't have before. They can now take the war to the Argentinian mainland, perhaps attack their naval bases, airports, even Buenos Aires by using their conventionally armed cruise missiles. Now as a deterrent that must work in the favour of the English.

reply to post by LeBombDiggity


LeBomb....I think you raise good points in your reply to what I wrote.
But, whether it be Polaris or Trident, and whether it be through the non proliferation treaty or through rumour.
Ownership of Nuclear Deterant in this mad world we now live in is a Huge reason for not engaging with a country who on paper, may not have military might sufficient to win conventional victories.
Why has no one invaded north korea?
Why has India and Pakistan never really gone further then border skirmishes?
Why does Iran Seek the Nuclear option so badly?
Why does the Samson option, coined by Israel give them so much leverage in the US House of congress?

Having a nuclear threat is like playing poker with #ty cards but having a good bluff.
I see your point.
But having a good bluff in one game does not mean that every game is played he same way.

The USA wasn,t too woried about becoming a pariah state when it bombed japan, and I am sure the UK would use nukes if it had too.
The Rules of engagement have changed since the 1980,s and The words geneva convention mean little to anybody anymore.
The conditioning of the masses through media such as Computer games has already ensured that their are de-sensitised people everywhere who have no concern for words such as ethics and pariah or even basic human life....just so long as the cable stays connected.

the first war was fought with a military junta/dictatorship in charge in argentina. second it was fought using forced conscripts.

if you know anything about military dictatorships, if you refuse to report and/or pay your way out, your only options are to report and fight, torture or execution, in that order.

most people change their mind when the pliers or blowtorch make there way into the room.

argentina is much different now, and all this sabre rattling is just to gather political support and popularity.

if they ever tried to bring military conscription to invade the islands, england won't have to bother to send warships, the people will overthrow the capitol and hang the president for them.

Here is a $180bn reasons why the UK will NEVER give up the Falklands.

www.telegraph.co.uk...

reply to post by Wotan


$180 billion ?

That's less than the Bank of England created out of thin air in an afternoon to fund quantitative easing, only a few years ago.

Is that worth losing your boys over ?

reply to post by LeBombDiggity


So is the issue one of soverignty or money Le Bomb?

I am begining to sense anti Uk undertones. That is your right of course if correct and In some ways i cant blame you.
But, A Nuclear Deterant and the percieved stigma behind is use is purely media spin.
People are so dumb that they will follow any belief system that identifies itself with the individual.
Why is it that rival football tesms would kill each other for club, and yet bond for country.
Manipulation through force fed identity. PROOAGANDA.
Nukes will be used this year and the United nations means nothing anymore, other than as a criminal body. So who fears accountability and what is the accountability anyway.
Manners, character and ethics have all gone ou the window.
The base emoion is Fear. A simple emotion which even the stupid understand.
DeATH through etiquette was for old style fools in fencing costume and duellers over ladies advances.