• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Second Falklands War?

BenBurch

Gatekeeper of The Left
BenBurch
Joined
Sep 27, 2007
Messages
37,538
Location
The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one.
OK, rumors have come to my attention that there may be some saber-rattling over who exactly owns the Falkland Islands owing to what are apparently sizable oil reserves now being explored there.

Argentina is apparently trying to control shipping in the area, which of course cannot be allowed to go unanswered by the U.K.

What do you all think will happen?
 
Any respectable geologist will tell you The Falklands is at the end of an underwater archipelago stretching south west from Land's End. The Falklands capital (Stanley) was also named after a British man, whose name was Stanley.

And the capital of South Georgia - Grytviken - although probably not named after a British man, rhymes with Great Britain.
 
Last edited:
My understanding is that Argentina has never renounced its claim to the Falklands. At the same time, their current government is very unlikely to pull another cowardly sneak attack like the military dictatorship did in 1982.
 
BenBurch said:
What do you all think will happen?
Click to expand...

Some Argy will use it to gain political points.

Britain will tell them to stfu.

They will.

Although, given it's taken Spaniards and people of Spanish decent half a millennium of getting its arse kicked by England to know when to give up, you never know...
 
BenBurch said:
I will observe that a "cowardly" attack like that is the essence of military good sense. TELLING your opponent that you are about to attack them is a BAD IDEA.
Click to expand...


I'm just a bit curious as to what other sort of sneak attacks there are, and what exactly sets a "cowardly" one separate from those.

I seem to remember the British being rather perturbed when our colonial forefathers were reluctant to dress in brightly colored outfits with center-of-body-mass targets clearly marked and stand still in open rank and file on a pre-arranged schedule to accommodate getting shot at. I believe the term "cowardly" was bandied about then as well.
 
Argentina should just bide its time and wait till Britain has a female prime minister.
As every macho man knows, women are weak-willed and have no taste for war.

Oh, hang on...
 
quadraginta said:
I'm just a bit curious as to what other sort of sneak attacks there are, and what exactly sets a "cowardly" one separate from those.
Click to expand...

I don't recall anyone at the time (whose opinion really mattered) implying
that it was either cowardly or sneaky. Also, Govt. House knew it was coming
at least 24 hours before the attack went in. This is why the small British
force was deployed in fighting positions and not caught off guard.
 
TX50 said:
quadraginta said:
I'm just a bit curious as to what other sort of sneak attacks there are, and what exactly sets a "cowardly" one separate from those.
Click to expand...

I don't recall anyone at the time (whose opinion really mattered) implying
that it was either cowardly or sneaky. Also, Govt. House knew it was coming
at least 24 hours before the attack went in. This is why the small British
force was deployed in fighting positions and not caught off guard.
Click to expand...

Perhaps ravdin can enlighten both of us?
 
I wonder if South Africa will supply the Argentinians with Exocet missiles again?:boxedin:
 
It might be an interesting time for Argentina to have another go, given that we're supposedly quite overstretched and underfunded with our Afghan adventures. It must be tempting to assume we'd be too busy to mount a second task force.

Oo you can see history repeating itself though: an unpopular Prime Minister on the verge of being kicked out of power Saved by wrapping himself in the flag and giving Johnny Argie something to think about.
 
richardm said:
It might be an interesting time for Argentina to have another go, given that we're supposedly quite overstretched and underfunded with our Afghan adventures. It must be tempting to assume we'd be too busy to mount a second task force.
Click to expand...
From the good old WP place;
...The Royal Navy also has Swiftsure and Trafalgar class attack submarines that it can deploy to the area, though such deployments are classified. The threat from submarines to hostile ships was demonstrated during the Falklands War when HMS Conqueror sank the Argentine cruiser ARA General Belgrano. The Royal Navy's submarines also carry BGM-109 Tomahawk cruise missiles which have a range of 1500 miles and can strike at targets within an enemy country...
...Four Eurofighter Typhoon aircraft provide air defence for the islands and surrounding territories...
...The UK maintains a Joint Rapid Reaction Force containing elements of all three services which could be deployed to the islands in the event of receiving intelligence of a specific threat to the islands...
Click to expand...
I suspect even a refitted and, importantly, fully professional Argentinian force would think twice before engaging any of this. The only hope would be for a 'Pearl Harbour' like attack, which given the surveillance kit that's probably in place, is unlikely...to say the least. This time the UK forces would only have to hold the (enlarged) airport long enough to allow for airborne reinforcements to arrive, no three week trek through the South Atlantic.
 
Interesting bit on QI last week about the Belgrano. Not only the first (only?) ship to be sunk by a nuclear powered sub, was also known as the luckiest ship in the US Navy as the only one to survive Pearl Harbour.
 
fagin said:
Interesting bit on QI last week about the Belgrano. Not only the first (only?) ship to be sunk by a nuclear powered sub, was also known as the luckiest ship in the US Navy as the only one to survive Pearl Harbour.
Click to expand...

Not quite sure how to interpret that. The US had a lot of ships at Pearl that weren't sunk.
 
ravdin said:
I'm just a bit curious as to what other sort of sneak attacks there are, and what exactly sets a "cowardly" one separate from those. .
Click to expand...
"Good guys" doing it (British bombing Italian harbour, Israel bombing Arab airfields): great tactics, good show.
"Bad guys" doing it (Japanese at Pearl Harbour): cowardly sneak attack.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom