Support NeoGAF

[ConfusingJazz]

Does Argentina have the capability to invade again?

Well, they have the capability, but not the capability to be successful.

 

[dalin80]

Does Argentina have the capability to invade again?

Yes but there is no possible good outcome of it, which is the reason behind argentinas current efforts to starve the population out.

 

[Casp0r]

Whats that little blip in the 80's?

The Falklands War.

 

[StuKen]

From Wiki:

The sinking of the Belgrano is just another topic for pissy Argentines to garner sympathy and whatever else they can get from their partners. Everybody accepts that the sinking of the Belgrano was a fully justified military operation. The concept of an exclusion zone does not dictate that the theatre of war is contained within the aforementioned boundaries. This is clearly outlined in the statement above and was shown to be understood by the military Junta. This was a legal, fully justified attack, the Junta knew it and the current Argentinian government knows it, they're simply using it as a political tool which is rather despicable in my opinion. It was sunk by a superior vessel. The end.

The British fought the entire Falklands war in the best possible way. It's the way that wars should be fought (if they have to, of course). The war was entirely contained within the Islands themselves and the waters surrounding them, there were no attacks on the Argentine mainland (even though attacks against legitimate military targets could have been justified) and it was a fairly short war in which the superior force expelled the opposing force. There was very little superfluous bullshit involved. Exceptions to this however, include the 100+ minefields laid by the Argentines which remain to this day and the multitude of economic blocks that Argentina has forced upon the Falkland Islanders, and yet the current Argentine government still tries to claim the moral high ground based on the unprovoked actions of a Military Junta with a complete lack of any historical claim to the Islands in any way whatsoever.

It's as sickening as it is disheartening to see that democracy has had so very little effect on the political and social landscape of Argentina after nearly 30 years.

I think Diana Gould might disagree or was she just a prissy Argie.
I do like your assertions that the Argentine invasion was simply an unpopular regime using a military endeavor to shore up domestic support. Why you could claim the very same can be said of Thatcher. Or was the economic situation in the UK peachy, unemployment unknown, social cohesion at its finest in a generation and Thatcher greeted with hug kisses and unadulterated love everywhere she ventured throughout the kingdom?. The simple fact is the whole thing was a disgusting act on both sides that sacrificed thousands of men for utterly cynical domestic electioneering. Claiming it was a noble outing to save some farmers half a world away from some dastardly Argies betrays a level if naivete as to the value that any state places on any economic insignificant unit of life.

 

[Funky Papa]

Yes but there is no possible good outcome of it, which is the reason behind argentinas current efforts to starve the population out.

Uh? Argentina's economy is at full speed. Granted it's still shitty, but it is getting better and fast.

 

[twobear]

I think Diana Gould might disagree or was she just a prissy Argie.
I do like your assertions that the Argentine invasion was simply an unpopular regime using a military endeavor to shore up domestic support. Why you could claim the very same can be said of Thatcher. Or was the economic situation in the UK peachy, unemployment unknown, social cohesion at its finest in a generation and Thatcher greeted with hug kisses and unadulterated love everywhere she ventured throughout the kingdom?. The simple fact is the whole thing was a disgusting act on both sides that sacrificed thousands of men for utterly cynical domestic electioneering. Claiming it was a noble outing to save some farmers half a world away from some dastardly Argies betrays a level if naivete as to the value that any state places on any economic insignificant unit of life.

i was hoping i wasn't going to have to be the one to say dis, thanks

 

[cloud_sleep]

Well, they have the capability, but not the capability to be successful.

I hope you are right. I don't think that the British have the capability to retake them if the Argentines were to invade successfully. We have no aircraft carriers or any aircraft that could operate from carriers. It would be years before we could even think about mounting an operation down south.

 

[ItAintEasyBeinCheesy]

***PURELY THEORETICAL***

*Iam not condoning war or sabre rattling, purely looking at numbers*

The dauntless as a type 45 destroyer is capable of tracking upto 1000 targets at a range of 400km and is fitted with 48 anti-air sea viper missiles with ranges of either upto 30km for aster 15's or 210km for aster 30's.

The argentine air force has ~63 aircraft.*

So no, the article should read track from take off and presuming a 1-hit/1-kill ratio capable of destroying upto 2/3rds or the air force.

This doesnt include any contribution from any other british military resource which is currently probably only a nuclear sub or two and the small squadron of typhoons stationed there.

*Continued rumours of a least a significant portion of these are not air worthy at any particular time.

Unless they meant just turning their air force bases into craters.

 

[dalin80]

As the protectorate of the isles britain had a legal responsibility of responding to official request for aid sent by the civilian leader of the isles, that was the only justification required to engage in military actions, side pros and cons of doing would have been heavily debated behind closed doors but britain simply had to act.

This will expand to sending food etc in the following months as the argentine effort to starve the population continues.

Uh? Argentina's economy is at full speed. Granted it's still shitty, but it is getting better and fast.

I have made no mention of the argentine economy, my post was in reference to the blockade argentina has on the falklands in attempt to starve the islanders.

 

[Wes]

Be interesting to hear what Kirchner says in the next hour or so.

 

[Mgoblue201]

Ok, granted. I would agree, if the population wants to be a part of Britain, sure.

About Hawaii though, correct if I'm wrong, but weren't there indigenous people there when we arrived? What course of actions occurred afterwards? Were they asked peacefully to become a part of the United States?

Or were they subjugated like the Native Americans and we took all their shit anyway after killing them? Genuine questions, I'm not sure on the history of Hawaii.

The government of Hawaii was overthrown in the late 19th century, I believe by a group of businessmen who had assets in Hawaii and strong ties to the US mainland, after the queen attempted to write a new constitution that would confer more power to the monarchy. The US government essentially condoned the coup, or at least absolved the conspirators of any wrongdoing, and then annexed Hawaii several years later. I'm not very familiar with the history of Hawaii up until that point, but after first contact with Europeans, Kamehameha consolidated the islands into a single kingdom, which lasted until the coup nearly a hundred years later. Compared with how contact between different cultures usually go, it obviously could've been a lot worse, but it's still an embarrassment (Bill Clinton formally apologized for the overthrow in the 1990s).

 

[Bo-Locks]

I think Diana Gould might disagree or was she just a prissy Argie.

Diana Gould is dead. You also didn't address any of the points which I quoted from Wikipedia. Diana Gould never had the luxury of declassified information and transcripts with military commanders to make an informed judgement on whether or not the sinking of the Belgrano was justified.

Can you ever envisage the Americans in a similar scenario berating the President over the sinking of an enemy vessel? The Brits are too soft for their own good.

I do like your assertions that the Argentine invasion was simply an unpopular regime using a military endeavor to shore up domestic support.

This is almost unanimously agreed to be the factual basis of events from many social, military and political experts. Do you dispute it?

Why you could claim the very same can be said of Thatcher. Or was the economic situation in the UK peachy, unemployment unknown, social cohesion at its finest in a generation and Thatcher greeted with hug kisses and unadulterated love everywhere she ventured throughout the kingdom?.

When did I ever suggest that the economic situation in the UK was brilliant in the early '80s? This is also a straw man. Thatcher's defence of the Islands (even if for purely cynical reasons) cannot be equivocated to the Argentine Junta's unilateral invasion of the Falklands (amidst negotiations about the sovereignty of the Islands).

I agree that Thatcher's decision to send the task force was mainly due to political positioning, but again this does not justify, condone or allow you to equivocate between the two Governments or military procedures.

The simple fact is the whole thing was a disgusting act on both sides that sacrificed thousands of men for utterly cynical domestic electioneering.

Again with the false equivalence. And who is to say that Thatcher's decision to send the task force, even for purely cynical reasons, was not the morally, politically and militarily correct thing to do?

The Islanders wished to remain loyal to Britain and the next year they were granted full citizenship. A strong message was sent that Britain was prepared to protect its overseas territories. Thatcher won a second term. 30 years later vast quantities of oil are discovered. A hammer blow was delivered to a decaying Junta that was removed from power within a short period of time after the successful outcome of the war. Was it worth 258 lives? That's an interesting question but the case to defend the Islands was certainly there and in the long term looks to have been a good decision.

Claiming it was a noble outing to save some farmers half a world away from some dastardly Argies betrays a level if naivete as to the value that any state places on any economic insignificant unit of life.

Where did I state or even suggest any of this? I have just acknowledged that Thatchers decision to send the task force was politically motivated.

 

[Wes]

Argentina is to make a formal complaint to the United Nations about British "militarisation" around the disputed Falkland Islands.

 

[f0rk]

Come and make a formal complaint to our Navy bitches.

 

[ConfusingJazz]

Argentina is to make a formal complaint to the United Nations about British "militarisation" around the disputed Falkland Islands.

Meanwhile, in Syria...

 

[Funky Papa]

I have made no mention of the argentine economy, my post was in reference to the blockade argentina has on the falklands in attempt to starve the islanders.

My bad.

 

[D4Danger]

Argentina is to make a formal complaint to the United Nations about British "militarisation" around the disputed Falkland Islands.

Good luck with that.

 

[twobear]

Again with the false equivalence. And who is to say that Thatcher's decision to send the task force, even for purely cynical reasons, was not the morally, politically and militarily correct thing to do?

i don't know about politically or militarily correct, but morally correct? i would imagine that most people would agree that if you do the right thing for the wrong reason, you're not acting especially morally.

 

[Harry_Tequila]

the Dauntless alone can destroy Argentina's entire air force before it takes off.

For some reason I found this very, very funny.

 

[elrechazado]

Meanwhile, in Syria...

Argentine pride is on the line here. Stick to the important issues please.

 

[Meadows]

They can mail a complaint straight to:

P.O. Box 1819
HMS Dauntless

They might send something back by airmail.

Shut the fuck up Argentina. It's British, you can fuck off if you think any different.

 

[Bo-Locks]

i don't know about politically or militarily correct, but morally correct? i would imagine that most people would agree that if you do the right thing for the wrong reason, you're not acting especially morally.

Semantics. Thatcher probably didn't act morally herself, but in the wider context the war was certainly morally justified.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

I guess that Argentina are still pissed off that we won world war 2.

 

[elsk]

If this ends up in an armed conflict it would be very interesting because pretty much all South America would back up Argentina. And a lot of those country invest huge money in their army.

I support the Argentina people for wanting what is from them in the first place. But the president should focus in solve the increasing problems they have in their actual territory atm, before trying to add more land.

 

[clemenx]

If this ends up in an armed conflict it would be very interesting because pretty much all South America would back up Argentina. And a lot of those country invest huge money in their army.

Not really our armies are basically flies on the grand scheme of things compared to big countries. With the obvious exception of Brazil.

 

[Meadows]

If this ends up in an armed conflict it would be very interesting because pretty much all South America would back up Argentina. And a lot of those country invest huge money in their army.

we're a nuclear power.

just thought I'd mention that our nuclear-use policy is that we only use it in case of an attack on British territory...so yeah, let's see how that goes.

 

[elrechazado]

I guess that Argentina are still pissed off that we won world war 2.

It's all of the escaped nazis hiding down there that are still pissed at you.

If this ends up in an armed conflict it would be very interesting because pretty much all South America would back up Argentina. And a lot of those country invest huge money in their army.

I support the Argentina people for wanting what is from them in the first place. But the president should focus in solve the increasing problems they have in their actual territory atm, before trying to add more land.

Wow, lots of hilarity in this post. Watch out brits, huge money invested in army is coming for you. To take back what was "from" argentina.

lol

 

[Ignis Fatuus]

I guess that Argentina are still pissed off that we won world war 2.

Ice cold.

 

[Deadbeat]

It's all of the escaped nazis hiding down there that are still pissed at you.

Is there a list of what supposed nazis are still alive? I think that famous dive bomber died a few years ago.

 

[Pollux]

we're a nuclear power.

just thought I'd mention that our nuclear-use policy is that we only use it in case of an attack on British territory...so yeah, let's see how that goes.

That and if Argentina does bring the rest of South America into this crap, I would be willing to be the US would side with Britain.

So while the UK may not be able to take on all of South America by itself, the mere threat of economic retaliation by the US could do damage to Argentina's economy.

This is just me talking out of my ass while I'm watching basketball so I'm not looking anything up. Feel free to correct me GAF.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

we're a nuclear power.

just thought I'd mention that our nuclear-use policy is that we only use it in case of an attack on British territory...so yeah, let's see how that goes.

Like we are really going to be able to drop our rented US bombs on US client states.

 

[elrechazado]

Is there a list of what supposed nazis are still alive? I think that famous dive bomber died a few years ago.

That list is maintained by the nazis themselves. They want you to think they're all dead.

buenas noches mein fuhrer!

 

[clemenx]

we're a nuclear power.

just thought I'd mention that our nuclear-use policy is that we only use it in case of an attack on British territory...so yeah, let's see how that goes.

Lol, ok. Nuke Buenos Aires in defense of a minuscule piece of land, that will sure gain the British a lot of support!

smh at how some people talk rather casually about Nuclear weapons. They would be irrelevant if there's a Falkland Wars II. I don't see Argentina attacking London anytime soon.

 

[D4Danger]

If this ends up in an armed conflict it would be very interesting because pretty much all South America would back up Argentina. And a lot of those country invest huge money in their army.

from the op

Dauntless alone can destroy Argentina's entire air force before it takes off.

 

[Meadows]

That and if Argentina does bring the rest of South America into this crap, I would be willing to be the US would side with Britain.

So while the UK may not be able to take on all of South America by itself, the mere threat of economic retaliation by the US could do damage to Argentina's economy.

This is just me talking out of my ass while I'm watching basketball so I'm not looking anything up. Feel free to correct me GAF.

I dunno, Brazil wouldn't want to get into a full scale war with us (they want us to sell them Falklands oil), we could easily beat Argentina, Venezuela and other similar countries.

 

[Meadows]

Lol, ok. Nuke Buenos Aires in defense of a minuscule piece of land, that will sure gain the British a lot of support!

smh at how some people talk rather casually about Nuclear weapons. They would be irrelevant if there's a Falkland Wars II. I don't see Argentina attacking London anytime soon.

Didn't say nuke Buenos Aires, tactical nukes of Navy capabilities would be a fair reaction to an invasion of the United Kingdom.

Also the Falklands are as big as Wales, so it's not tiny

 

[Pollux]

Didn't say nuke Buenos Aires, tactical nukes of Navy capabilities would be a fair reaction to an invasion of the United Kingdom.

Argentina is never, ever, EVER, going to invade the UK. That's just silly.

 

[elrechazado]

Argentina is never, ever, EVER, going to invade the UK. That's just silly.

This thread has had multiple discussions about them invading the falklands, which are part of the UK, which they've invaded before. So did you mean...never ever EVER do it...again?

 

[Meadows]

Argentina is never, ever, EVER, going to invade the UK. That's just silly.

The Falklands are part of the UK (dependent territories). It'd be kinda similar to someone invading Puerto Rico or Guam

 

[Guerrillas in the Mist]

Wait, sending a well-known search and rescue pilot, and deploying a ship in a regular rotation is "militarisation"?

 

[Nomad Blue]

That and if Argentina does bring the rest of South America into this crap, I would be willing to be the US would side with Britain.

So while the UK may not be able to take on all of South America by itself, the mere threat of economic retaliation by the US could do damage to Argentina's economy.

This is just me talking out of my ass while I'm watching basketball so I'm not looking anything up. Feel free to correct me GAF.

Wouldn't the EU/EU member states also have to back Britain(with embargoes, economic sanctions, troops or whatever), what with it being an attack on British/EU soil?

 

[Meadows]

Wouldn't the EU/EU member states also have to back Britain(with embargoes, economic sanctions, troops or whatever), what with it being an attack on British/EU soil?

They wouldn't HAVE to.

Also NATO doesn't cover it because it's in the southern hemisphere

 

[Casp0r]

Wait, sending a well-known search and rescue pilot, and deploying a ship in a regular rotation is "militarisation"?

Yup ... smh.

It's almost pathetic. I'm not very current on Argentina's political and economic state but is there some daunting problem they're trying to cover up by posturing against the UK?

 

[elrechazado]

Why do people keep bringing up "the rest of south america" as if they would even care or be involved. If only we had a historical example of some similar situation from a few decades ago where we could compare....

 

[Bo-Locks]

If this ends up in an armed conflict it would be very interesting because pretty much all South America would back up Argentina. And a lot of those country invest huge money in their army.

I support the Argentina people for wanting what is from them in the first place. But the president should focus in solve the increasing problems they have in their actual territory atm, before trying to add more land.

Firstly, you have been suckered by the claim that "las Malvinas" are Argentine. They are not. I suggest that you do your own research. Your post is actually a perfect example of what I posted in another thread about half an hour ago:

Same. It is weird to me that people will take whatever they see posted on the internet and take it as gospel as long as it fits their views.

It's sadly not very strange at all. The same thing happens in traditional print media, televised news, word of mouth etc. The majority of people rarely question the news that is given to them and simply accept it as long as it fits their narrative.

Always try and get your news from a variety of respectable, independent sources preferably on either side of the political spectrum in order to gain a balanced view. Try and include a variety of formats too.

Here are some resources that have been posted in this thread to get you started:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_history_of_the_Falkland_Islands

http://www.falklands.info/history/timeline.html

Secondly, South American countries saying that they will militarily back up Argentina and actually doing it are two entirely different concepts. Even despite going through a deep transitionary period, Britian still has more than enough power to defend and if necessary win back the Falklands.

we're a nuclear power.

just thought I'd mention that our nuclear-use policy is that we only use it in case of an attack on British territory...so yeah, let's see how that goes.

There were rumours that Thatcher threatened to drop a nuclear bomb if Mitterand didn't give up the codes for the exocet missiles. He was scared shitless, apparently. I don't know if it's true or not, but it wouldn't surprise me. See here.

The sinking of the Belgrano is also the only time that a nuclear submarine has been directly involved in a confrontation with another vessel.

 

[Shiloa]

Wouldn't the EU/EU member states also have to back Britain(with embargoes, economic sanctions, troops or whatever), what with it being an attack on British/EU soil?

I don't think the Falklands comes under any EU related truce in terms of its attachment to the UK.


And this whole topic is getting out of hand. Even if Argentina did take military action against the Falklands, I don't see it escalating beyond the two nations. Not every war turns into a world war, especially in today's globalised world. Vocal support and perhaps trade limits will be the greatest extent a country will get involved.

 

[Pollux]

This thread has had multiple discussions about them invading the falklands, which are part of the UK, which they've invaded before. So did you mean...never ever EVER do it...again?

The Falklands are part of the UK (dependent territories). It'd be kinda similar to someone invading Puerto Rico or Guam

Ah. My bad guys. I was thinking UK equals that London-UK, not Falkland Islands. If someone invaded Puerto Rico I wouldn't think to say the US has been invaded. I would say an American territory has been invaded. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[Kammie]

Argentina is not equipped to attack anything. I don't personally feel affected by the issue since I was barely born when the war took place, but sending a big-ass warship down here is only instigating things.

Also, you brits in this thread are acting like fucking idiots. Does it feel good to have a bigger navy than a developing country? Grow up.

 

[Meus Renaissance]

I wonder if this

Argentina is to make a formal complaint to the United Nations about British "militarisation" around the disputed Falkland Islands. In her address on Tuesday, Ms Fernandez accused the UK of "militarising the South Atlantic one more time". "We will present a complaint to the UN Security Council and the UN General Assembly, as this militarisation poses a grave danger to international security," Ms Fernandez said. "We cannot interpret in any other way the deployment of an ultra-modern destroyer accompanying the heir to the throne, who we would prefer to see in civilian attire."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-16939043​

Has anything to do with this

Britain was forced to plead with the US to take part in the flotilla challenging Iranian power in the Gulf after American commanders decided the Royal Navy had nothing to contribute to the mission. The revelation that US defence chiefs saw little military value in UK participation will raise new questions about Britain’s international clout after Coalition defence cuts. The source described the approach of France and Britain as “classic willy-waving”, accusing the two countries of posturing to conceal their military irrelevance to the confrontation with Iran. A Whitehall confirmed the sequence of events and described the international negotiations over the flotilla as “humiliating” for Britain.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...ad-with-US-to-take-part-in-Iran-flotilla.html​

 

[Pollux]

I wonder if this

Argentina is to make a formal complaint to the United Nations about British "militarisation" around the disputed Falkland Islands. In her address on Tuesday, Ms Fernandez accused the UK of "militarising the South Atlantic one more time". "We will present a complaint to the UN Security Council and the UN General Assembly, as this militarisation poses a grave danger to international security," Ms Fernandez said. "We cannot interpret in any other way the deployment of an ultra-modern destroyer accompanying the heir to the throne, who we would prefer to see in civilian attire."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-16939043​

Has anything to do with this

Britain was forced to plead with the US to take part in the flotilla challenging Iranian power in the Gulf after American commanders decided the Royal Navy had nothing to contribute to the mission. The revelation that US defence chiefs saw little military value in UK participation will raise new questions about Britain’s international clout after Coalition defence cuts. The source described the approach of France and Britain as “classic willy-waving”, accusing the two countries of posturing to conceal their military irrelevance to the confrontation with Iran. A Whitehall confirmed the sequence of events and described the international negotiations over the flotilla as “humiliating” for Britain.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...ad-with-US-to-take-part-in-Iran-flotilla.html​

France is the US's closest ally?