BGForums

SoB wrote:but you do not have the V bombers any more.

It was just an example of mad logistics. It was'nt supposed to be taken as a literal weapon suggestion.

I single sub, would not be able to keep the Argentinian navy out, maybe it will sink a ship but if they put up a good naval - air task force against it, the sub is doomed. The argentinians have 4 destroyer and 3 submarines, 2 S-2 Trackers, 5 P-3 Orions and 6 S-61 Sea Kings that can be used to hunt subs.

They only need to sink a few ships and they have one now. they could blokade the island with subs if need be

Well, I think the Falklanders, The Brits and The Argentines should decide, but referendums. Do The Falklanders want to become part of Argentine and on what conditions(eg. with large Autonomy, demilitarized etc.), Do the Brits want to give the islands up and do Argentine want the islands? How a military campaign would end up, well I think the Brits might lose it if it came to it, The British armed forces has cut their military spending and personnel down since the 80's and Argentine has received some new equipment that could challange the British, cause of the distance difference to Falklands.

Hullu Hevonen wrote:Well, I think the Falklanders, The Brits and The Argentines should decide, but referendums. Do The Falklanders want to become part of Argentine and on what conditions(eg. with large Autonomy, demilitarized etc.), Do the Brits want to give the islands up and do Argentine want the islands? How a military campaign would end up, well I think the Brits might lose it if it came to it, The British armed forces has cut their military spending and personnel down since the 80's and Argentine has received some new equipment that could challange the British, cause of the distance difference to Falklands.

No the Falklanders don't want to be Argentine (Well the majority don't anyway and its a pretty large majority) the people have said this multiple times but the Argentine Mad Woman ignores this and continues to push the subject because Argentina held the islands for 5 minutes nearly 200 years ago...

Like i've said before although I think the campaign would go alot worse for us then in 1982 I still think the Argentinians would be pushed out. We've cut our military to ribbons from the cold war force it was, this is true but check out the CIA factbook we very comparable (Size wise) militaries but the British have the edge in technology and experience.

Subs have been mentioned in this thread and they are the only part of the Navy have hasn't had major cuts. Our Nuclear submarines are always on the move and thus the Argentinians would be 'trying their luck' if they tried to launch a major amphibious landing.

Also there is oil there now you really think they are gonna let them go without a major fight?

Problem is public perception. The UK would lose a ton of Public support if one of their subs gets blown up, and they lose 1 billion dollars of material and 100 men.

Chesehead wrote:Problem is public perception. The UK would lose a ton of Public support if one of their subs gets blown up, and they lose 1 billion dollars of material and 100 men.

Don't understimate the public anger towards to Argentinians due to the personnel loss.
If the Falklands was attacked by the argies and a sub was sunk. I would personally support the government in retaliating in defence of British people and lands, and those lost in the attack.

1 billion dollars is materialistic. Military assets including subs; it has to be perceved to be sunk/destroyed at some point. You cant build an armed force, then cry at material losses; it is going to happen.

Chesehead wrote:Problem is public perception. The UK would lose a ton of Public support if one of their subs gets blown up, and they lose 1 billion dollars of material and 100 men.

I can't comment fully as I don't know the technological prowess of Argentina's Navy but i'm sure our subs can see them before they can see us

Ragu wrote:Don't understimate the public anger towards to Argentinians due to the personnel loss.
If the Falklands was attacked by the argies and a sub was sunk. I would personally support the government in retaliating in defence of British people and lands, and those lost in the attack.

1 billion dollars is materialistic. Military assets including subs; it has to be perceved to be sunk/destroyed at some point. You cant build an armed force, then cry at material losses; it is going to happen.

Yea unlike the Taliban who are a faceless enemy that aren't attacking (at least directly) British territory the Argentinians are a country that alot of people would unite against... It would win big browny points for the government at first but then bring them into the firing line after for scrapping our last proper aircraft carrier...

Did I hear "Browny"??? I want a browny.

Btw- I agree with CptBritish's arguement -^.^-
(I know I have no involvement in this conversation. I'm just trying to get to 200 posts )

I think the Argies have fairly decent ASW aircraft and their ships aren't too bad either.

I question public will based on the reactions of those riots back a couple months ago. I think you'd see similar protests if it did involve a war, and that might be enough to actually divert attention from the war to them, which is a bad thing for a goverment trying to get public support for a war.

Public dislike of the cuts is completely different, most Britains would support a war if an enemy invaded our territory.

The Falklands are British and no amount of bitching in South America will change that.

tkobo wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15543382

they still had had there ships around falklands. but yes there budget cuts will bit them in there ass. There is is a OPV HMS clyde(somthing like that)(not a good OPV) down here in South Africa.

Why are these Islands worth so much? It has little population and no resources. I can see having it as a strategic island for a military base. But I don’t see the reason for having a military base in South America.

I can see why the UK wants to stay. The people there want them to, and if they leave it will hurt UK’s reputation globally. In laymen terms they would look like a bunch of pussies. But they are wasting so much money on this.

I can also see why Argentina wants the island as well. In supreme ruler I play as Argentina all the time. I always hate seeing European countries having colonies in the north and having easy naval access near my territory. I prefer them to leave and let the regional governments control instead of foreign powers coming in.

Did I get the gist of it?

its much more than that - its part of the old empire, the people are British citizens and the land is British, that would be like asking America to give Alaska back to the Russians or something, its just not going to happen. And be lack of resources i assume you haven't heard about the large amounts of oil that are potentially near by?