Falkland Islanders still feel "under threat"

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by EX_STAB, Feb 4, 2007.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Yahoo news
    via Press association.
  2. We can retake the Island, althogh it is highly unlikely it is going to be attacked.

    I agree that we have committed too much to the 'British moment'.
  3. they can try peaceful means all they want, we wont give up the islands, so they will have to use force, and we will just go down there and sort them out again... the question is, if it happens while we are still in iraq and afganistan will we be able to do it?
  4. I'm sure the islands could be retaken, if there were any RN vessels to get a task force down there.
  5. I don't think we could re take it to be honest.

    Do you think Bliar would make the decision to divert assets from Iraqistan to the FI?

    That is the only way it could be achived and it would be a closer run thing than it was 25 years ago.

    It would again have to be a Naval run affair but this time without boats. Do we have assets that could miss Stanleys runway? No Vulcans, fewer Air Tankers, no SHARs plus it would take procurment another 10 years to get enough cold weather kit and non desert CS95 to fit whatever blokes haven't PVR'd.

    Bliars decsion would be along the lines of 'Do I pull out of Iraqistan and annoy the shaved chimp just for the sake of a few Stills who hold zero punch in the polls or with the USA?'

    As for the RN. The rate we are going, we'll have barely enough boats to carry a few blokes across the Solent. And even then it would have to be a shuttle run.

    Today is a very different world and country from 1982 and Maggie. Some of it better, most of it worse.

    We should take the pre-emptive strike now and lob all of our knackered Tridents at Buenos Aires. I'm sure no one will notice whilst we distract them with the Iraqistan issue.
  6. Even Dear Tony/Gordon the moron's egos could not face the eternal comparison that they failed where Maggie succeeded ?

    They would surely call in some favours from GW?

    Loss of face would be on the scale of Suez with the same consequences for foreign policy and their political standing, hence GW could not allow it either. leaving him even more isolated?

    There would be no fence sitting this time from USA?

    Are the powers in Argentina really still as extreme as the Junta was?

    Hope I'm right as another cluster fcuk we don't need, especially considering the blokes lost doing this once before
  7. If the Argies 'could' take it and I suppose they must have that capability then We have no navy capable of doing the biz. Oh Jack will do his best, always has done, but he's been slashed even more then Poor old Tom.
    Getting Tom ashore was and still is the problem.
    Oh yeah King George will be begging to help Tone dear Tone, my F-ing Poor Assre he will.
    The Yanks still not forgiven us for burning what was the Black house after we finished in 1814 ?
  8. Have a go on Friday and Saturday Nights, around about the end of the month when the money goes into the bank..."Weekend Millionaires"
    Anyone who's served down here, will tell you it's a either a get "FIZZED UP" TOUR, or a "P1SSUP Tour...I choose the LATER... :headbang:
  9. That and the fact we can park several Subs off their coast within cruise missile range and pull the plug on their Country is what will keep them out.

    Either that or we get all friendly with Uruguay, and hope we can ship an RTR down there to look menacing on their northern border.
  10. Ord_Sgt

    Ord_Sgt RIP

    A good book about the possible outcome of a future falklands war. Scarey reading to be honest clicky
  11. We have the personnel available for a short term, high intensity operation. We just don't have the means of transporting them to the islands. Listy is right in that we could effectively isolate the Argentinian command from their task force with cruise missiles alone. But to retake the island takes boots on the ground (preferably with men in them).
  12. Men with no boots is an equal probability.

  13. how exactly are the argies going to take mpa ?
    they did'nt do to well against a reinforced platoon of marines
    theres a company of inf a sqd of sappers load of rapier bods who presumably now how to use a rifle (apologies to any rapier types now zero about your skill base)
    theres even some light guns in storage down there. a sqd of fast jets and a sub.
    a sub sort of make any type of amphib landing impossible.
    para drop poss if the tornados are all shot down but that would be a pretty hard task to achieve crab air having fcuk off radars and radar guided missiles
  14. We only need a ground force bigger than RIC if Johny G gets ashore. It will be much simpler reinforcing the Islands with mud movers and additional interceptors via 8500 ft of black top at MPA than it would have been in '82 via 3500 ft at Stanley. Reinforce with Tornado 4s and, probably, 3s. Repulsing an air supported amphibious assault with the resident 3s (4 EA max and more likely 3 EA) isn't going to work.

    FI is one of the few places on the planet where we don't need a carrier; unless we're daft enough to lose it again. The fact we can reinforce the air component faster than they could marshall and launch an assault is all the deterrent we need. The problems may start if "we" decide to rob BFFI to cover the sandpit.
  15. Interesting to cross reference this with the ethical war thread. If we wanted to retake the islands and weren't too ethical how we went about it... we have a lot of submarines and not much for them to do. Not a great deal Argentina could do about it if we decided to sink their shipping indiscriminately until they agreed that the FI aren't worth the bother and withdrew.

    Of course, this would be viewed as unethical so we wouldn't do it. The annoying bit is, we wouldn't even threaten to do it.