Falkland Islanders to hold referendum over sovereignty

[kentonio]

The threat to navies presented by cheap anti-ship missiles isn't to be underestimated. I can't remember exact figures, but I recall Exocet MM40 can still close faster than the newest Phalanx systems can respond... in some cases.

I have no doubt France would provide assistance to the British in defeating those missiles. But who is to say Argentina doesn't have Russian or Chinese ASM's at the ready?

It's a crapshoot that doesn't seem worth the risk.

And say ASM defeats CIWS. Tehran is watching.

What are they going to be launching those Exocets from exactly?

Nope. There's been intentional neglect of the armed forces since Nestor Kirchner's government. We aren't broke (we were in 2001), just terribly mismanaged.

Ah fair play.

[N35t0r]

I think it's more about them being broke as ****, rather than any particular choice not to modernize.

Nope. There's been intentional neglect of the armed forces since Nestor Kirchner's government. We aren't broke (we were in 2001), just terribly mismanaged.

[Sava]

The relative improvement in the UK's military technology and capabilities over the Argentinean Navy and Air Force in the last 30 years is huge.

The threat to navies presented by cheap anti-ship missiles isn't to be underestimated. I can't remember exact figures, but I recall Exocet MM40 can still close faster than the newest Phalanx systems can respond... in some cases.

I have no doubt France would provide assistance to the British in defeating those missiles. But who is to say Argentina doesn't have Russian or Chinese ASM's at the ready?

It's a crapshoot that doesn't seem worth the risk.

And say ASM defeats CIWS. Tehran is watching.

[N35t0r]

It looks like the Argentinian navy is a complete wreck, from wiki:

A destroyer sunk two weeks ago while sitting in port.

Honestly, that's pretty stupid. Brazil's military is rapidly modernizing and so are its other neighbors.

Right. Because we'll get invaded.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

In this economy, it would be interesting to see if the Brits wish to risk losing a multi-billion dollar national asset to an anti-ship missile over islands with a GDP of $75 million.

There's a garrison of 500 soldiers, 4 Eurofighter Typhoons, and a submarine already there. No invasion is going to happen.

[kentonio]

Honestly, that's pretty stupid. Brazil's military is rapidly modernizing and so are its other neighbors.

I think it's more about them being broke as ****, rather than any particular choice not to modernize.

[N35t0r]

Our airforce would be literally obliterated before getting airborne

I'm also laughing my ass off at Timmerman's comments. The fraction of Argentinians whose families has been living here for more than nine generations is tiny as well...

[Hauldren Collider]

It looks like the Argentinian navy is a complete wreck, from wiki:

The service is underfunded and struggling to meet maintenance and training requirements. The 2013 budget allowed for the 15 operational vessels to each spend less than 11 days at sea, whilst the submarines averaged just over 6 hours submerged in the whole of 2012. ARA Espora is stranded in South Africa for lack of spares. The Almirante Brown class destroyers are short of spares and their ordnance has expired whilst the Antarctic patrol ship ARA Almirante Irizar has been under repair since a fire in 2007.

Just checked, Article 5 doesn't apply.

Oh, huh. Well it doesn't matter, the Argentinian military is a ****ing joke.

Honestly, that's pretty stupid. Brazil's military is rapidly modernizing and so are its other neighbors.

[kentonio]

Just checked, Article 5 doesn't apply.

Article 5

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

[Hauldren Collider]

You do realize that we sat out the last Falklands War and that was during the Reagan Years. What the hell makes you think we'd get involved now?

If they invoked article 5, we'd have to; since everyone helped us out with Afghanistan we would sort of owe it to them. It probably wouldn't be too hard for us either, a couple submarines and destroyers would probably be enough to put the Argentinians out of business. Then again, the British could muster that as well. The argies only have a handful of crappy 60s-era fighters left, probably nothing modern anti-air can't handle.

[kentonio]

You know, if the Argentinians do attack the Falklands again, you could always invoke article 5 of NATO...If I were Argentina, that would make me very leery of saber rattling.

Doubt we'd bother.

In this economy, it would be interesting to see if the Brits wish to risk losing a multi-billion dollar national asset to an anti-ship missile over islands with a GDP of $75 million. Hell, even the first war cost the UK over £3 billion. The cost of UK military presence in the Falklands is £61 million annually.

That's a lot of money just to prove to the world that you can defend something if you really want.

Suddenly, US foreign policy doesn't seem as retarded.

Any future war would cost very little as the Argentinian military has barely moved on from where it was during the last war, meanwhile the UK is using current gen military hardware. Their airforce would be literally obliterated any time it tried to come anywhere near the place, and anyone who tries a sea landing without air superiority and with enemy submarines and ships in the area is out of their minds.

[DinoDoc]

You know, if the Argentinians do attack the Falklands again, you could always invoke article 5 of NATO...If I were Argentina, that would make me very leery of saber rattling.

You do realize that we sat out the last Falklands War and that was during the Reagan Years. What the hell makes you think we'd get involved now?

[MichaeltheGreat]

In this economy, it would be interesting to see if the Brits wish to risk losing a multi-billion dollar national asset to an anti-ship missile over islands with a GDP of $75 million. Hell, even the first war cost the UK over £3 billion. The cost of UK military presence in the Falklands is £61 million annually.

That's a lot of money just to prove to the world that you can defend something if you really want.

Suddenly, US foreign policy doesn't seem as retarded.

The relative improvement in the UK's military technology and capabilities over the Argentinean Navy and Air Force in the last 30 years is huge.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Argentina doesn't want the Falklands. They want the "issue" of the imperialist Brits unjustly holding the Malvinas and perpetuating their imperialist intransigance and offending Argentine sovereignty blah blah ****ing blah ad nauseum, so they have a way to appeal to Agentineans' sense of nationalism and give the press and the peasantry something else to focus on other than their internal economic failings. If they actually got the Falklands, there would be a brief period of nationalist euphoria, and then an "oh ****, now what do we use to distract the people?" moment.

[Krill]

0/10.

To both.