Argentine Threat Over Falkland Islands Oil Operations

reply to post by alldaylong


well if this is what you understood from what i wrote fair enough mate

reply to post by laytheovers


The point of the link and the quote was to demonstrate that the UKs nuclear weapons are designed and built in the UK by AWE. As they have been since 1946 when Truman refused to give us the American bomb and we had to make our own to prove the point that we would not be left behind.

Operational sovereignty remains with the UK for the weapons we have.

If a massive strategic upheaval happened and the US/UK alliance ended, the USA could refuse spares for COTS parts or withdraw missile support. That would take time to degrade capability and would just take money and effort to overcome.

reply to post by justwokeup


where is this operational sovereignty you are referring to ? all i see is a long list of components made by the US for a system that operates in an environment with given limitations and technologies that are crucially dominated by the US

laytheovers
reply to post by justwokeup

 

where is this operational sovereignty you are referring to ? all i see is a long list of components made by the US for a system that operates in an environment with given limitations and technologies that are crucially dominated by the US

The UK/US arms business is so entwined that it would never happen and i'm sure theres plans drawn up should things get that frosty but its the actual testing and sorting out the small problems that costs more than just renting the missiles with plenty of customer feed back to improve the design

reply to post by Maxatoria


listen have a look at page 1 please.. a geezer comes and says "Trident".. WTF !!!
i mean apart of the extreme almost unthinkable vulgar brutality beyond any measure that such an idea actually pertains my simple point all day today is whats with Trident ? its not really yours, you cant do what you want with it, simple point like..

reply to post by laytheovers


You seem to be confusing the need to have made every part of a device yourself with control of a device once you have it. The USA can withdraw support and make the UKs nuclear deterrent more expensive to maintain in the long run but it doesn't control its operation and it cant prevent it being used at any time.

When a UK trident boat is at sea there is nothing anybody else on the planet can do to stop it except finding it and sinking it if they are able. It will execute its orders as defined by the leadership of the united kingdom.

That is operational sovereignty. Control of a capability independent of others.

This has nothing to do with the Falklands though, maybe we should move this to another thread and get back on topic?

reply to post by justwokeup


you seem not be reading what i have actually posted regarding the technological limitations of your great operational sovereignty..well fine, you do not really have to. I am not confusing anything though

look second guy that tells me im off topic.. apologies, i do not want to bother you, carry on without me please.. enjoy the company of raving maniacs that every now and then pop in such threads and suggest nuking Argies and they like.. they are always more in topic

laytheovers
reply to post by justwokeup

 

you seem not be reading what i have actually posted regarding the technological limitations of your great operational sovereignty..well fine, you do not really have to. I am not confusing anything though

look second guy that tells me im off topic.. apologies, i do not want to bother you, carry on without me please.. enjoy the company of raving maniacs that every now and then pop in such threads and suggest nuking Argies and they like.. they are always more in topic

I did read it. We just disagree on what the implications are. We can agree to disagree amicably.

To be fair, that 'nuking Argentina' insinuation was promptly countered. The nuclear deterrent is just that, it deters a first strike WMD attack on the UK by another rational state. It has no conceivable use in any conventional conflict, Falklands or otherwise.

If another Falklands war erupted it would be decided without nukes, its a red herring.

Dragging us back to the OP!

On the basis that Argentina is now a democracy and has the checks to prevent the foolishness of going to war - the last time they were under a dictatorship - we can assume peace will prevail. The battle ground is economic and nationalistic.

It is clearly spiteful politics, but from the Argentinean authority's perspective, if they do not own and have direct control over Falklands then they will frustrate the Islanders and the UK. If there are commercial amounts of oil in the Falklands and they cannot have it all, then their policy is to make it un-commercial and / or less profitable for others. To take any other position is tantamount to weakening their silly claim. At the present, Argentinean politicians clearly judge that they get better internal ratings by tugging the nationalistic ropes. A new generation, and who knows what Argentina will do. Hopefully, grow up.

On the basis that Argentinean silliness will never win the Falkland Islands over, we can assume that they will remain loyal to the Crown for some time to come.

Regards