Falklands will not solve Argentina's woes

[MARAB0D]

Then why didn't NATO didn't declare war on Argentina in 1982.

Cowards! Why did not UK and France declare war on Germany when it demanded Czechoslovakia? Why did not Japan claim war on USSR to help Germany? Why did not Russia claim war on NATO because of Serbia? Same reason and same situation of the allies. I think France was even selling missiles to Argentina, I still remember watching how one hit English cruiser. Allies are never to be relied on.

[Roughneck]

Yeah, exocet. Purchased before the conflict began, no? I don't know how prevalent it is, but I would think the major weapons producing and developing nations of the world will sometimes even see their own weapons used against them. The U.S. ad U.K. certainly have.

But I would also think that if Argentina invaded mainland Britain, you'd be looking at a very different South America today. It's not a question of who didn't defend what ally when. It's a question of doctrine. NATO is doctrined to defend the strategic balance in Europe.

[MARAB0D]

Yeah, exocet. Purchased before the conflict began, no? I don't know how prevalent it is, but I would think the major weapons producing and developing nations of the world will sometimes even see their own weapons used against them. The U.S. ad U.K. certainly have.

But I would also think that if Argentina invaded mainland Britain, you'd be looking at a very different South America today. It's not a question of who didn't defend what ally when. It's a question of doctrine. NATO is doctrined to defend the strategic balance in Europe.

You do realise its a great excuse, dont you? Otherwise the invasion of US or Canada must also have no reaction! Reality is that no one wants a war, no matter what. NATO was made in case of Soviet invasion, all other risks it cannot fit. I mean parading to some Afghanistan is one thing, but facing a real war is another one. Look how they ditched Azeris, Georgia and Ukraine!

[Roughneck]

You do realise its a great excuse, dont you? Otherwise the invasion of US or Canada must also have no reaction! Reality is that no one wants a war, no matter what. NATO was made in case of Soviet invasion, all other risks it cannot fit. I mean parading to some Afghanistan is one thing, but facing a real war is another one. Look how they ditched Azeris, Georgia and Ukraine!

You're comparing the one country in the world who has more nukes than the U.S. to Argentina in 1982?

The war in Georgia was not of conquest. Russia merely showed the world it can defend its interests as well. Georgia brought that war to its borders with its treatment of South Ossetia. And even with all this, there was still talk of war in the U.S. And Georgia is not yet a NATO country.

And what about Ukraine or Azerbaijan? I didn't even know Azerbaijan was involved in NATO talks.

[MARAB0D]

You're comparing the one country in the world who has more nukes than the U.S. to Argentina in 1982?

The war in Georgia was not of conquest. Russia merely showed the world it can defend its interests as well. Georgia brought that war to its borders with its treatment of South Ossetia. And even with all this, there was still talk of war in the U.S. And Georgia is not yet a NATO country.

And what about Ukraine or Azerbaijan? I didn't even know Azerbaijan was involved in NATO talks.

Now they apparently are scared to pronounce this word

Argentine is not as toothless as it may be seen... It has no nukes, but it has important allies and friends. A country who helps UK would lose grounds in Latin America - and this is great markets size of China and a great source of food and raw materials. They know it and this is why they want to unite now. And Chavez dreams to make USSR-2 from them. If so, it would be sure nuclear in short time, and they have the space missiles already. So nuking its part today creates grave dangers for tomorrow. Thats why no one wants to interfere.

[Mekorig]

Just a note: Argentine (or Brazil or Chile) do not have nukes for the simple reason that the ejem..."big guys" of South Amnerica agreed not to develope nuclear weapons. In a not so far era, when we do not like each other, we agree in not using or making Nukes, even if the two of us (brazil and Argentina, later Chile) are more than capable of creating them in very short time. Now there is the crazy idea, inside the MErcosur, of quietly develope some nukes for the defense of the Mercosur as a whole.

[stevewinn]

Just a note: Argentine (or Brazil or Chile) do not have nukes for the simple reason that the ejem..."big guys" of South Amnerica agreed not to develope nuclear weapons. In a not so far era, when we do not like each other, we agree in not using or making Nukes, even if the two of us (brazil and Argentina, later Chile) are more than capable of creating them in very short time. Now there is the crazy idea, inside the MErcosur, of quietly develope some nukes for the defense of the Mercosur as a whole.

i would think the real reason south American countries don't have nukes is because the USA doesn't allow you to.

in your part of the world Mekorig any news when Chavez is going to invade Colombia

Edited February 26, 2010 by stevewinn

[Corp]

Well the US isn't have much luck stopping North Koera and Iran from moving towards nukes, I doubt they'd be able to stop a country like Brazil from getting them.

[questionmark]

Well sorry, but I fail to see the relevance of this Falkelands/Malvinas controversy. The British are not about to give them up (unless the oil to be found is not worth the trouble) nor are the Argentinians capable of talking them back by force. So: mute point.

[SlimJim22]

What is the point in having international law if it can't resolve a little land dispute. Admittedly there may be a lot of oil near the land but is it worth another conflict. The UK has bona fide claims to the said land and has already won one war. If there is another and more countries get involved this time then everyone will lose out.

Realistically it's never gonna happen anyway. Argentina are probably just trying to get into a position of power for bargaining purposes. The UK will need assistance in terms of supplies and spare parts and now Argentina can charge a hefty premium. If Chile side with them to the UK will be severely weakened and may have to share a slice of the profits to.

[MARAB0D]

What is the point in having international law if it can't resolve a little land dispute. Admittedly there may be a lot of oil near the land but is it worth another conflict. The UK has bona fide claims to the said land and has already won one war. If there is another and more countries get involved this time then everyone will lose out.

Realistically it's never gonna happen anyway. Argentina are probably just trying to get into a position of power for bargaining purposes. The UK will need assistance in terms of supplies and spare parts and now Argentina can charge a hefty premium. If Chile side with them to the UK will be severely weakened and may have to share a slice of the profits to.

International law says if UK has the islands for 101 years inclusive, its a British soil. Same law as why Britain could not have Hong Kong forever. Argentina does not control the islands for over 101 years, if these islands are now given to it, then this would be a precedent, according to which Russia would be able to claim Alaska and California back, as the Cossacks were there first. And Japan can claim Taiwan. Argentine has no chance, as then Spain can claim Argentine itself!

[Black Red Devil]

I'll play Nostradamus and predict Argentina won't get their hands on the islands until oil runs out. The UK never really had any interest in the islands until Galtieri forced his way militarily back in the early 80's. Infact Thatcher was contemplating in handing them over not seeing any use in a couple of cold rocks thousands of miles away. But now that oil is involved........

I can't believe some think that possessing nuclear weapons gives these countries the Right to use them in a conflict at will. The Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (which 99% of countries in the world have signed) does not allow a Nuclear Weapon State (NWS) to attack a Non Nuclear Weapon State except in response to a nuclear attack, or a conventional attack from a country in alliance with a Nuclear Weapons State. There are 5 NWS, China, France, Russia, US & UK that have signed the NPT. The other 3 NWS (India, Pakistan and Israel) have not signed the NPT.

Therefore unless Argentina lines up with a Nuclear State to attack the Falklands, the UK will have to rely on conventional warfare to beat them off the island again (which I reckon they would probably do easily anyway). If they fired a Nuke at Argentina, the UK would have the whole world against them, including the US. Unless international agreements mean nothing.

[MARAB0D]

I'll play Nostradamus and predict Argentina won't get their hands on the islands until oil runs out. The UK never really had any interest in the islands until Galtieri forced his way militarily back in the early 80's. Infact Thatcher was contemplating in handing them over not seeing any use in a couple of cold rocks thousands of miles away. But now that oil is involved........

I can't believe some think that possessing nuclear weapons gives these countries the Right to use them in a conflict at will. The Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (which 99% of countries in the world have signed) does not allow a Nuclear Weapon State (NWS) to attack a Non Nuclear Weapon State except in response to a nuclear attack, or a conventional attack from a country in alliance with a Nuclear Weapons State. There are 5 NWS, China, France, Russia, US & UK that have signed the NPT. The other 3 NWS (India, Pakistan and Israel) have not signed the NPT.

Therefore unless Argentina lines up with a Nuclear State to attack the Falklands, the UK will have to rely on conventional warfare to beat them off the island again (which I reckon they would probably do easily anyway). If they fired a Nuke at Argentina, the UK would have the whole world against them, including the US. Unless international agreements mean nothing.

Unsure if NPT has such enforceable condition. Russia's military doctrine openly suggests using nuclear strike in any conventional war provided their forces are outnumbered. This is precisely why it reduces the conventional forces... NPT members are silent so far, I doubt they could overlook such breach. NPT is not very active after Israel, Pakistan, India, N Korea and Iran... and possibly Brazil.

[stevewinn]

[quote name='BlackRedLittleDevil' date='27 February 2010 - 05:43

Therefore unless Argentina lines up with a Nuclear State to attack the Falklands, the UK will have to rely on conventional warfare to beat them off the island again (which I reckon they would probably do easily anyway). If they fired a Nuke at Argentina, the UK would have the whole world against them, including the US. Unless international agreements mean nothing.

your not the first person to be looking at the scenario - that the Argies have successfully invaded. and Britain would be in a position of having to retake the islands like in 1982.

The Argies stand no chance of invading the Falklands by sea or air. the islands air defences have been upgraded to such an extent any mobilisation by the argies would be long spotted before they even got going. giving us plenty of warning.

[Black Red Devil]

Unsure if NPT has such enforceable condition. Russia's military doctrine openly suggests using nuclear strike in any conventional war provided their forces are outnumbered. This is precisely why it reduces the conventional forces... NPT members are silent so far, I doubt they could overlook such breach. NPT is not very active after Israel, Pakistan, India, N Korea and Iran... and possibly Brazil.

Well they aren't silent with Iran who is still part of the NPT. NK pulled out and are similar to Israel, Pakistan and India (although NK's missiles are still in the development stage). Anyone can pull out of the NPT whenever they want and NPT members can't force non allied members to join.

Israel, Pakistan and India are all US allies and its unlikely they would be attacked by Nukes or allowed to fire their Nukes because they could face retaliatory action from Russia or China. Therefore not having signed the Treaty means close to nothing. NK on the other hand is a loose cannon. If they fired their Nukes towards SK (a NPT member) as a non aligned NPT they could face a barrage from any and all of NPT members.

I'm not too sure Russia has reduced its conventional forces in favour of Nukes. Thanks to the NPT (driven by Non NWS) they've actually reduced their arsenal quite significantly. Its probably the lack of finances that has reduced their conventional military power (and also the end of the cold war).

[Black Red Devil]

your not the first person to be looking at the scenario - that the Argies have successfully invaded. and Britain would be in a position of having to retake the islands like in 1982.

The Argies stand no chance of invading the Falklands by sea or air. the islands air defences have been upgraded to such an extent any mobilisation by the argies would be long spotted before they even got going. giving us plenty of warning.

Didn't someone mention Britain doesn't even have Fighters for their AIR Craft Carriers anymore? I'm not sure they could defend the islands from an attack from a country that's only a spit away. But there's no doubt they could reconquer the islands at will and maybe decide to teach the Argies a lesson once and for all by invading the mainland.

All hypothetical thinking of course and considering the possible outcomes, which I'm sure both parties know too well, I doubt an attack on the islands will happen.

[xris]

I think as a labour supporter we should withdraw all our troops, giving the Argentine government the impression we don't really want the Falklands. Just leave a platoon of marines on a deserted island, far from civilisation, even bring back our arctic survey vessels. When the Argentines eventually attack and take the islands by force, we send a flotilla of war ships and recapture the islands , we the victorious government will look so good the british public will vote us back in for another four years. Sounds a bit too familiar though, I don't think the British public would fool for that simple trick twice, would they?

[Alien Being]

I think as a labour supporter we should withdraw all our troops, giving the Argentine government the impression we don't really want the Falklands. Just leave a platoon of marines on a deserted island, far from civilisation, even bring back our arctic survey vessels. When the Argentines eventually attack and take the islands by force, we send a flotilla of war ships and recapture the islands , we the victorious government will look so good the british public will vote us back in for another four years. Sounds a bit too familiar though, I don't think the British public would fool for that simple trick twice, would they?

Seeing as it would be the second time its also an excuse to invade mainland Argentina and annex it.

Edited February 27, 2010 by Alien Being

[xris]

Seeing as it would be the second time its also an excuse to invade mainland Argentina and annex it.

I dont think we would want it,we have got the best bit, just secure another term in office and gallons of oil, would be fine. If Maggs could get away with why not Brown.

[stevewinn]

Didn't someone mention Britain doesn't even have Fighters for their AIR Craft Carriers anymore? I'm not sure they could defend the islands from an attack from a country that's only a spit away. But there's no doubt they could reconquer the islands at will and maybe decide to teach the Argies a lesson once and for all by invading the mainland.

All hypothetical thinking of course and considering the possible outcomes, which I'm sure both parties know too well, I doubt an attack on the islands will happen.

well yes that is correct the aircraft carriers don't have the sea harriers on-board. they have been replaced by another harrier which is not a fighter. but that doesn't tell the whole story.

we have Rapier air defence, surface to air missiles on the island, we also have four euro fighters based there, and we have our brand new type 45 Destroyers who are air defence ships. they alone can defend the airspace up-to 300 miles, and 10 times better than the type 42 destroyers which took part in the last conflict. within 19 hours we can also fly more fighters down to the islands. so we haven't left ourselves open to attack.

[MARAB0D]

Well they aren't silent with Iran who is still part of the NPT. NK pulled out and are similar to Israel, Pakistan and India (although NK's missiles are still in the development stage). Anyone can pull out of the NPT whenever they want and NPT members can't force non allied members to join.

Israel, Pakistan and India are all US allies and its unlikely they would be attacked by Nukes or allowed to fire their Nukes because they could face retaliatory action from Russia or China. Therefore not having signed the Treaty means close to nothing. NK on the other hand is a loose cannon. If they fired their Nukes towards SK (a NPT member) as a non aligned NPT they could face a barrage from any and all of NPT members.

I'm not too sure Russia has reduced its conventional forces in favour of Nukes. Thanks to the NPT (driven by Non NWS) they've actually reduced their arsenal quite significantly. Its probably the lack of finances that has reduced their conventional military power (and also the end of the cold war).

You ignore the reality, well-known for over 2000 years (in fact for much more). Plutarch already says (Solon) that any agreement remains valid only until one o the sides find it unsuitable anymore. NPT is dead as we have clearly established cases of nuclear powers attacking non-nuclear states and/or dictating to them policies - say Kosovo campaign ended with American media starting to mention nuclear option. Then after that war it was a visual pause, and then US/NATO attacked non-nuclear Iraq. This was it - from that moment everyone on the planet is targeting to have at least several nuclear weapons for deterrence. The non-return point has been passed and we already live in another Reality, which has no place for NPT. The smartest way is to admit this Reality, and for such country as Australia, to develop own nuclear forces.

[hetrodoxly]

I think as a labour supporter we should withdraw all our troops, giving the Argentine government the impression we don't really want the Falklands. Just leave a platoon of marines on a deserted island, far from civilisation, even bring back our arctic survey vessels. When the Argentines eventually attack and take the islands by force, we send a flotilla of war ships and recapture the islands , we the victorious government will look so good the british public will vote us back in for another four years. Sounds a bit too familiar though, I don't think the British public would fool for that simple trick twice, would they?

as a labour supporter

There you are, i thought it was a myth?

Gordon could be parachuted into the Falklands and win the Island back himself and he still wouldn't get voted (i was going to post voted back in to power, but he's never been voted in has he) in to office.

[Black Red Devil]

well yes that is correct the aircraft carriers don't have the sea harriers on-board. they have been replaced by another harrier which is not a fighter. but that doesn't tell the whole story.

we have Rapier air defence, surface to air missiles on the island, we also have four euro fighters based there, and we have our brand new type 45 Destroyers who are air defence ships. they alone can defend the airspace up-to 300 miles, and 10 times better than the type 42 destroyers which took part in the last conflict. within 19 hours we can also fly more fighters down to the islands. so we haven't left ourselves open to attack.

Yeah, maybe your right. And if they can get the JRRF properly implemented, they could have a ready and lethal task force in Argentina in the blink of an eye.

[Black Red Devil]

You ignore the reality, well-known for over 2000 years (in fact for much more). Plutarch already says (Solon) that any agreement remains valid only until one o the sides find it unsuitable anymore. NPT is dead as we have clearly established cases of nuclear powers attacking non-nuclear states and/or dictating to them policies - say Kosovo campaign ended with American media starting to mention nuclear option. Then after that war it was a visual pause, and then US/NATO attacked non-nuclear Iraq. This was it - from that moment everyone on the planet is targeting to have at least several nuclear weapons for deterrence. The non-return point has been passed and we already live in another Reality, which has no place for NPT. The smartest way is to admit this Reality, and for such country as Australia, to develop own nuclear forces.

I don't agree. The NPT isn't dead and will take on an important role in future. As I said its been responsible for the reduction of Nuke's in both the US and Russia and it gives voice to the Non NWS nations. This notion of keeping the rest of the world at ransom through Nuclear threats is a thing of the past and has no place in modern and post cold war times. At the moment Russia and the US might use Nukes as bargaining power but for how long? They live on the same marble, if the world rebels (Ahmadinejad ring a bell) and gets sick of the bullying, what are they going to do? Blow the Earth to pieces? Don't think so.

Also, your example about the US attacking Iraq was a breach of the Treaty is incorrect. The Treaty is breached when a NWS nation attacks another Non NWS nation with Nukes.

[MARAB0D]

I don't agree. The NPT isn't dead and will take on an important role in future. As I said its been responsible for the reduction of Nuke's in both the US and Russia and it gives voice to the Non NWS nations. This notion of keeping the rest of the world at ransom through Nuclear threats is a thing of the past and has no place in modern and post cold war times. At the moment Russia and the US might use Nukes as bargaining power but for how long? They live on the same marble, if the world rebels (Ahmadinejad ring a bell) and gets sick of the bullying, what are they going to do? Blow the Earth to pieces? Don't think so.

Also, your example about the US attacking Iraq was a breach of the Treaty is incorrect. The Treaty is breached when a NWS nation attacks another Non NWS nation with Nukes.

Irrelevantly to any treaty, if Saddam had a single nuke, he would be still in power, and everyone knows that on example of North Korea, which openly expresses the intention to wipe USA off, and USA cannot do a thing about it. And certainly NPT did not cause any nuclear disarmament - USA and USSR/Russia simply reduced the number of charges to a reasonable level, which is cheaper to maintain, they both lack funds for such maintenance, the missiles tend to age, corrode, otherwise deteriorate. In Russia it is still probably well over a million of well-paid people work exclusively to maintain and make these missiles, what happens in US I do not know - but during Cold War effort there were several millions working in each country, one cannot afford this continuously.

NPT is the enforcement by 5 nuclear states, which do not want to allow anyone else to have such weapons. I have here the parallel of a person holding a group of disarmed people at gunpoint and not letting them even to pick up a rock. But they cheat, and some in the back row secretly get some weapons for themselves. NPT is not a stable treaty because it contradicts the interests of the signatories. It is like the government would enforce everyone to pay taxes, but a lot of people still cheat.