NationStates

FutureAmerica wrote:Why don't you guys settle this with a FIFA regulated football match. Winner gets the islands.
UK all stars vs Argentina. Messi vs Bale. I'll pay to watch.

We already settled it with a war. They lost spectacularly. They just don't seem to have absorbed that.

I don't think Argentina would be stupid enough to invade the Falklands again, although I can understand why some might have trouble trusting them. Make them agree to recognise the Falklands as British in return for the fighters.

Valaran wrote:

Fartsniffage wrote:
Military aircraft don't suddenly become less potent after a few years. Realistically, Britain won't be upgrading from Typhoons for a few decades.

Its more ,to use an article from earlier, the Argentine airforce as a whole is a long long way behind and so are the rest of their forces - something 24 modern planes won't change.

And even if they did improve, I don't see their economy sustaining the levels of military spending required to make their power even close to the UK.

Right now, the UK has virtually no ability to conduct a war on the Falklands. We have no aircraft carriers. We can have all the fancy ariplanes buzzing around the UK and other bases around the world that we want, but we couldn't launch an expedition like the one that was sent in '82 if we tried.

Put simply, the Argentinians could probably take the Falklands right now with 24 Grippens. And there wouldn't be much we could do about it for 4-6 years.

The UK in Exile wrote:

Fartsniffage wrote:


So no is your answer then?

Their willing to take them into account. Of course, there are 41 million Argentinians and 3000 islanders.

Just not to the point where they'll let than have a say in their own nationality? Fuck imperialism is what I say.

Fartsniffage wrote:

Valaran wrote:

Its more ,to use an article from earlier, the Argentine airforce as a whole is a long long way behind and so are the rest of their forces - something 24 modern planes won't change.

And even if they did improve, I don't see their economy sustaining the levels of military spending required to make their power even close to the UK.

Right now, the UK has virtually no ability to conduct a war on the Falklands. We have no aircraft carriers. We can have all the fancy ariplanes buzzing around the UK and other bases around the world that we want, but we couldn't launch an expedition like the one that was sent in '82 if we tried.

Put simply, the Argentinians could probably take the Falklands right now with 24 Grippens. And there wouldn't be much we could do about it for 4-6 years.

We can get more Typhoons down there exactly the same way we got the current lot down there.

Of course, that means there are fewer in the UK to intercept Russian Bears.

The UK in Exile wrote:

Fartsniffage wrote:
Right now, the UK has virtually no ability to conduct a war on the Falklands. We have no aircraft carriers. We can have all the fancy ariplanes buzzing around the UK and other bases around the world that we want, but we couldn't launch an expedition like the one that was sent in '82 if we tried.

Put simply, the Argentinians could probably take the Falklands right now with 24 Grippens. And there wouldn't be much we could do about it for 4-6 years.

We can get more Typhoons down there exactly the same way we got the current lot down there.

Of course, that means there are fewer in the UK to intercept Russian Bears.

And Putin's getting a lot more aggressive lately.

Fartsniffage wrote:

Valaran wrote:

Its more ,to use an article from earlier, the Argentine airforce as a whole is a long long way behind and so are the rest of their forces - something 24 modern planes won't change.

And even if they did improve, I don't see their economy sustaining the levels of military spending required to make their power even close to the UK.

Right now, the UK has virtually no ability to conduct a war on the Falklands. We have no aircraft carriers. We can have all the fancy ariplanes buzzing around the UK and other bases around the world that we want, but we couldn't launch an expedition like the one that was sent in '82 if we tried.

Put simply, the Argentinians could probably take the Falklands right now with 24 Grippens. And there wouldn't be much we could do about it for 4-6 years.

The deal would take time anyway. Not 4-6 years, of course, but it would be quite obvious were it to happen, affording time to prepare. And the Argentinean logistics/support/anything else in their airforce is so far behind that I'm not sure they could really gain much of an air superiority.

And any form of aerial stalemate would arguably suit the UK more; they have better naval, drone, missile and ground forces.

Their economy would also tank even further if war was declared.

They may potentially win it - thought I hihgly doubt it. But they wouldn't risk it.

The UK in Exile wrote:

Fartsniffage wrote:
Right now, the UK has virtually no ability to conduct a war on the Falklands. We have no aircraft carriers. We can have all the fancy ariplanes buzzing around the UK and other bases around the world that we want, but we couldn't launch an expedition like the one that was sent in '82 if we tried.

Put simply, the Argentinians could probably take the Falklands right now with 24 Grippens. And there wouldn't be much we could do about it for 4-6 years.

We can get more Typhoons down there exactly the same way we got the current lot down there.

Of course, that means there are fewer in the UK to intercept Russian Bears.

Hard to land a Typhoon on a bombed runway. Even harder to maintain and fly them effectively when the supply line is taking 2-3 weeks to get there.

Fartsniffage wrote:

The UK in Exile wrote:
We can get more Typhoons down there exactly the same way we got the current lot down there.

Of course, that means there are fewer in the UK to intercept Russian Bears.

Hard to land a Typhoon on a bombed runway. Even harder to maintain and fly them effectively when the supply line is taking 2-3 weeks to get there.

I would say that is enough that Argentina just needs 10 Grippens to take the Falklands.

Frazers wrote:

FutureAmerica wrote:Why don't you guys settle this with a FIFA regulated football match. Winner gets the islands.
UK all stars vs Argentina. Messi vs Bale. I'll pay to watch.

We already settled it with a war. They lost spectacularly. They just don't seem to have absorbed that.

If Argentina loses this hypothetical football match, they will have to renounce all entitlement and then cry for centuries.

Fartsniffage wrote:

The UK in Exile wrote:
We can get more Typhoons down there exactly the same way we got the current lot down there.

Of course, that means there are fewer in the UK to intercept Russian Bears.

Hard to land a Typhoon on a bombed runway. Even harder to maintain and fly them effectively when the supply line is taking 2-3 weeks to get there.

Thats why you fly them down before people start bombing runways. Its not like they didn't have the opportunity in the 1980s.

In another, the Foreign Office complains it does not want to spend £2m extending Port Stanley's runway.

"We would risk justifiable criticism, if anything went wrong, that we had failed to apply a proper judgement to the spending of public money," says the official.

FutureAmerica wrote:

Frazers wrote:
We already settled it with a war. They lost spectacularly. They just don't seem to have absorbed that.

If Argentina loses this hypothetical football match, they will have to renounce all entitlement and then cry for centuries.

Argies don't seem to follow logic. I doubt they could follow that contract.

The UK in Exile wrote:

Fartsniffage wrote:
Hard to land a Typhoon on a bombed runway. Even harder to maintain and fly them effectively when the supply line is taking 2-3 weeks to get there.

Thats why you fly them down before people start bombing runways. Its not like they didn't have the opportunity in the 1980s.

In another, the Foreign Office complains it does not want to spend £2m extending Port Stanley's runway.

"We would risk justifiable criticism, if anything went wrong, that we had failed to apply a proper judgement to the spending of public money," says the official.

imo the problem is they'd just bomb them anyway and we'd be just as fucked

Valaran wrote:

Fartsniffage wrote:
Right now, the UK has virtually no ability to conduct a war on the Falklands. We have no aircraft carriers. We can have all the fancy ariplanes buzzing around the UK and other bases around the world that we want, but we couldn't launch an expedition like the one that was sent in '82 if we tried.

Put simply, the Argentinians could probably take the Falklands right now with 24 Grippens. And there wouldn't be much we could do about it for 4-6 years.

The deal would take time anyway. Not 4-6 years, of course, but it would be quite obvious were it to happen, affording time to prepare. And the Argentinean logistics/support/anything else in their airforce is so far behind that I'm not sure they could really gain much of an air superiority.

And any form of aerial stalemate would arguably suit the UK more; they have better naval, drone, missile and ground forces.

Their economy would also tank even further if war was declared.

They may potentially win it - thought I hihgly doubt it. But they wouldn't risk it.

Seems to me that there are two options. Allow the sale and run that risk of military build up just in case, and potentially a shooting war. Or just say no.

Which carries less risk?

Fartsniffage wrote:
Seems to me that there are two options. Allow the sale and run that risk of military build up just in case, and potentially a shooting war. Or just say no.

Which carries less risk?

Since there is such a tiny chance of war, the risk involved seems to be negligible.

On the other hand, we expend a lot of diplomatic and political capital on fairly small problems like these.

The point seems so minor, its not worth conducting such a diplomatic effort over. And it hardly helps resolve things with Argentina (neither side does anything there though, especially Krichner so that point is moot)

The UK in Exile wrote:

Fartsniffage wrote:
Hard to land a Typhoon on a bombed runway. Even harder to maintain and fly them effectively when the supply line is taking 2-3 weeks to get there.

Thats why you fly them down before people start bombing runways. Its not like they didn't have the opportunity in the 1980s.

In another, the Foreign Office complains it does not want to spend £2m extending Port Stanley's runway.

"We would risk justifiable criticism, if anything went wrong, that we had failed to apply a proper judgement to the spending of public money," says the official.

Whether the aircraft is in the air or on the ground, a bombed runway puts them out of the action neatly. These aren't Harriers with rough field capabilities.

Argentina did make a deal with Israel to buy combat fighters. The Israel combat fighters they are selling Argentina were retired some time ago. The air combat fighters will be refurbished. They do contain some US engine parts so will the UK. call US to tell Israel not to sell the combat fighters. Who knows what Israel will do. Colombia and some other South American nations fly this combat fighter which they say has a good record.

Story on the sale - http://www.i24news.tv/en/news/internati ... rom-israel

And Argentina is trying to make a deal with China to co-produce a Chinese fighter in Argentina.
Story - http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2013/07/c ... er-lining/

They say if the deal goes through that Argentina will have access to Chinese missile high tech for the fighters.

Found out that in 2013, China CNR Corporation limited which has been exporting trains to Argentina agreed to start manufacturing trains in Argentina.

From 2010

... the Chinese government has agreed to a $10 billion commitment to upgrade a series of intercity rail lines in Argentina

So it seems China and Argentina are really co-operating on many things.

Alyakia wrote:

The UK in Exile wrote:
Thats why you fly them down before people start bombing runways. Its not like they didn't have the opportunity in the 1980s.

imo the problem is they'd just bomb them anyway and we'd be just as fucked

Not if they had to shoot their way through Eurofighter to get there.

Fartsniffage wrote:

Valaran wrote:

The deal would take time anyway. Not 4-6 years, of course, but it would be quite obvious were it to happen, affording time to prepare. And the Argentinean logistics/support/anything else in their airforce is so far behind that I'm not sure they could really gain much of an air superiority.

And any form of aerial stalemate would arguably suit the UK more; they have better naval, drone, missile and ground forces.

Their economy would also tank even further if war was declared.

They may potentially win it - thought I hihgly doubt it. But they wouldn't risk it.

Seems to me that there are two options. Allow the sale and run that risk of military build up just in case, and potentially a shooting war. Or just say no.

Which carries less risk?

Neither, their democratic and peaceful republic that aren't about to go to war over a rock. One option however does carry a cost.

Fartsniffage wrote:

The UK in Exile wrote:
Thats why you fly them down before people start bombing runways. Its not like they didn't have the opportunity in the 1980s.

Whether the aircraft is in the air or on the ground, a bombed runway puts them out of the action neatly. These aren't Harriers with rough field capabilities.

Here's a thought, maybe they could use the fighters to shoot the bombers, now this is the clever bit, before they bomb the runway?

The UK in Exile wrote:

Fartsniffage wrote:
Whether the aircraft is in the air or on the ground, a bombed runway puts them out of the action neatly. These aren't Harriers with rough field capabilities.

Here's a thought, maybe they could use the fighters to shoot the bombers, now this is the clever bit, before they bomb the runway?

4 Typhoons. 4.

They're supposed to be pretty good, but I'd back a squadron of Grippens supported by a squadron of A4s against them. Even if we stuck a a full squadron of 12 down there, I wouldn't back them to get everything before damage was done to the only runway within range they can land at.

Olerand wrote:The country did not technically default, but regardless.

I honestly thought the US was going to stop the sale because of the Argentinean non-payment of its debts to US vulture funds; but respecting a key ally's strategic concerns is obviously a more reasonable reason.

Argentina should consider buying something cheaper, and not American. Maybe Russian or Chinese.

Or it can buy our Rafales, which aren't cheap, but they're so expensive and complicated that literally no one wants to buy them. And we are getting desperate.

The Indians but a couple; generally-speaking however, Dassault messed up with the Rafale.

Fartsniffage wrote:

The UK in Exile wrote:
Here's a thought, maybe they could use the fighters to shoot the bombers, now this is the clever bit, before they bomb the runway?

4 Typhoons. 4.

They're supposed to be pretty good, but I'd back a squadron of Grippens supported by a squadron of A4s against them. Even if we stuck a a full squadron of 12 down there, I wouldn't back them to get everything before damage was done to the only runway within range they can land at.

so send 24 Typhoons. And a squadron of Royal engineers to fix the fucking runway. besides they don't need to get everything, they only have to get enough to persuade everyone else to run for it.

The UK in Exile wrote:We were gung-ho for arms sales to Brazil but didn't consider the possibility that they would want to co-operate with Argentina?

Brazil is constitutionally forbidden from engaging in foreign armed conflicts.

Estado Nacional wrote:

The UK in Exile wrote:We were gung-ho for arms sales to Brazil but didn't consider the possibility that they would want to co-operate with Argentina?

Brazil is constitutionally forbidden from engaging in foreign armed conflicts.

Its not, presumably, banned from selling weapons to those engaged in foreign armed conflicts.