Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The Daily Telegraph - Defence chiefs prepare new plans to defend Falkland Islands

Bouillabaisse

LE
Book Reviewer
genuine question: do you beleive that HMG would ever order the sinking of an Argentine civilian vessel that was in the process of delivering a 'civilian' protest camp to some obscure part of West Falkland?

That's not really a genuine question, is it? it's more of a foolish question. Since there are other ways of dealing with a civilian vessel they'd use them.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
personally, i think CFK would get almost as much political mileage out of the Typhoons splashing a pair of Super Etendards 50 miles off the FI, or an SSN putting holes in their knachered old T42 as she would from what we would see as a successful invasion - her strategy is portray Argentina as the wronged party, and to be the underdog - little is going to help her more in that than us demonstrating our overwhelming military superiority by destroying her underfunded, out of date, obsolete Air Force/Navy, which, helpfully, she'll place directly in harms way.

my suspicion is that she's using these stories to create an atmosphere of contempt, and that she may then order whatever airworthy aircraft the Argentine Air Force can get to the end of the runway to fly towards the FI. we, in surprise that they can actually fly, launch the Typhoons, blast the crap out of the hapless Argentines and return for tea and medals.

we think she's failed dismally - but she's got martyrs, she's got a flip-floppy US president who won't tell her to fcuk off, she's got fellow travellers all over the world yapping their gums about 'British Aggression', and sh'll have the population of BA (and the rest of LatAm) screaming hatred at us, and not her for sending the AAF out on a suicide mission.

Yes and no. I think you're right in that she's trying to rattle up sympathy - all her noise has been to the international community and the UN, the accusations of 'militarising' the Falklands and 'invasion' have been directed at us by her, rather than her saying she's going to take them back by force.

I'm more sceptical that the 'Go and attack the Malvinas and don't come back' order will be given. (I mark this observation against the point it happens and I come grovelling back, mind.)
 

Brotherton Lad

LE
Kit Reviewer
Somewhat OT I know, but it would be fascinating to map the rise of the Navy League against the fall in average family size. Or 'Dreadnoughts as foreplay ,,, doomed demographics?'


OT reply. Fascinating! Never thought of it as a form of birth control, but see, the modern heterosexual Stepford nuclear family with 2 children:

 

ACAB

LE
That's not really a genuine question, is it? it's more of a foolish question. Since there are other ways of dealing with a civilian vessel they'd use them.

Unless said vessel has El Presidente aboard. Then defo torpedo it. And machine gun the survivors.
 

Yokel

LE
The RN has six fleet submarines.
There is an awful lot of sea that hasn't got a Royal Navy Submarine anywhere near it.

Yes, but would you be willing to risk your Government's survival on it?
 
Yes, but would you be willing to risk your Government's survival on it?

that would depend on whether you think your government would fall because of it.

CFK is not likely to start a war until she is desperate for something that can placate the masses in Argentina - thats the key, when she's desperate and at the stage where if she does nothing she is definately out of office, the 'well, it might work..' plan that she looked at, and discarded 6 months ago as being foolhardy starts to look more attractive.

the crux is not 'what looks like a good plan?', its 'what looks like a better plan than the certainty of being out of office, and probably on charges of corruption, embezzlement and outright theft by the middle of next week?'.
 

seaweed

LE
Book Reviewer
RIP
THAT you won't be told.
 
that would depend on whether you think your government would fall because of it.

CFK is not likely to start a war until she is desperate for something that can placate the masses in Argentina - thats the key, when she's desperate and at the stage where if she does nothing she is definately out of office, the 'well, it might work..' plan that she looked at, and discarded 6 months ago as being foolhardy starts to look more attractive.

the crux is not 'what looks like a good plan?', its 'what looks like a better plan than the certainty of being out of office, and probably on charges of corruption, embezzlement and outright theft by the middle of next week?'.

I presume the Arg armed forces have a realistic view of British military capability in the South Atlantic, both the known (e.g. Typhoon) and the unknown (e.g. SSN). So so you believe that their patriotism/loyalty/machismo/whatever will stretch to carrying out Op CERTAIN DEATH in order to prop up CFK?
 
I presume the Arg armed forces have a realistic view of British military capability in the South Atlantic, both the known (e.g. Typhoon) and the unknown (e.g. SSN). So so you believe that their patriotism/loyalty/machismo/whatever will stretch to carrying out Op CERTAIN DEATH in order to prop up CFK?

no, i believe that the baggage of the Military Dictatorship in Argentina means that the military will a) not really be consulted by the President about the wisdom of a plan, and b) that they do not believe they have the political legitimacy to refuse a direct order to do anything, regardless of how foolish it might be.

again, in order to understand what they might, in extreme circumstances, do, we have to understand how their political and military worlds meet, and on what basis, not how our political and military worlds meet, and on what basis.

as an example - in the UK, if in the run up to a proposed military operation (like, for example, Iraq), CDS and the three Service Chiefs had resigned in protest at the operation, the government would probably have fallen. in Argentina, such an event would be greeted, not just by the government, but by the opposition and media, with a 'meh, we've got more senior officers..'.

they have a very different attitude to the place of the military in military/political decision making - caused both by the history of the 'Dirty War' (and in this case CFK's personal history), and more generally in Argentinas history of the Military never hesitating to decide that they wanted to be el Presidente. if we want to understand how and what they think, we have to understand that.
 

ACAB

LE
no, i believe that the baggage of the Military Dictatorship in Argentina means that the military will a) not really be consulted by the President about the wisdom of a plan, and b) that they do not believe they have the political legitimacy to refuse a direct order to do anything, regardless of how foolish it might be.

again, in order to understand what they might, in extreme circumstances, do, we have to understand how their political and military worlds meet, and on what basis, not how our political and military worlds meet, and on what basis.

as an example - in the UK, if in the run up to a proposed military operation (like, for example, Iraq), CDS and the three Service Chiefs had resigned in protest at the operation, the government would probably have fallen. in Argentina, such an event would be greeted, not just by the government, but by the opposition and media, with a 'meh, we've got more senior officers..'.

they have a very different attitude to the place of the military in military/political decision making - caused both by the history of the 'Dirty War' (and in this case CFK's personal history), and more generally in Argentinas history of the Military never hesitating to decide that they wanted to be el Presidente. if we want to understand how and what they think, we have to understand that.

CC interesting post but it must be remembered that Kirchner despises her Military and has deliberately starved them of funding as she is only too aware of the role the Mil has had historically of 'choosing' El Presidente.
 
I presume the Arg armed forces have a realistic view of British military capability in the South Atlantic, both the known (e.g. Typhoon) and the unknown (e.g. SSN). So so you believe that their patriotism/loyalty/machismo/whatever will stretch to carrying out Op CERTAIN DEATH in order to prop up CFK?
You make it sound as if they have a choice.
 
However true that hypothetical situation is it would be an Argentine military which hasn't been upgraded (rather degraded) in 30 years, against a military that's been fighting the last 10 years with top kit. Oh, and the Argentines have had no funding for 30 years...last time round some of their kit was better than ours (NVGs etc.). We've implemented all lessons from Falklands I, they haven't... They had enough trouble against 63 marines let alone 1500 troops...

Op Certain Death it is.
 

Grumblegrunt

LE
Book Reviewer
well one opinion is that she wouldn't because losing again would be a bad move for her. the question could be whether instead of a coup the mil do it anyway knowing they will fail.

a seagull mission they could get away with and there's little we could do to stop them
 

Latest Threads

Top