China vs India War: Who Wins? (No Nukes)

[Frozzy]

Ah.... some further reading seems to indicate that the UK planned to send SAS observers to the Argentine mainland from Chile to observe aircraft flying in and out of Argentine airbases (one would assume this would also involve observation of Exocets too).

It was, or so the theory goes, scrapped after a Sea King crashed in neutral Chile, and not wanting to draw attention to Chile, the operation was canned.

Not quite a raid but it seems as though an op was planned.

[notyoueither]

Hearsay, but the 'blokes' I spoke to claimed that both missiles and French nationals were 'neutralised'.

Christ, this isn't hard to find, GePap. Third link on google of 'exocet argentina sas raid airbase'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/03/08/nfalk08.xml

SAS 'suicide mission' to wipe out Exocets
By Michael Smith, Defence Correspondent
(Filed: 08/03/2002)

THE Special Air Service planned to mount a raid on Argentina by submarine in order to destroy the Argentine navy's stock of Exocet missiles, according to a new book on the Falklands conflict.

Argentina was known to have bought five Exocet missiles from France before the outbreak of hostilities in April 1982. Two were used in the attack on the destroyer Sheffield, which alerted the British to the Exocet threat, and Task Force commanders were desperate to destroy the remainder.


Click to enlarge
The submarine raid came about after the decision to scrap Operation Mikado, a plan to land a detachment of SAS in two RAF Hercules at the Argentine airfield at Rio Grande on Tierra del Fuego, where the Exocet-equipped unit was based. The aim was to destroy the missiles, the five Super Etendard aircraft that carried them, and to kill the pilots.

According to Task Force, which reveals for the first time the full details of Operation Mikado, British commanders then devised a fresh plan using the Royal Navy submarine Onyx to infiltrate the SAS into Argentina.

By that point the British had suffered another critical loss to the Exocet in the shape of the container ship Atlantic Conveyor and her cargo of heavy-lift helicopters.

A successful attack on Hermes or Invincible, the two carriers at the centre of the Task Force, could have spelt the end of the operation to recover the islands.

Under the plan, two dozen SAS troops were to be taken by Onyx to the coast of Tierra del Fuego, before rowing ashore in Gemini rubber boats.

They would then make their way to Rio Grande and destroy the Exocets and Super Etendards with anti-tank rockets and explosive charges, before killing the pilots in their living quarters.

The SAS carried out rehearsals for the operation in San Carlos Water, on the west coast of East Falkland, with advice from the Royal Marines' Special Boat Service.

One of those involved recalled: "We were to be dropped off from the submarine several miles offshore at night and then make our way to the coast aboard rubber inflatables. There was a lot of equipment and weapons and the plan left nothing to chance, and we were all confident we could have carried it through.

"Earlier ideas to land a Hercules at the Argentine base were quite frankly suicidal, but this had a good chance of success. However once the job was over that was it. There was no plan to get us out. We simply had to make our way to Chile and link up with our people there."

Fortunately, the Argentine garrison on the Falklands surrendered before the operation could take place. What the British did not know was that the Argentines had bolstered the security around Rio Grande with three battalions of marines. An SAS attack would probably have ended in disaster.

The book shows the extreme lengths to which the British were prepared to go to deal with the Exocet threat. The first option was to use Fleet Air Arm Sea Harriers or one of the RAF's last remaining Vulcan bombers to bomb Rio Grande.

But the Sea Harriers were too few and too precious to be risked, while a Vulcan strike on Port Stanley airport had proved inconclusive. Thus was Operation Mikado born.

The man in charge of the planning was Brig (later Gen) Peter de la Billiere, the director of the SAS and SBS Group.

Mikado involved landing about 55 men of B Squadron SAS from the two Hercules, which would remain on the tarmac with their engines running while the detachment went about its business. If the aircraft survived to take off, they would head for the Chilean air base at Punta Arenas, just across the Stratis of Estrecho.

The fall-back plan if, as seemed likely, the Hercules were damaged during the operation, was for the assault party and the aircrew to make their way to the Chilean border, about 50 miles distant.

The SAS was deeply sceptical that the Chileans would agree to the plan but, while diplomatic approaches were being made, B Squadron went ahead with rehearsals.

By the time the political clearance came through, some of the more experienced members of B Squadron were suggesting that the operation had little chance of success, effectively amounting to a suicide mission.

A helicopter carrying the SAS reconnaissance team took off from Hermes on the night of May 17, but was detected by Argentine radar.

The Sea King had insufficient fuel to rejoin the Task Force, so the pilot flew to the Chilean mainland and dropped off the SAS team, before setting fire to his helicopter and surrendering to the Chilean authorities.

At Hereford, the commander of B Squadron suggested that, with the element of surprise almost certainly lost, the original plan should be scrapped in favour of an operation overland via Chile. But the suggestion was turned down and the original mission was ordered to go ahead.

At that point the tempers of senior members of the squadron almost boiled over. Rehearsals had shown that a surprise attack by Hercules was almost impossible - the aircraft being detected by radar well before landing.

One sergeant decided that the only way to make his point was to resign. Informing Brig de la Billiere of the resignation, shortly before the team was due to fly out to Ascension, the squadron commander added that he too considered the operation unviable. He was immediately relieved of his command and replaced by the regiment's second-in-command.

But by the time B Squadron arrived at Ascension Island, the staging post for the attack, British intelligence had discovered that the Argentines enjoyed far better radar coverage than previously thought. The operation, one of the most audacious in British military history, was postponed.

Task Force is published by Sutton on April 2, the 20th anniversary of the Falklands conflict.

And please keep in mind that successful operations, and the tactics used, are often never released.

[Frozzy]

Just found that article.

It wouldn't surprise me if the two ops were related.

[notyoueither]

Given the cooperation by the Chilaens, and the sinking of the Atlantic Conveyor, I'd be surprised the SAS didn't use helos from Chile to attack exocet bases and the people maintaining them.

If they hit Hermes or Invincible, the whole show was off.

Sheffield set off an alarm. It is foolish to think that nothing was done about it.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by GePap


China would not have the resources ot occupy any major portion of India, nor anything to gain by it.

In that case nobody would likely be fussed.

Like I said, it's a theory, and 1917 was about when London and Washington started talking nice to each other again.

And Churchill signed away the British Empire. It was one of the condtions of the Atlantic Charter. Of course the US was not going to prop up something it wanted to see an end to. And of course Churchill didn't like it, even after the deal was done. It still got done.

I doubt that when Churchill signed the Atlantic Charter he had any intention of giving away the British Empire. That Britain lost its empire had more to do with the fact Britian could no longer afford it, thought Britian was more gracious and realisitc about its fall from power than France.

Actually, he complained that he was being forced to do so at the time, on that very cruiser. He still signed. And then he resisted, but the power and the ability to resist had moved beyond him.

The theory isn't that all act the same way, marching in lock step, all the time. It is that when push comes to shove they will, and that they will all promote similar policies abroad due to similar cultures at home.

That can be said to be based on common democratic principles more than language. Of course, push hjardly comes to shove.

Then explain the differences between France and the US while Britain is firmly on side, and none of the rest of the CW are leading any charge against. In fact, the major parts of the rest are pulling their own weight in some form or other in various parts of the WoT.

Churchill, and subsequent British leaders, weren't dealing with a five hundred year old situation. They were and are dealing with a world where a former child of the British Empire is now the most powerful nation on Earth.

The US gained its place because the other major powers blew themselves up. Its easy to be number one when everyone else beat themselves silly over the head. The US was certainly the richest state in the world, but it does not become the most powerful until WW2.

The US was the most powerful before 1914, it's just nobody knew it yet, and 1917-18 wasn't enough to reveal it.

That fact, or when it happened, says nothing about why London should not pay more attention to Washington than to Lisbon, today.

If boots were on the ground, it was from members of the CW acting independently for their own interests (Aussies in Vietnam and Iraq, UK in Iraq) , or because it was UN sanctioned action (like Korea and Kuwait). In all those cases the US had more help anyways: multiple nations took part in Korea, SKorea sent troops to Vietnam, and multiple states sent troops to the Original gulf war, and to the Iraq invasion.

And in none of them did you find an absense of troops from the CW.

Of course we all follow our own paths. Canada prefered to take a middle power path, tracking India but not breaking with the major powers, as a way to have a greater voice in the third world. Australia has more cloesly followed the Yankee lead as they depend on American support in an isolated part of the globe.

None of this speaks against the theory that when push comes to shove, the Empire of English will not unite. None of this speaks against the theory that all will promote common values internationally during times of peace.

Certainly there are those in Washington and London that imagine some special US-UK link, and ditto those in Sydney and the US that imagine some special US-Australia link, and these thoughts are shaped by your thinking that shared culture leads to shared international aims. The question is whether this will still be true as US power continue to decline relative to all other states in the system.

If the people in Washington, London, and Sydney are imagining links, don't you think that those links exist?

If and when American power declines, the power of attraction to prop the Yanks up will simply increaase (I imagine). We've all lived comfortably off the state of affairs since 1945. Efforts will be made to preserve that situation.

It's not just 300 million Americans the Chinese or Russians have to contend with. It is near a billion world wide, or more, who will see their prosperity and interests tied to the Yankee star.

[Geronimo]

It looks like Pakistan is still a member of the Commonwealth.

[Colonâ„¢]

Originally posted by notyoueither
It's not just 300 million Americans the Chinese or Russians have to contend with. It is near a billion world wide, or more, who will see their prosperity and interests tied to the Yankee star.

I bet Italian shoemakers will side with India.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Colonâ„¢


Yes, but the funness would get submerged by all the unfunness.

too bad! I think it's been more fun than a drunken brawl between cavemen and astronauts!

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by GePap

The issue is big country [China] at war with big country [India]. Those are the types of wars most other states stay out off.

It seems the 20th century demonstrated exactly the opposite trend. It seemed that whenever two great powers would clash a general global war happened or the threat of it happening was largely responsible for nipping the conflict in the bud.


I completely disagree with the idea that wars between great powers are the sorts of conflicts that others tend to keep out of.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Geronimo
It looks like Pakistan is still a member of the Commonwealth.

And suspended in 1999 due to a military coup.

Suspended does not mean out. The people are not to blame, but the government has no say in CW deliberations.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/commonwealth/

Membership is voluntary but each member nation is expected to adhere to Commonwealth principles:

The pursuit of international peace and order in support of the United Nations.
The promotion of representative institutions and guarantees for personal freedom under the law.
The recognition of racial equality and the need to combat racial discrimination and racial oppression.
Lessening the disparities of wealth in societies.

Nations lining up to join include Yemen and Rwanda; the Palestinian National Authority, which is not recognized as a sovereign state, wants in as well.

The purpose of the group is to work together to improve the quality of life of their citizens and to help each other make their economies stronger. They also work toward agreement on international issues such as free trade, debt relief and battling terrorism.

The summits, known as CHOGMS (Commonwealth Heads of Government Meetings), are held every two years.

Declarations are made about Commonwealth aims and positions. Every country has an equal vote and decisions are made by consensus, that is, with the agreement of all.

If a country doesn't follow the Commonwealth's principles, it can be suspended or expelled. Once the country has shown it is following Commonwealth values again, it will be allowed back in. In 1999, the group voted to suspend Pakistan after a military coup. That meant the country couldn't send any delegates to any Commonwealth events until it restored democracy. Nigeria was suspended in 1995 after the execution of activist and writer Ken Saro-Wiwa, a member of the country's minority Ogoni people.

[Colonâ„¢]

Originally posted by Geronimo


too bad! I think it's been more fun than a drunken brawl between cavemen and astronauts!

Oooh, I hadn't checked that thread yet. Thanks for reminding me!

[Frozzy]

Originally posted by Colonâ„¢


I bet Italian shoemakers will side with India.

Go back to your non-existant country.

[notyoueither]

Well, I found a confirmation that Pakistan was readmitted on the basis of elections, and that they had to continue to make progress back towrads responsible government or be tossed again.

What? You expect me to stay up on the minutes of a tea society?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Colonâ„¢

I bet Italian shoemakers will side with India.

It is very possible that some noses will grow.

[Colonâ„¢]

Originally posted by Kalius


Go back to your non-existant country.

How can I go back to non-existing country if I'm already there?

And how can I go anywhere if it doesn't exist?

Seriously, that post is wrong on so many levels.