Monday, January 14th 2013 - 06:49 UTC

UK contingency plans to ensure no outside disruptions of Falklands’ March referendum

The United Kingdom defence chiefs have drawn up new contingency plans designed to prevent hostile action by Argentina towards the Falkland Islands, ahead, during or after the March referendum, according to reports presented by English newspaper The Telegraph.

According to The Telegraph, additional troops, another warship and extra RAF Typhoon combat aircraft could be dispatched

“A series of military options are being actively considered as the war of words over the Islands intensifies”, the tabloid published on its Sunday’s edition.

It is understood that additional troops, another warship and extra RAF Typhoon combat aircraft could be dispatched to the region ahead of the March referendum on the Falklands’ future.

The options being proposed by planners at the Permanent Joint Headquarters in Northwood, north-west London are also said to include a “show of force” such as conducting naval exercises in the South Atlantic.

These could involve the deployment of the Royal Navy’s Response Task Force Group, a flotilla comprising destroyers, a frigate, a submarine and commandos.

Alternatives include deploying elements of the Army’s 16 Air Assault Brigade, the airborne task force which includes members of the Parachute Regiment and that has just completed a series of demanding exercises in Spain preparing for “general war”.

The Falklands government is expecting an overwhelming majority “yes” vote when the Islanders are asked on March 11: “Do you wish the Falkland Islands to retain their current political status as an Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom?”

Intelligence chiefs have warned David Cameron that a resounding “Yes” vote could lead to an aggressive “stunt” by the Argentine government, such as the planting of the country’s flag on one of the many islands by a small raiding party.

Other possibilities include a “cod war” style harassment campaign by the Argentine navy of the Falklands’ fishing fleet and the disruption of British oil and gas exploration. Such a move, officers have warned, could quite quickly escalate into aggressive action if the Royal Navy was ordered to intervene.

Senior sources emphasized that in drawing up the contingency plans they were acting out of prudence so that nothing would take them by surprise.

A senior defence source told The Telegraph: “Britain needs to be in a situation to respond very quickly to a whole series of threats, which is why we have contingency plans. Our posture has not changed but neither are we complacent.

“There are a number of contingencies to deal with any threat to the Falklands and they are currently being reviewed. No orders have been given to any military unit at this stage but prudent planning within all units who could be deployed in the event of a crisis is taking place.

“That is quite normal. Commanders like to be two steps ahead rather than two steps behind.”

Around 1.500 troops are permanently based on the islands, along with four RAF Typhoon jets and anti-aircraft and artillery batteries and land to air missiles.

A Royal Navy destroyer, currently HMS Edinburgh, is always on duty in the South Atlantic, working alongside the patrol ship HMS Clyde, the fleet tanker HMS Gold and the ice patrol ship HMS Protector.

One of the Royal Navy’s nuclear powered submarines is always on notice to move to the region if the diplomatic situation deteriorates.

Last year HMS Dauntless, a Type 45 destroyer and one of the Royal Navy’s most capable vessels was dispatched to the South Atlantic during the 30th commemoration of the war.

Despite the increasing hostile rhetoric from Argentine president Cristina Kirchner, the British government believes that Buenos Aries currently lacks both the political will and military capability to recapture the islands.

But the Prime Minister has told his cabinet and senior defence chiefs that Britain should not be complacent and must be fully prepared for every eventuality.

The Telegraph finally compares UK’s current military forces with 1982:

1982: Armed Forces Personnel: 320,000; Ships: 2 Carriers, 2 Assault ships, 32 Submarines, 15 Destroyers, 46 Frigates, 1 Ice Patrol Ship, 12 Hydrographic survey ships, 15 Patrol ships/craft, 29 Minesweepers and mine-hunters, 45 Royal Fleet Auxiliary and 400 plus aircraft.

2013: Armed Forces personnel:160.000; Ships: 0 Carriers, 9 Submarines, 7 Destroyers, 13 Frigates, 2 Assault/Helicopter Carriers, 2 Assault/Command Ships, 3 RFA Landing Ships, 3 Survey ships, 1 Ice Patrol Ship, 4 Patrol Ships, 15 Mine-hunters, 10 Royal Fleet Auxiliary. Fighter Aircraft: 130.
 

201 comments Feed

Note: Comments do not reflect MercoPress’ opinions. They are the personal view of our users. We wish to keep this as open and unregulated as possible. However, rude or foul language, discriminative comments (based on ethnicity, religion, gender, nationality, sexual orientation or the sort), spamming or any other offensive or inappropriate behaviour will not be tolerated. Please report any inadequate posts to the editor. Comments must be in English. Comments should refer to article. Thank you.

1 toooldtodieyoung (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 07:11 am Report abuse
Oh dear god!! just wait for the outraged screams and hissy fits from BA. “They're invading our islands, they're invading our islands!!”

“The English are coming!!!”

Wah, wah, wah!!!!!

Note to KFC:- You do know the islands are British, right?
2 Boovis (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 07:26 am Report abuse
I'm wondering if the UK has evidence that this is a realistic threat? They uncovered a plot by Argie fishermen to be morons not so long ago and scuppered that, I wonder what info the UK has that would necessitate this?
3 Rufus (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 08:00 am Report abuse
News Headline: Military Planners Actually Plan Things...

Good thing too, it is what we pay them for after all.
4 Xect (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 08:34 am Report abuse
The fact its public is a message to Argentina to say 'we are ready'. I'd hazard a guess the UK intelligence services have stumbled on the latest publicity stunt from Argentine.

Still it could be they were/are planning something much more serious, never underestimate a failing government.
5 Escoses Doido (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 08:40 am Report abuse
“In Argentina, the Falkland Islands are not viewed as an historical issue, or a legal problem, or even a geographical anomaly that needs to be put right. Argentina's right to the Falklands is an act of faith, and like most religions it's not based on fact, truth, reality, or very much else. It just is.”

Roger Lorton.
6 Britworker (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 08:48 am Report abuse
I think the reaction is going to be predictably funny, pretty much any regular poster in here could predict what she will say in response to this. Argentinas rhetoric is getting old and boring now, it's the same old thing time and time again.
7 Boovis (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 08:54 am Report abuse
@6: we do not recognise... bla bla.. forcibly evicted...bla bla... implanted population..bla bla

One thing, though, seems she's stopped saying how it's a regional or global issue any more, perhaps she's finally realised it isn't?
8 Anglotino (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 09:05 am Report abuse
Oh God the British are militarising the South Atlantic.

Yep you better bloody believe it!

So don't be naughty now Argentina, respect your neighbours.
9 reality check (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 09:20 am Report abuse
Good point brought up on here, maybe this story has been released as a result of some intelligence developed on Argentinian intentions. The UK is not going to say that of course, but it seems to be a reasonable assumption to make.
The UK is not going to allow them to pull any 1982 South Georgia type stunts again, with one ship and a poorly equppied, half strength marine detachment in the area to deal with it.
10 Musky (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 09:30 am Report abuse
@5

Blind faith requires no basis of fact, it simply requires very stupid or brainwashed people. I prefer the latter.
11 BritishguyfromLondon (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 09:32 am Report abuse
It's interesting how much smaller our forces are now compared to back then, but what the figures don't take into account is how much of that is based in the Falklands. Also, according to stats, a single type 45 is worth five type 42s, to the reduction in destroyer numbers is not too big a deal. Besides, apparently the Argentine navy's 'Almirante Brown' class destroyers can only spend 11 days at sea each per year, and all their ordinance is out of date. That's what wikipedia says anyway. Trust me, the Falklands are safe. The only thing we may have to worry about, much like in '82, is the air force. Not sure I like the sound of Dassault Mirages coming down on our troops.
12 War Monkey (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 09:49 am Report abuse
@11 BritishguyfromLondon (#)
Jan 14th, 2013 - 09:32 am

I don't fully agree with you. A T45 would only be worth 5 T42s if it was able to be in five different places at the same time so cutting numbers is a big deal and in my opinion is one of the primary catalysts for all of this Argentinian sabre rattling. Remember, the primary role of a military force is not war, it is deterrence. Cutting numbers helped to precipitate the 1982 war besides a failing government and a failing economy. History is repeating itself.

Maybe KFC is preparing to sacrifice a small force so that she can run to the UN screaming 'no fair!' Still not cottoning on that nobody is listening. Either that or they have secretly cobbled together the combined forces of Mercosur to teach the gringos a lesson.
13 malicious bloke (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 09:49 am Report abuse
@11, the Mirage is a totally obsolete design. If you put it up against a Typhoon it would be a turkeyshoot.
14 reality check (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 09:57 am Report abuse
You also have to take into account that in 1982 we had significant Nato commitments. Most of our land forces and heavy equipment was then deployed in Germany to face the Soviet threat. That threat no longer exists, the need for those forces no longer exist. We do however and because of our commitments since 9/11, have sufficient forces, well trained and battle hardened, to deal with anything on this scale.
15 Martin Woodhead (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 10:16 am Report abuse
Shells and bullets dont really go out of date but sophisticated missiles do batteries for electronics rocket fuel etc etc.
argentina isn't really capable of anything serious but some sort of stunt is possibly on the horizon a show of overwhelming force is better than having to deal with an Argentina thats all riled up because of a “victory” no matter how retarded.
16 Clyde15 (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 10:39 am Report abuse
The problem is that the Argentine government have shown themselves to be duplicitous, congenital liars as far as the Falklands are concerned. Should we believe anything they say about peaceful intentions ? NO !!
It is better and less expensive to preempt any hostile action by having forces in place than having to bring them in later.
1982 surely taught us that.
As the referendum gets closer, the Arg. government are getting a bit more desperate and MAY try -by proxy - some headline grabbing stunt organised by one of their “civilian” supporter groups i.e Hitler SORRY Kirchner youth.
There is no direct threat to Argentina from these deployments, only a reminder that it would not be like the last time if they try anything stupid.
17 Viscount Falkland (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 10:44 am Report abuse
Lets just have a turkey shoot in the South Atlantic “Shoot-em up Gallery”.
18 Orbit (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 10:47 am Report abuse
In the face of diplomatic, political and economic hostility from CFK's government, this is a prudent move.

Interesting to see such a contrast in styles: quiet competence and forethought on the one hand, and arm waving, lies, and eye-popping ignorance from CFK on the other.
19 Islander1 (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 11:03 am Report abuse
A lot of press kerfuffle - UK has practised reinforcement exercises annually for a Quarter of a Century!! Often about this time of year. Often involves additional troops etc, often involves a submarine etc.
Facilities for additional aircraft at short notice have always been there as well.
Given the potential emabarrassment of a few special forces coming over on a small yaught or two and slipping into a couple of quiet unoccupied places and sticking up some flags and taking photos to “detract” from the Referendum - would not be surprised at all if same time was chosen for a NORMAL and ROUTINE exercise involving increased patrolling etc - just common sense.
20 Room101 (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 11:08 am Report abuse
Apart from anything else, it is a very good military exercise for UK.
21 Britworker (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 11:11 am Report abuse
Hopefully there will be a showdown between the IOU Libertrash and a T45 destroyer. They are well overdue a painful reminder of how inconsequential their Navy is to us.
Off topic. but I wonder if Turkey Neck is enjoying her world tour on her hired British jet?
22 Anbar (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 11:23 am Report abuse
take it for granted that the mention of “stunts” is deliberate and there to point very directly at a plan that the Argentine Government will now have to stop - or go ahead with in the knowledge that the UK know about it and will stop.

Any casualties from it can already be pinned on the wicked-witch's chest.

You have been warned after all.
23 Viscount Falkland (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 11:40 am Report abuse
To sum it up then......The people of the Falklands, the people of the UK and most of the rest of the world and a majority of Argentininians agree .... .........Eff-u CK
24 womble (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 11:42 am Report abuse
What I suspect will happen, is that Chinese fishing boats will be given licences to fish in Falklands waters by Argentina (who claim the waters for themselves).

When the Chinese start fishing there, there will be an incident with the Navy, which may or may not escalate. One things for sure, it's all very well being smug about the Argentine forces, but you don't really want to tweak the tail of China. Just ask Japan.
Does the Royal Navy want to fire across the bows of a Chinese jigger? Hmm. And I can't see Obama sending a fleet into the area to help.
25 Xect (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 11:47 am Report abuse
I agree War Monkey.

Even if the Type 45 is as capable as 5 Type 42's having all of that capability in a small number of ships leaves them vulnerable. It's fortunate that the Type 23's are also superb at air defence as well.

The Type 45 is an amazing bit of military hardware but we need more of these.

However we don't need more to deal with the joke Argentine military forces. Our reservists could easily deal with them.
26 Boovis (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 11:47 am Report abuse
@24: that won't happen, it's an idea but it won't happen because the trade between the UK and China more than outweighs any benefit China would have by supporting Argentina in a war. They're smart enough to throw frowns in the UN but ultimately do nothing. They also know better than to pick a fight with a NATO member, something Argentina apparently don't know.
27 coldo (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 11:48 am Report abuse
I fully expect to see an article by CFK or Tinnerman about their new complaint regarding the further militarisation of the South Atlantic and weapons of mass destruction etc. I am sure the Argentine government will now go round the rest of South America and drum up their verbal support of their case against the British.

I think we have been pandering to long with regards to showing our cards to Argentina. Don’t get me wrong, the last thing I think we should ever do is go to war if it can be helped. Loss of lives over this in 1982 was horrible and should be avoided at all costs. However, what I think is clear is that diplomatic channels do not work with the current government in Argentina. A Show of force will also not work publicly but I am sure behind closed doors they will be taking notice of this and cancelling / shelving plans to do anything during this very important referendum for the people of the Falklands. Well I hope that the case anyway. Going by past stunts of the Argentine’s they may simply see this as a challenge is a game they are playing and make more effort to do something forcing a situation.

CFK take notice and don’t do something stupid. Instead focus on your country and fix the internal problems you have there!
28 ABrit (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 11:54 am Report abuse
24, I highly doubt China would help Argentina. They're not exactly the greatest of allies. After all, China wouldn't benefit from it.
29 Boovis (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 11:56 am Report abuse
What are Argentina's plans for the population of the islands and how do they expect to house any argie immigrants there? Can they just direct the argie diggers towards the unmapped minefields?
30 Xect (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 11:57 am Report abuse
Essentially China wouldn't want to fight any western nation especially the UK given the ramifications would be severe for China in disrupting trade.

And there is no way China is going to enter into some ridiculous contravention of international laws on the say so of the failed country that is Argentina.
31 Boovis (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 12:08 pm Report abuse
Trade between the UK and China: 71.5 billion; Argentina and China: 13 Billion. No competition.
32 LEPRecon (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 12:25 pm Report abuse
@24 - womble

The Argentines have already tried this, but no one, not even the Chinese took them up on it.

Why pay Argentina a stupid amount of money, and risk being arrested by Falklands protection vessels, when you can just buy the licenses from the Falkland Islands Government and fish legally?

China may say a few 'ambiguous' words of encouragement occasionally to Argentina, but they will never get involved.

That's how China works. They will only get involved in something that will benefit them directly.

No only that, but Argentina recently 'arrested' Chinese fishing boats, accusing them of fishing illegally (which they probably were), so I doubt China are too happy with Argentina right now.
33 Pirate Love (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 12:40 pm Report abuse
any foolish military action against The Falklands should be made quite clear to argentina that its actions will bring repercussions on its shores, a message The Uk failed to send to all Argentines in 1982!
Bring the turmoil and hardship of war to the argentine people if they think attacking an innocent peaceful peoples is the way, then it is only right they truly understand consequences of such actions on home soil.

can someone remind me what happened when kuwait was invaded by its oppressive dictatorship neighbour by use of force?? there is no difference, and so there should be no difference in reaction by the whole of The UN this is not just a UK problem, this is an attack on UN human rights set out in its charter!

Argentina....Slavery has been abolished for nearly 200 hundred years, forcing your will on another peoples is a form of slavery, please do catch up with the rest of the world before you have your ass served to you, again :)

SELF-DETERMINATION, only fools make the same mistake twice!
34 Boovis (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 12:44 pm Report abuse
@33: the problem there is that you'd be falling into their trap. They want everyone to believe the UK and it's presence on the Falklands is a threat to mainland south america. If we just boot them off the islands and maybe sink a couple of their ships outside the waters as a result, the rest of the continent will publicly say dirt but basically do nothing. If we chase them home to their harbours and attack Argentina on their own soil then they'll be able to say “see we told you so” and why should we give them that gift?
35 Martin Woodhead (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 12:47 pm Report abuse
Nobody belives argentina wants a war but a stupid stunt that turns everything up to 11 is a possibility hence making sure said stunt doesnt happen.

The whole thing is stupid its been nearly 200 years and it wasnt a mass expulsion anyway.:(
36 Rubino84 (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 01:11 pm Report abuse
does the Uk have any AEW&C on the Islands?
37 Gustbury (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 01:19 pm Report abuse
bla bla bla.............idiots!
38 Boovis (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 01:26 pm Report abuse
Idiots with 4.5th generation fighters ;)
39 andy65 (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 01:58 pm Report abuse
@Gustbury (# The only idiots are you and Crissy Cruchner the super botox queen
40 JuanGabriel (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 02:05 pm Report abuse
@36 No. There are ground based radar stations sufficiently far from MPA to give enough warning for the Typhoons to get airborne. Having a Sentry based there would be a waste of resources (and for continous coverage you would need a few of them anyway and we only have 6)
41 txiki (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 02:06 pm Report abuse
Argies

24 aircraft with AAR capability that can lug ground attack weapons, none with any land attack PGM capacity.

7 AD Aircraft with no AAR capability, no credible BVR capability or defensive aids (thus limiting their range of operation and self-protection).

12 Fighter Bombers with no AAR capability, no credible BVR capability or defensive aids (thus limiting their range of operation and self-protection).

No AEW cover

V

UK

4 x 4.5 Generation aircraft with 16 x AIM-120 AMRAAM and 16 x AIM-132ASRAAM, 27MM Cannon and a comprehensive Defensive Aids System (normal QRA AD fit).

Multiple Rapier FSC all weather SAM batteries around the airfield each fitted with 8 missiles and capable of engaging 2 targets at the same time (Streets ahead of the FSA systems deployed in 1982 as regards reliability and effectiveness, plus the Argies can't avoid engagement by flying under the coverage of the system as they did in San Carlos).

Comprehensive ground based AD radar cover with integrated command and control, backed up by....

...The Guard ship (may or may not be an AAW ship (i.e. T45), but will have a 4.5 inch gun, Radar, Fighter Director plus some form of CIWS which actually works most of the time, and can communicate with Land and Air Forces, plus the UK.
42 Pirate Love (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 02:08 pm Report abuse
@34 and the alternative?, to live with endless provocation and aggression by the argentines? maybe that is the answer, but at very least any invasion force wether at sea,air or land should face full force and be made an example of swiftly,decisively and !completely! with the use of due necessary force, of course!!!
43 Gianni (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 02:18 pm Report abuse
Do chileans marry with kelpers vote?
44 Boovis (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 02:24 pm Report abuse
@43: I presume you mean “are Chileans resident in the islands who are married to multi-generational islanders allowed to vote?”
As far as I understand, anyone who is a permanent resident of the islands is allowed to vote.
45 CJvR (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 02:33 pm Report abuse
Oh yeah, this will go down well in BA. Perhaps the UK should send one of it's Trident boats down there just for fun...
46 atk357 (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 02:34 pm Report abuse
CFK's speeches, rethorical and absurd as they are, are making the UK react to it. It costs money to deploy military equipment and conduct exercises. But, we don't want to see another surprise like in 1982, do we?
47 Hi2U (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 02:34 pm Report abuse
2:34:56.789 gmT {maybe {{&maybe NOT {{{ new BBC Bldg day
48 pgerman (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 02:43 pm Report abuse
“new contingency plans designed to Prevent hostile action by Argentina towards the Falkland Islands.” It's the best joke I heard lately!

A couple of days ago I read on the website of a British newspaper that the annual cost of maintaining the garrison (aircrafts, submarine and vessels included) is estimated in 400 million pounds annually.. Who pays such amount only to “defend the right to self-determination” of 3000 people?

Surely the FI should be the territory with the highest defense spending per capita (and per square meter of surface) in the world in history. All this at the expense of the British taxpayer.

For such amount of money CFK would accept ceding the sovereignty of the Patagonia to the United Kingdom !!!
49 Shed-time (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 02:45 pm Report abuse
@44 are argentine foreigners that sneak onto the islands with flags allowed to vote?
50 reality check (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 02:50 pm Report abuse
Only if they are white flags and they vote yes!
51 Boovis (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 02:50 pm Report abuse
@48: seeing though Argentina murdered and stole to get Patagonia I'm not so sure it's hers to give away. Besides, why not ask patagonia if they want to be a BOT? I bet they'd say yes ;D
52 pgerman (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 02:53 pm Report abuse
@51 no doubt about the acceptance of being part of the UK.

I will be the first to accept that
53 ChrisR (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 02:55 pm Report abuse
34 Boovis

The Brits constantly fall into traps with AG (as far as they are concerned).

The question should really be: what is an appropriate land-based response to stop this AG aggravation for at least the next 50 years? This would give the islanders plenty of time to develop the Falklands (there are STILL no Malvinas you prats) much further in world recognition, whilst AG would be held back trying to recover from the strike.

My view, although to some people is a bit of overkill, is very simple. Cruise missiles need to take out all electrical power plants including their nuclear ones, then their commercial docks such as those at Rosarino, etc. finally all the major transport hubs for rail and road.

The people of AG need to realise that continually electing this trash into government and allowing them to continually cause trouble to peaceful people IS THEIR RESPONSIBILITY. With responsibility comes blame and retribution and if they are unwilling / incapable of righting the situation this will be the result.

Bleeding hearts can castigate me as much as they like but I have learnt a hard lesson in my life: giving way to bullies eventually makes things worst and more heartbreak for the innocent party always happens. Much better to bite the bullet now and deal with AG in a decisive way.
54 Shed-time (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 03:06 pm Report abuse
@53 The falklands basically have to become some kind of city-state like HK, if they want to survive with these imbeciles next door. Once they have considerable trade with the less-ridiculous neighbours there will be enough economic inertia to prevent an invasion.

Otherwise, the UK will need a small force to defend the airstrip and a SKYLON to get troops from UK to Mount Pleasant in 1 hour.

Other than that, I'd go with your strategy of taking out all their critical infrastructure so they slip back into the dark ages. The associated lashing out while they fall over would be quite extreme though.
55 Raven (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 03:28 pm Report abuse
@53 +54

Strikes against civilian infrastructure is out of bounds, especially Nuclear power stations.

It is also an illegal act to strike the Argentine mainland, unless war was declared. For the Malvinist half wits on here, that is why war was not declared in 1982. Special forces operations (including argentine SF) usually operate deniable operations, thereby circumventing that rule.

As has already been posted, the deployment is simply to show that the Falkland Islands wishes to remain a free country will be reinforced by a strong deterrent. As previous rhetoric from Bs As has shown they Argentine forces would invade if they were undefended. It would be un neccesary if it was not for the colonial ambitions of CFK and her cronies.
56 Musky (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 03:36 pm Report abuse
@28 ABrit
Indeed, why would China throw away trading with the UK and the huge EU market for a few squid. They would not.
57 Philippe (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 04:00 pm Report abuse
WARNING

NEVER trust the MALVINAZIS- for any reason, or no reason!

Philippe
58 Benson (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 04:07 pm Report abuse
@43 Marrying a resident doesn't automatically give you the vote, think you've got to live in the Falklands for 7 years.
59 Conqueror (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 04:07 pm Report abuse
On the article. There is NO Royal Navy vessel called HMS Gold. It probably means RFA Gold Rover (A271), a small fleet tanker. However, nobody should mistake what an RFA fleet tanker can do. She is armed and she can deploy naval troops.
@12 You should look up what a Type 45 can do. For example, they carry the Aster 15 and Aster 30 missiles with ranges between 2 and 120 kms. The Aster 30 is a BVR (Beyond Visual Range) missile. 120 kms is about 75 miles. So I don't think the Type 45 has to be on the spot.
@13 It's always worth remembering how many Mirage jets argieland lost in '82. Only 2 belonging to the FAA. As a result of which, they don't have any. Of course, their air force has 15! On a one missile per aircraft basis, we would need 2 Typhoons for those. But they are quick enough to run away!
@25 With respect, you shouldn't. Barring other commitments, Daring, Dauntless, Diamond and Dragon are all available. Defender and Duncan are awaiting commissioning. And that is expected this year! Try this “exercise”. All 6 Type 45s deployed around the Islands. Together with 6 Type 23 frigates. Let's say 3 fleet submarines. HMS Illustrious with Apache gunship helicopters embarked. Two squadrons of Typhoons.
@34 I tend to agree. With the 1st Armoured Division (UK) landing (all 400 Challenger 2 main battle tanks), together with every light tank we have, and rampaging around for a few days. Destroying everything they can. Little branches out to destroy every military facility within 500 miles. Royal Navy and RAF launching cruise missiles. Apache gunships.
@48 £400 million is nothing to the UK. However, the figure is wrong. It's more like £60 million. But ONE British citizen is worth £400 million! What's an argie citizen worth? £4? With inflation!
60 LEPRecon (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 04:21 pm Report abuse
@48 - pgerman

You talk about the cost of protecting the Falklands. Yet what you fail to grasp is that cost of defending the Falklands is LESS than 3% of the annual defence budget in the UK - so in other words a pittance.

So if we send ships or troops to the Falklands to train it won't actually have much of an impact on the Defence budget, as the troops and ships have to train anyway.

For British troops; they train in a variety of countries: Poland, Czech Republic, Canada, Belize, Norway, Kenya, USA etc... So the cost of training in the Falklands wouldn't be affected or would be negligible at best.

So pgerman, there really is no need for you to worry about it, after all, the British taxpayer don't worry about it. We want well-trained and equipped Armed Forces, and we want ALL British territory, wherever it is in the world, to be safe and secure against aggressive nations with colonial ambitions.
61 redpoll (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 04:54 pm Report abuse
Hansard March 2013
Mr Speaker:Will the Prime Minister please comment on the present situation of the militarisation of the South Atlantic?
PM Thank you. Yes we have information that Argentina is developing a weapon of mass destruction in the province of Chubut opposite the Falkland Islands. Our intelligence services indicate that this weapon has already undergone preliminary testing resulting in the decimation of fresh water fish stocks in that area. HM government has made a strong protest to the United Nations on this matter
MP Do we have a name for this new weapon Prime Minister?
PM Yes I can tell you that . Its called THINK
62 Anbar (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 06:19 pm Report abuse
“”“” Who pays such amount only to “defend the right to self-determination” of 3000 people?“”“”“

400 million is not very much in the grand scale of things...but its less than that anyway and paid for the Falklands Govt. ~63 million for 2013.

At the end of the day what price for self--determination and democracy?

Other than a few ”Out there” politicians and reporters trying to make a splash nobody ever mentions it or regards it in anyway as being a significant issue.

I'm sure it will prove easy to find a contrary opinion on the internet though, that's what its for ateotd. ¬_¬

-------

redpoll: the Argentines already have a working Weapon of Mass Destruction: its called Cristina and is currently destroying Argentina.
63 andy65 (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 06:21 pm Report abuse
The Chilean governmant are not very happy giving Kirchner to much support (The Chilean President as made two official visits to The UK in the past 3 years) though they say they support Argentine claims they want very little to do with it and certainly will not be OBEYING SS HITLER KIRCHNERS wishes to isolate The Islands

www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3zcrQogZ3M

Chileans living on The Falkland Islands will be supporting a pro keep links with The UK vote,they seem to totally dislike Kirchner

www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uPHb2b2gIY
64 Zethee (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 06:32 pm Report abuse
48: ”Surely the FI should be the territory with the highest defense spending per capita (and per square meter of surface) in the world in history.”

No, Because this is totally and utterly untrue. The annual cost for the defense of the islands is £70 million. A cost the islanders have stated they are happy to pay when the islands oil industry develops.
65 Rubino84 (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 07:02 pm Report abuse
@40, So I have a question, how can you detect a squadron of A4 flying really low, all of them with the capability to hit 200 km away from the target?
66 Steve-33-uk (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 07:06 pm Report abuse
'It is unlikely that Argentina invades Falklands, says UK minister'
www.eluniversal.com.co/cartagena/actualidad/es-improbable-que-argentina-invada-malvinas-dice-ministro-de-gran-bretana-10478
67 redpoll (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 07:14 pm Report abuse
@65 You have a patrol of SAS watching them take off like last time
68 Rubino84 (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 07:46 pm Report abuse
@67 Patrol where, Mainland Argentina??? And how long would it take a Typhoon to reach 200 miles from start?
69 andy65 (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 07:49 pm Report abuse
@Rubino84 Are you suggesting The Islands are not well protected????
70 Steve-33-uk (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 08:01 pm Report abuse
'South Atlantic Summit countries in Uruguay discussed the Falklands' ~While there has transcended more information about the content of the meeting, Uruguayan government sources pointed out that the Falklands conflict will be present, but have not confirmed the existence of a common position on the participating countries...'
noticias.terra.com.co/internacional/cumbre-de-paises-de-atlantico-sur-en-uruguay-debatira-el-tema-malvinas,c4b762744ea2c310VgnCLD2000000ec6eb0aRCRD.html
71 BritishguyfromLondon (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 08:12 pm Report abuse
@12 The Type 45 has the air defence capacity of five Type 42s. That's all I meant
@13 Indeed it would, as it's not an air-to-air combat fighter. It's still a deadly ground attack weapon
72 briton (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 08:12 pm Report abuse
They lost,
full stop,

try again, and you will lose again, full stop.
73 LEPRecon (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 08:19 pm Report abuse
@65 -Rubino

If Argentina attacked the Falklands the UK would respond. The 1st thing we'd do is gain complete air superiority. This is now standard NATO doctrine which is a result of what happened in the Falklands War, when the UK didn't gt complete air superiority and lost valuable lives and military hardware (ships). Since then COMPLETE air superiority is a necessity.

Any attack on the Falklands would give the UK the right to invoke article 15 of the UN charter, which allows a country to act in self defence.

In order to defend the Falklands, Argentina's airforce, radar stations and anti-aircraft weapons would be destroyed.

So on 1st strike a few Argentine missiles might just get past the UK anti-aircraft and anti-missile weapons, which is capable of tracking AND destroying low altitude targets, but the result would be the UK destroying Argentina's air defences to PROTECT the Falklands and its people from threat. We would also be allowed to destroy ANY Argentine vessel that we considered a threat. In other words VIABLE military targets.

Any deaths would be placed firmly on Argentina's shoulders, and the UK could demand that the Argentine President be charged with war crimes if civilian targets were deliberately attacked.

The Falklands are well defended. Argentina's air force is a shadow of its former self, and it's doubtful that they have the capability or weaponry, to attack the Falklands, and they certainly don't have the capacity for any sustained operations over long periods.

Just a reminder. In late 2001 and early 2002, the UK launched surgical missile strikes into Afghanistan from submarines based in the middle of the Indian Ocean, so hitting Argentine targets from the middle of the south Atlantic wouldn't be too difficult for our submarines.
74 reality check (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 08:26 pm Report abuse
Does the FAA have a stand off weapon with a 200km range, I doubt it. The A4 was a classic aircraft for it's time and still is, but it is just to small to install todays modern targetting technology on it. Remember, they did the damage coming in at wave top height with free fall bombs, that is why so many passed through the ships and did not detonate, (Thank you BBC for broadcasting the fact) they did not have enough height to arm.

The ARA Entendards did damage with their Exocets, anti shipping missiles, but things have changed since then. They are likely to be detected today, anti missile missile systems have moved on leaps and bounds since then. They would need to be extremely lucky to inflict damage on a type 45.

Someone mentioned our AEW capability, yes we have our own but we also contribute to Nato AEW they were based at Gielenkirchen, Germany. The AWAC's would probably operate from Ascension, 2000 miles out and loiter, with inflight refuelling, for 12 hours or longer. They will be able to see and control everthing from that distance too the Islands, it's a common mistake to think an AEW needs to be close to the battle space. Height and distance is their best protection from interception, afer all they are basically an airliner.

Then there's the Radar on the Island, able to see out as far as the curvature of the earth, it's highly probable that the operators monitor the nearest FAA bases already, as a matter of course. They will have been doing it for years. As soon as there is any indication of FAA aircraft heading for the Islands, the Typhoons will be scrambled. No need for standing patrols, that's why radar helped us win the Battle of Britian in 1940 and the Luftwaffe were 30 miles away! All modern interceptors, typhoon included have a look down shoot down capability, they will intercept them at ranges in excess of 100 miles.

So in my humble amature (Ex RAF) opinion, an ARA, FAA air attack, is a costly option. This is not 82.
75 JuanGabriel (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 08:30 pm Report abuse
@65 well you may as well ask how you detect fairies and ufos.

What is this mythical 200km stand off missile the Fighting Hawks can now carry? (if they can get airborne)
76 briton (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 08:32 pm Report abuse
The falklands are better protected, than Argentina is,

CFK should remember this,
besides she would make a very good target,

still,
as long as she just talks, we can all just ignore her as rambling.
77 redpoll (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 08:34 pm Report abuse
One has to admire the French in one respect. When one of thier francaphone nations, (ex colonies) need help they dont mess about. Its gloves off and send in La Legion and bomb the buggers. Lots of trousers with brown stains They also know how and when to get out after administrating a short sharp shock probably with the saying as they go back to France “Alors mes amis, here is your country back.Try and do better next time”
78 LEPRecon (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 08:34 pm Report abuse
@75 -Juan

I believe they're called...“wishful thinking”! ;)
79 Islander1 (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 08:37 pm Report abuse
68- a fully armed fully fueled Typhoon can be on the western edge of the Islands within 8 minutes of the scramble button being hit at MPA base - and a 2nd aricraft not many minutes behind.
And the mountain top EW Radars can see a lot further than 8 mins flying.
Calm down folks - its just a lot of hot air from UK journalists who often have little idea of what they are talking about. Reinforcement exercises have been regular events for a 1/4 of a century!!
80 Islas Malvinas (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 08:45 pm Report abuse
Warmongers spirit, they say.
81 reality check (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 08:50 pm Report abuse
Juan

We do detect UFO's, when I was stationed at Akrotiri?Troodos, Cyprus in 79-81, our radar use to pick them up all the time

I worked outside at night, you would not believe the sites you see in the night skies of the Med. We even had a MOD Form for writing up the sightings. I saw things in the night sky, I can not even get my head around today! reported on the net and confirmed by radar! Lights stationary, all one colour sometimes different colours, shifting directions at phenomenal speed etc. Maybe it was the Yanks or maybe the Russians, who knows? shit, may even have been the Junta! but I know what I saw! several times!

Never saw a fairy though, least wise, not when I was sober!!!!!!!!!!!
82 andy65 (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 08:50 pm Report abuse
Britain would have EU support under treaty, so you can count on aircraft carriers coming to assistance, as well as NATO
83 Clyde15 (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 08:57 pm Report abuse
The A4 was a 1950's design and a good aircraft in its day but now it is hopelessly out -classed. It is probably fit for counter insurgency use but not against a modern fighter aircraft.
The Typhoon would use them as target practice.
I don't think your military would send them on a suicide mission.
84 reality check (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 09:04 pm Report abuse
Sorry Andy, have to disagree, Nato allies and EU, would probably support us with logistic assistance and intelligence, but that is probably the extent of it. I also do not think, given the current US Administration, that we would get the same assistance as last time, from our friends across the pond. Moral support yes, always welcome, but thats about all.

This is all conjecture anyway, because there is not going to be another conflict, but it does no harm to show you are prepared.
85 redpoll (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 09:06 pm Report abuse
@81 No . what you saw was a glimpse into the future of black widows riding broomsticks. Powerful stuff that ouzo
@82 Wouldnt bet on that mate. The French had a team in Argentina in 82 teaching that lot how to arm Exocet missiles
86 andy65 (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 09:11 pm Report abuse
@reality check tend to agree with you about NO WAR but I think we might be supprised with help from countrys like Canada Australia-even USA offered a carrier last time in the event of our carriers being sunk,also can you really believe The USA would stay nutral towards armed aggression?? they might try the peacful approach first but surely to do nothing would go against there whole foreign policy
87 reality check (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 09:12 pm Report abuse
Redpoll
Certainly is, love the stuff with a shot of ice, best thing for keeping you cool in the heat. Then again after two glasses, it could be you don't just give a damn.
88 pgerman (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 09:41 pm Report abuse
Dear Anbar,

Let's do some figures:

You mentioned 63 million pounds. This is roughly 100 millon U$D. Based on the information that appear in the media there are 1500 soldiers there. So, this means that paying each soldier an average of U$D 5,600 per month at the end of the year the 100 million U$D are gone. So, it's higly impossible that the whole Garrison can be afforded with 100 million U$D.

And I'm not mentioning the crew of the ships, planes, submarines, etc.

Take into account that a frigate or a destructor (with all the equipment functioning and with all the crew) has an operational cost of U$D 80,000/100,00 per day. And I'm talking about Argentine frigates which are not “the state of the art” at all.

I don't have information about the operational costs of a nuclear submarine but I bet they must be extremely expensive.

Each Typhoon has a cost of 200 million U$D (that is the amount that was officially reported) and the operational cost must be one of the hightest all around the World. Take, for instance, that the Swedish Gripen has an operational costs of 2,500 dollars per hour, while an F-16 comes to 3,700 dollars per hour.

So, really it can't be 100 million dollars per year. It's simply impossible. Several British newspapers inform from 365 to 400 million pounds per year.

Let's now discuss about trade between both nations. During year 2011 (this is the information I have now) Argentine exports to the UK were placed at $ 779.5 million U$D and exports from that country totaled 664.2 million U$D, amounts that result in a positive trade balance in favor of Argentina for 150 million U$D yearly.

Do you think it's rational the cost of the Garrison? Do you find it acceptable? To protect the self-determination of 3000 people?
89 andy65 (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 09:49 pm Report abuse
Dear pgerman (#

The soilders based on the Falklands the equipment based on The Falklands would all be used elsewhere if not there the soilders get there salary where ever they are stationed,the budget for defending The Falklands is set at around £70 million,unlike Argentina we do not belive or practise false accounting.
90 ChrisR (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 10:00 pm Report abuse
68 Rubino84

Have you not heard of the Typhoon: please watch the video of a FULLY LOADED Typhoon take off, go vertical and then do a number of rolls, etc.

Then ask yourself a question. The argie Mirage planes are now grounded permanently due to time expired airframes and ALL having severe airframe damage, so WTF are AG going to use as a (35 YO) fast strike fighter? I will answer that for you: NADA.

How long for a Typhoon (fully armed as in the video) to fly 200 miles (322 km)?

At the maximum supercruise speed (no afterburners needed which increases the range considerably) of Mach 1.1 or 810 miles per hour it will take 14.8 min.

But that in itself is irrelevant because the Typhoon can see the enemy well over the horizon (using its advanced radar) fire its missiles and go home. The missiles of course have restricted access to the performance data but would be 2,500 mph minimum, see:

www.mbda-systems.com/mediagallery/files/ASRAAM_background.pdf

It is much faster than the AMRAAM but is limited to 15 Km (9.5 miles) for normal combat. This means it has a flight time of 13.6 SECONDS.

The well worn phrase one should ask any argie pilot brave or stupid enough to tackle a Typhoon is simply ‘do you feel lucky, punk?’ before he DIES.

Do you understand now how pathetic your air force is against these sorts of threat? Blame your government, not the pilots.
91 Zethee (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 10:03 pm Report abuse
pgerman:

As andy has mentioned. Our operational costs for those troops are not increased because of the islands. If we did not have the islands, those 1500 troops, typhoons and ships would be repositioned elsewhere and would be costing us the exact same money they do right now: Apart from costs that arise DIRECTLY due to the fact that they are on those islands.

We did not buy two Typhoons and an extra Type 45 for the islands. That would run the operational costs for the island's in the billions in the last year alone.

Fuel bills
Logistics
Running the base/Maintenance for the islands

These are costs that are extra because of the fact the troops are stationed in the south Atlantic rather than in the UK.

These costs are roughly 60 to 70 million a year.

“Do you think it's rational the cost of the Garrison? Do you find it acceptable? To protect the self-determination of 3000 people?”

And the vast majority of British people support the islanders, so yes. Also, 70 million is less than 0.02% of our budget, not much really.
92 zethe (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 10:13 pm Report abuse
Also i don't know where you got your figures from but:

Average troop cost: £17000 annually times 1500 troops stationed on base = £25.5 million.

With a cost of 75 million seems plausible that they may even include troop costs in the figure though the report i read stated that it did not.
93 reality check (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 10:14 pm Report abuse
pgerman
The real cost of defending the islands was 255 of our servicemen and 3 islanders. That is not taking in to consideration of the number of enemy we were forced to kill.

Any amount of money that prevents that from happening again. is money well invested.
94 ptolemy (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 10:20 pm Report abuse
If anything happens, it will be near April 2 when Cristina will incite the population with the usual BS. Probably the British Embassy will be burned down this year. I predict it will not be a good time for foreigners in the country.
95 pgerman (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 10:20 pm Report abuse
Dear Zethee and Andy65

Countries don't estimate and get their budget approved based on the thought. They spend money as its needed.

“unlike Argentina we do not believe or practise false accounting”. Good for the UK and the FI people. The Argentine government does practice false accounting and, believe me, it's a dead end. Sooner or later the Batata Queen will have to deal with it.

70 millon pounds would pay the operational costs of two warships and the nuclear submarine during the 365 ayds of the year. (112 million U$D/100,000 U$D per day gives 1120 operational days. This is 365 multiply by three)

No matter the turns I give to your numbers, they don't match.

“The soldiers based on the Falklands, the equipment based on The Falklands would all be used elsewhere”. Yes sure.

But also this money would be used for better medical treatment to the British citizens, to pay better retirements to elderly people or to improve education.

Don't you think it would be wiser?
96 reality check (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 10:26 pm Report abuse
pgmen
Still do not get it do you? Whatever the cost, it will me met, somethings can not be valued in £'s, $'s or P's.
97 Monty69 (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 10:42 pm Report abuse
95 pgerman

No. I don't think it would be wiser. The annual budget of the National Health Service is £106 billion. I don't think it would make much difference, do you?
98 andy65 (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 10:43 pm Report abuse
@pgerman , you are entitled to your opinion although wrong and misguided I for one would be outraged if our governmant let a tyrant trouble causer corupt evil person like Kirchner get away with what she is doing. The United Kingdom is not threatning Argentina infact no one here in The UK would be discussing The Falkland Islands if it was not for this weekly rubbish of lies and propoganda coming from the chemically henhanced lips of this woman.
David Cameron and rightly so as made it quite clear if Argentina is planning on pulling any stunts then the Islands are protected well enough and we will not think twice about using military action if faced with an attack.Now any normal sane person would take that as a warning to lay of but as we all know we are not dealing with a sane normal person are we??? We British I would like to think do not leave our fellow citizens to suffer at then hands of a bully just like France have reacted to the call of help from one of it's former colonies they are doing whats right in the 21st century,The Falkland Islands are a British Overseas Territory and we would do the same in defending the other overseas territorys,these people are not being forced by some modern day colonial rule they are what they are by choice.
99 Xect (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 10:45 pm Report abuse
Argentine posters arguing about the costs do not understand the British mentality.

Not only is it less than 0.05% of the defence budget but the British have always been willing to take on the aggressors especially if they are bullying a small population in this case Argentina.

And on top of that, the illegal invasion of the Falkland Island's by Argentina cost British servicemen their lives and the British do not like that at all.

Essentially we can afford to do this at several hundred times the cost and will keep defending those people from Argentina.
100 reality check (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 10:49 pm Report abuse
In 1982 the cost of recovering the islands was £2 or $3.6 billion. That was 30 years ag0. Someone else do the maths, whats £70m a year, with inflation compared to then?
101 zethe (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 11:02 pm Report abuse
“ Several British newspapers inform from 365 to 400 million pounds per year.”

The GOVERNMENT < < Clearly stated in parliament and has given a breakdown of the costs each year from 1982. The costs are 70 million a year. The 300 million pound is just some number circulating on WIKI with absolutely no reference of proof whatsoever.

“No matter the turns I give to your numbers, they don't match. ”

OUR numbers don't match up? Lmao, that's amazing coming from you. Lets look at your numbers, shall we?

You state that our average military pay is 5,600 USD.
- Converted into sterling: £3483 monthly salary roughly £42,000 a year.(42k....right....)
- Times that by 1500 and just the wages of our troops alone come £630,000,000 alone.

But wait...That doesn't even match up with your own 300 million you suggested?

Lets look at my rough math
Wages: £17000x1500 = £25,500,000
Type 45 running costs: £18,000,000
River class patrol ship: £5,000,000
Typhoon costs: £4.7 million x 2 = 9.4

Total so far 57.4

13,000,000 million on logistics and maintenance doesn't seem like too much of a stretch.
102 andy65 (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 11:07 pm Report abuse
WOW I can assure you The British Military DO NOT pay soilders £42.000 per year
103 Zethee (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 11:08 pm Report abuse
My mistake:

Typhoon costs: £4.7 million x 4 = 18.8

Total 66.8.

I believe we said the average running costs of the islands was between 60 and 70 million?
104 reality check (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 11:08 pm Report abuse
Put it this way, annual UK expenditure on free universal health care in the UK is, 850 Billion RG pesos.
105 Britworker (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 11:10 pm Report abuse
@95
I guess you need to understand the difference in mentality, between the UK and Argentina and some 'other' South American countries. We don't abandon our people whereever they are. At the end of the 1982 war, the Argentines left their own teenage soldiers on the Falklands for months, freezing with no food, they couldn't give a stuff about them, it was left to islanders and the British army to feed and clothe them and stop them from freezing to death. That is the difference between them and us. So put your calculator away and open your mind.
106 reality check (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 11:14 pm Report abuse
Shit, 42 grand a year, gonna lie about my age and re enlist again.

You think they need another Corporal JONES?
107 Britworker (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 11:21 pm Report abuse
So, do we think MI5 got Cristinas plane wired up before she rented it? I think they would have been a little remiss in their duties if they didn't. :-)
108 Zethee (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 11:23 pm Report abuse
I doubt they would care.
109 pgerman (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 11:23 pm Report abuse
Dear Zethee:

troops 62.694.000
Two frigates and a submarine 54.000.000
Rvier Class Patrol 2.500.000
4 Typhoons 18.800.000
Logistic and maintenance 13.000.000
150.994.000

You are not considering the C-130, the air refueling plane, etc

Do you agree with me now? Of course their are rough figures
110 reality check (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 11:23 pm Report abuse
My bet is the bug is in her vibrator!
111 Anbar (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 11:28 pm Report abuse
“”“”“I also do not think, given the current US Administration, that we would get the same assistance as last time, from our friends across the pond. Moral support yes, always welcome, but thats about all. ”“””

Not so sure about that, there's a few favours owing... regardless of what happens in public. If they didnt then i very much doubt that the nation would forget that.

----------

pgerman the cost is, ateotd, irrelevant so long as the nation is willing to pay it, and most are and will continue to be.

That's a harsh reality that CFK hasn't yet learned, but one of the Argentinians previous administrations learned the hard way...at the cost of a lot of lives, lives needlessly thrown away on the Argentine side of things on a political stunt to draw attention away from a failing regime.

The shocking thing is that it might happen again, all because of yet another corrupt Argentine Governing body.

The questions you should be asking, and the people you should be asking them of, are Argentine.
112 MrFlagpole (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 11:30 pm Report abuse
The cost is irrelevant. The islanders are British. And will be protected by the British forces. It's what they're for. There would be no point having an army if they couldn't do this.

If we only had 2000 soldiers they would all be on FI.
113 pgerman (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 11:31 pm Report abuse
The fact that CFK rented a UK plane is another example of her hypocrisy !!!
I don't understand why the M15 has wired the plane..just shoot it down !!!!
114 andy65 (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 11:37 pm Report abuse
Hitting a woman is totally wrong, could I smack this one in the mouth?? without a doubt everytime I see this THING ranting and raging my blood boils
115 reality check (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 11:37 pm Report abuse
Anbar.
No, seriously under this present administartion I think we can forget any help from the US. Whilst I am at it, the cold war ended 20 years ago, why do we still have american bases in the UK? Think it is time the USAF left Lakenheath and Mildenhall and fucked off back home. Someone want to tell us why they are still here?
116 Raven (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 11:40 pm Report abuse
@115

I have a sneaky feeling they have RAF bases in exchange for the provisions supplied between 1939 and 1945.
117 andy65 (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 11:45 pm Report abuse
@reality check, I seriously believe America would not stand by where an English speaking community were invaded against there will that type of stuff leaves the gates open for all kinds of stuff and makes America look weak if you think back to 1982 they tried a peace process if it had worked America comes out looking good,now it did not work so why didn't America then just stay nutral think about it, it goes against everything Tthe USA stands for.
118 slattzzz (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 11:50 pm Report abuse
The only people on 42k a year apart from officers is a Chief tiff nuclear watchkeeper submariner a Chief Petty Officer is on about 31k a year, and as everyone else has stated it doesn't matter where in the world they are they get paid the same anyway. A ship at sea still employs the same ships company as alongside, the only difference is fuel, same goes for the typhoons the cost is exactly the same be it in Mount Pleasant or Leuchars. The army guys will be paid exactly the same wherever they are with a ramp up in pay for Afghan, so take away all that and 60 million for the islands defence is probably right. You don't think that they made extra ships and Typhoons just for the Falklands do you they are all included in the MOD itinery and defence budget and I bet the typhoons in the Falklands fly about the same amount of sorties as the one's stationed in Britain, require the same maintenence, or don't you think we maintain them over here only when they're needed? Not maintaining ships and aircraft is an Rg trait.
119 surfer (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 11:52 pm Report abuse
amusing update on the pride of the Argentine navy.... movil.clarin.com/politica/Protesta-Gobierno-Fragata-Libertad_0_847115455.html
120 reality check (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 11:55 pm Report abuse
The operative words were, under this current administration, I think the current man would take the view it has nothing to do with the US, it is not in the US interest to be involved. That's how the man thinks.

As for the bases, 60 years is payment enough, why do they need to be here, there's no threat to them anymore. They are only here for a foothold, it's time they left.
121 Pete Bog (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 11:57 pm Report abuse
@24
”What I suspect will happen, is that Chinese fishing boats will be given licences to fish in Falklands waters by Argentina (who claim the waters for themselves).”

So China are going to risk loosing £71 billion of trade with the UK and exchange it for the lesser amount of trade with Argentina?

A Chinese Jigger was recently arrested by Argentina for fishing without a license. Why did a chinese jigger do that if they are mates with Argentina?

The Falkland Islands are further away from China than they are from the UK.

Are China going to risk a war over the FI with the UK? What will the Chinese gain from that?

If chinese jiggers want to fish FI waters, they will buy licenses off the Islanders-they will not risk a confrontation with the British, otherwise China would have attacked Argentina for impounding their jigger.

If chinese jiggers buy licenses off Argentina to fish FI waters, and they are ejected, the chinese will get their money back off Argentina, one way or another.....
122 Shed-time (#) Jan 14th, 2013 - 11:58 pm Report abuse
“fighting the spanish armarda cost millions in real terms, don't you think the money would have been better spent on the NHS?”
“fighting the germans in 1930/40s cost trillions, don't you think that money would have been better spent on the NHS?”

... urm
123 andy65 (#) Jan 15th, 2013 - 12:01 am Report abuse
@surfer “This is not the first reaction against the government after the return of the frigate. Yesterday, Luis Suarez, the bartender of the ship, broke the silence and said the act with which President Cristina Kirchner received the ship ”was embarrassing.” After these statements, the man with 28 years serving in the frigate, lost his job.

NICE TO SEE FREEDOM OF SPEACH WORKS WELL IN ARGENTINA.
124 Rubino84 (#) Jan 15th, 2013 - 12:04 am Report abuse
@69 Without AEW&C, pretty much.
@74 Yes it does have one.
@75 It's call dardo 3, and a Fighting hawk can carry up to 2.
@79 WAYYYY to long....
125 andy65 (#) Jan 15th, 2013 - 12:07 am Report abuse
@Rubino84 I think your living in fantasy land my friend just like that person Hitler Kirchner
126 Shed-time (#) Jan 15th, 2013 - 12:15 am Report abuse
@125 are you suggesting that Maximo is not his real name, and he was instead named after his Uncle Adolf?
127 reality check (#) Jan 15th, 2013 - 12:17 am Report abuse
A Fighting Hawk, Wow! A 1998 upgrade of a 1954 aircraft. Dardo 3, can not find it on here anywhere. Must be a really good secret weapon, if no one is trying to sell it!
128 slattzzz (#) Jan 15th, 2013 - 12:24 am Report abuse
@124 dardo 3 is a close in weapon system made by Breda I cannot find any missle with the same name ref AEW aircraft, they can be stationed a long way off as they were in the gulf wars stationed over Saudi reporting to us tracks we couldn't see at 100nm, via real time data links and the clearest comms I have ever heard. Then I suppose you don't think we are listening to Rg radio transmissions and using EW to detect aircraft, as soon as an Rg plane lit up it's Radar or weapon systems it would have a Typhoon up it's arse faster than the pilot could say three hail Marys, and finally ever heard of satellite imagery, as soon as you put more than three aircraft on the runway at once the 4 Typhoons would be ready and waiting and the ships would be at action stations with two on the launcher. FACT
129 Shed-time (#) Jan 15th, 2013 - 12:27 am Report abuse
Do they have a hand of nod?
130 reality check (#) Jan 15th, 2013 - 12:37 am Report abuse
Dardo is Spanish for dart, the closest I could find for it was an Isreali air defence missile, range of 200km. think not! Make sense though. getting their stuff from the Isrealis.
131 slattzzz (#) Jan 15th, 2013 - 12:48 am Report abuse
Dardo3 Dildo3 more like
132 reality check (#) Jan 15th, 2013 - 12:58 am Report abuse
Found it on one of their sites. Looks like a locally developed (no wonder their proud of it) mediem size cruise missile, possily anti ship, as a glass covered nose tip, suggesting TV or laser guided. Anyone seen the size of an A4, well two of these will fit it on it, gives you an idea of the size of a Dardo 3. It's a drone!
133 Anbar (#) Jan 15th, 2013 - 02:03 am Report abuse
The Chinese will not, under pretty much any circumstances, mess in the Atlantic, North or South.

The Yanks wont let them...its totally closed-off no arguments “You shall not pass!!”.

----

In reality the only thing the Argentine ruling nutters can do is send in a token force to do something smug and pointless like plant a flag somewhere....

probably hoping one or more of the team get shot (for the political mileage they *think* they might get out of it).

All this other talk about weapons systems and spending is pointless, even if CFK had the military power she's gutless as exhibited regularly by her “going ill” to avoid stressful meetings.

Maggie she aint.
134 reality check (#) Jan 15th, 2013 - 06:24 am Report abuse
See none of the trolls took the anti american bait, damn!
135 JuanGabriel (#) Jan 15th, 2013 - 06:53 am Report abuse
One thinks mister Rubino has been spending too much time at places like Above Top Secret. Next he will be telling us this drawing board fantasy weapon has precision runway denial ability and bunker busting capability. I mean, let's go along with his fantasy and say the Argy rust buckets get within 200km and launch these imaginary missiles - then what? The ones that don't get shot down magically destroy every HAS and both runways and make them unrepairable?
136 LEPRecon (#) Jan 15th, 2013 - 07:50 am Report abuse
@95 - pgerman

Unlike you, we British don't put a price tag on freedom.

Britain already spends £200,000,000,000 per year so that EVERY British citizen has access to free healthcare. That's $322,000,000,000 US dollars per year.

So we have more than enough to provide healthcare for our people AND protect them at the same time.

But I ask you, pgerman, the British taxpayer has no problems with defending British people and British territory, so why you?

You keep babbling on about costs, well those planes, men, and vessels would still be being paid for even if they weren't in the Falklands. So all the assets, wages etc...are already paid for. The £60-70 million pounds that it costs to defend the Islands is down to maintaining the military garrison buildings, utilities, logistics including getting military personnel to and from the Islands.

All the other figures you produced you have either accidentally or deliberately over-estimated, and would be paid no matter WHERE those assets were in the world.

So your arguments are shallow at best, but mainly fictitious.

Remember this though. The price of freedom is blood. We've already paid in blood to free the Islanders from a brutal murderous dictatorship. We will do so again and again, and again no matter WHAT the cost.
137 Shed-time (#) Jan 15th, 2013 - 09:01 am Report abuse
@136 'Freedom isn't free No, there's a hefty f*ckin' fee And if you don't throw in your buck 'o five Who will?”, Team America, 2004
138 lsolde (#) Jan 15th, 2013 - 10:26 am Report abuse
@81 reality check,
Re your comment on UFOs.
l believe you.
l too, have seen them.
l'm open to suggestions of what they are although l do have my own theories.
139 ChrisR (#) Jan 15th, 2013 - 10:47 am Report abuse
124 Rubino84

Dardo 3? The only Dardo weapons system I can find on any of my military sites is the Italian anti-ship 40mm cannon system.

You sure it’s not a Dildo, which would be appropriate for something that old and only 82% of the speed against the supercruise of the Typhoon whose maximum speed is IN EXCESS of 1,500 mph (2,415 kph).

I remember these planes now. They are very old and despite ‘enhancements’ remain a tiny plane with very limited hardware flexibility. Quite how they can carry two missiles with 250 Km range (that no one else has ever heard of) is beyond belief: they have not been specified by INDEC have they?

The reality of this, whether you agree or not, is that these ancient airframes will have NO chance against a Typhoon: they will not get within firing range before they are blown out of the sky.

And that is before we consider the British ‘deadly duo’ of a T45 and Typhoons acting in concert.

It seems you are just another argie bullshitter or you believe the lies put out by Putidjelli, your wop ‘Defence Minister’ (that’s an oxymoron as well).
140 womble (#) Jan 15th, 2013 - 10:57 am Report abuse
@121 Pete bog (and others) - you say that China wouldn't risk losing British business for the sake of some fishing, but it seems to be ready to go to war with Japan over some uninhabited islands, and Japan has about $300billion worth of trade with China.

Western logic doesn't apply to China, which looks after its own interests and sod anyone else. Many of the worlds conflict zones in Africa nad Middle East are there because China is vetoing intervention from the US and EU.
141 bigron (#) Jan 15th, 2013 - 11:30 am Report abuse
There are government sponsored activists actively requesting clandestine transit to the Falklands. I was recently told this by a Chilean friend who has a special interest in violent left-wing groups that conspire against the rule of law in both Argentina and Chile. Many of these groups are indirectly paid by CFK - this is one of her ''quieter cash businesses''. This does not end well.
142 Zethee (#) Jan 15th, 2013 - 11:42 am Report abuse
Wages: £17000x1500 = £25,500,000
Type 45 running costs: £18,000,000
River class patrol ship: £5,000,000
Typhoon costs: £4.7 million x 4 = 18.8

£68 million pounds. Those are the operating costs for the base.

Not lets go through the rubbish you mentioned..

“Two frigates and a submarine 54.000.000
Rvier Class Patrol 2.500.000”

There is no submarine and no second frigate. The cost for the ONE frigate and ONE patrol boat is above in my calculation. There is a sub in the south Atlantic, it however is not attached to the Falklands islands. However it can be called in to the area in an emergency.

“Logistic and maintenance 13.000.000”

No. That was simply a mistake from my calculation. Not a fact in any way.

“troops 62.694.000”

I don't normally like to insult people...But are you stupid? I have given you the factual cost for the troops on the island's going by the ACTUAL wage that the average UK soldier gets per year. This is 23 million for 1500 troops. Not 62 million. In any way. At all.

“You are not considering the C-130, the air refueling plane, etc”

At most £200,000 a year. And maintenance. Hell put it at £2million. Makes the grand sum of just over 70 million. The number we stated all along.

Do you agree with me now?

- No because you are completely and utterly wrong in every way. You come out with random numbers and somehow say that our numbers are wrong? You stated the islands cost us 3 to 400 million. Now its 150 million. You don't even know what you are saying.

I said in my first post that the islands cost us 70 million a year. And look: after doing my math with numbers i came up with from actual sources not pulled out of my bottom i came up with around.....70 million.
143 zethe (#) Jan 15th, 2013 - 11:56 am Report abuse
Also i don't even know why you guys are debating if China or the US is going to get involved. No-one cares about Argentina.

Also further proving the fact that this guy doesn't know what he is talking about:
“Rvier Class Patrol 2.500.000”
Running costs: £5 million
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_class_patrol_vessel
144 Conqueror (#) Jan 15th, 2013 - 12:37 pm Report abuse
@68 What are you going to have? Miles or kilometres? Because you've switched. The answer is difficult because the Typhoons wouldn't necessarily fly at the same altitude as the A4s. But if they stuck to sea level, the answer is about 8 minutes. It's more like 6 minutes. Over the relevant time periods, the Skyhawks could cover either 90 or 67 miles. I'm sure you can work out the closing speed for yourself.
@80 You should know! In case you've lost the relevant bit of international law, when countries go to war, the territories in the possession of the victor belong to the victor. Whatever happened between 1690 and 1982, the British victory in the Falklands War meant that the Islands belong to Britain. Beyond ANY doubt! WE fought you for them and WE won. Your claim is OVER. So stay away from OUR Islands. Then you won't lose several thousand people. No holds barred if there's a next time. The mainland WILL be targeted.
@88 As you've already been told, most of the costs you've mentioned would be paid anyway. It's ridiculous to include the cost of, for instance, Typhoon aircraft. Do you think we have them built specially? We already have more than 90. The same goes for the rest of British weaponry.
@95 & 109 Still won't accept the truth? Try putting “Falklands defence costs” into Google. If our helicopter carriers, destroyers, frigates, subs, Typhoons, Tornados, Paras, Marines, Gurkhas don't go to the Falklands, they'll go somewhere else. Forget the propaganda, the Islands WILL be defended. No matter what. To the death!
@114 The British government does not countenance assassination!
@124 You don't have a clue.
@127 I believe thatg the dardo (dart) is an anti-ship missile missile. Last seen it was in development. www.taringa.net/posts/info/15590342/Nueva-version-de-la-bomba-dardo_-DARDO-3_.html
145 Simon68 (#) Jan 15th, 2013 - 01:51 pm Report abuse
There is a Dardo II bomb to which they are adding a turbo jet engine and there is talk of a newer version which would be designated Dardo III.

Here is the link: industriamilitarargentina.blogspot.com.ar/2011/09/bomba-argentina-dardo-ii.html
146 agent999 (#) Jan 15th, 2013 - 02:56 pm Report abuse
An even better link

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:V-1_cutaway.jpg
147 Escoses Doido (#) Jan 15th, 2013 - 03:10 pm Report abuse
@144;
Another fact worth mentioning, is that the 'surrender of argentinian forces' that Menendes and Julian Thomson signed in 1982 stated the Falkland Islands.

No where in the document is the 'term' malvinas seen.
148 warteiner (#) Jan 15th, 2013 - 03:27 pm Report abuse
@139 you can check it out. Also Gradicom II and Orbit, FAS 1500 (Fenix)... In a couple of years, we wont even need A4's...
149 pgerman (#) Jan 15th, 2013 - 04:07 pm Report abuse
Zethee

I have never saud these were my figures. I was trying to use youyr figures to reach an agreement about the costs of mantaining the garrison.

All the information I took about a total yearly cost of 365/400 million punds were from British media or English written sites so I really doubt thay were estimated by Argentininas.

Anyway, I (like you) “don't normally like to insult people” so I don't insutlt them.

An I don't like to discuss issues with intolerant and bigoted people (like you) that insult others beacuse they think different from you. So enjoy your day !!
150 agent999 (#) Jan 15th, 2013 - 04:44 pm Report abuse
@149 pgerman

“All the information I took about a total yearly cost of 365/400 million punds were from British media or English written sites so I really doubt thay were estimated by Argentininas.”

why not try reading the following MOD article,

www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=mod+falklands+costs&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&ved=0CDUQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.parliament.uk%2Fbriefing-papers%2FSN06201.pdf&ei=v4X1UNqcLdKV0QWr4IH4CQ&usg=AFQjCNGbRrGFReDQRMiyKrLoQhOt_bT2DQ&bvm=bv.41018144,d.d2k
151 LEPRecon (#) Jan 15th, 2013 - 04:45 pm Report abuse
@140 - womble

Those islands in dispute with Japan differ in 2 main ways.

China believes that they are theirs, Japan believes that they are theirs. The main reason they may start shooting is the huge amounts of oil and gas in and around the Islands. Remember these Islands are in China's back yard.

You obviously don't understand the Chinese mentality. You are right that they don't behave or react in the same way that the west does, but they still have their own standards and codes that they live by.

Firstly, the Chinese like to keep themselves to themselves unless there is something that they can GAIN directly with as little fuss or cost as possible.

For instance, why back Argentina against Britain, when they know that should Argentina gain the Falklands they'll mess it up just like they have their own gas and oil industry. No Chinese company is willing to invest in YPF despite the huge amount of oil and gas reserves, because they cannot trust the Argentine government to keep their hands off the profitts.

But by not getting involved, they can buy their gas and oil directly from the Falklands, no fuss, no muss. They get their oil at a reasonable price, and they know that they won't be robbed by the UK government.

You see the UK and China have a good relationship built on mutual respect. You don't always have to agree with what the other side say or do, but the Chinese perceive the British to be an honourable race, and vice versa.

However, the main reason China won't get involved in Argentina's colonial amitions is that the minute China starts to try a get a military foothold in the South Atlantic, they'd be facing the British and the US.

Why the US? Because there is NO way the US will allow China in their backyard, so to speak.

In fact, if Argentina get other countries involved militarily, then the UK has the right to invoke Article 5 of the NATO charter. Which mean it'll be Argentina and their allies against NATO. I wouldn't bet on Argentina winning that.
152 agent999 (#) Jan 15th, 2013 - 04:57 pm Report abuse
Argentina would be defying all UN principles if the were to try to invade the Falkland Islands.
In 1982 the UN Security Council Resolution 502 clearly stated that Argentina was wrong and must withdraw all its military immediately.
Nothing has changed in the last 30 years that would void that decision.
153 ChrisR (#) Jan 15th, 2013 - 05:15 pm Report abuse
145 Simon68

Thanks for the link; I had a great laugh at the antics of the development personnel. They even had to use a standard FLT with two wires to lift the development bomb close to the plane. How they actually managed to fit the thing in the belly position was not show: car jacks would be my guess.

Let us get one thing straight from the get-go. This is NOT a missile: it is a JSOW (a stand-off BOMB) fitted with a rudimentary guidance system that relies on a parachute for the final target acquisition and at 125Kg of ordnance in a 280Kg package it is woefully inefficient.

The stated range by the bullshitter Rubino84 of 200 Km is only valid if released at 52,000 ft. The A4 cannot get above 42,250 ft and is therefore limited with this firecracker to release at 40,000 ft, reducing the effective range to 60 Km.

I suspect the 52,000 ft figure is by calculation and using the best glide ratio possible with the little motor fitted inside the bent delivery tube.

To portray this in the same class as an ASRAAM is absolutely laughable.

148 warteiner

Gradicom II: hate to have seen the first version. This is a toy! Solid fuel, ‘eventually’ to have 120 secs (2 minutos) of space flight: GEE WHIZ!!! AND WTF happened to the second stage? Putridjelli states they are limiting it strictly to 300 Km range.

The nearest point to the Falklands (there are STILL no Malvinas you prats) is 578 Km so this little job hasn’t a chance to do any damage to the BOT property. Probably a good job for you lot as a cruise missile from a Brit sub into the front door of Casa Rosada in retaliation is likely to upset TMBOA.
154 womble (#) Jan 15th, 2013 - 05:34 pm Report abuse
LEPR.
“China believes that they are theirs, Japan believes that they are theirs. The main reason they may start shooting is the huge amounts of oil and gas in and around the Islands. Remember these Islands are in China's back yard.”
Replace 'China' with 'Argentina'. Sounds fairly similar, not different, to the South Atlantic position (apart from the shooting bit).

And I really can't see the US confronting China over the Falklands. That really is stretching the 'backyard' principle.
But, hey, its fun to speculate. And certainly more likely that a cruise missile strike on the mainland. That would be the brown stuff hitting the fan.
155 briton (#) Jan 15th, 2013 - 07:25 pm Report abuse
I understand that there is a clause in Argentina's constitution that specifically excludes invading the Falkland Islands or taking them by force
156 Islas Malvinas (#) Jan 15th, 2013 - 07:52 pm Report abuse
Ghana, along with other 21 countries from South America and Africa, supports the demilitarization of Malvinas.

www.ambito.com/noticia.asp?id=671485
157 Conqueror (#) Jan 15th, 2013 - 07:54 pm Report abuse
@149 Why don't you give up? Do you understand that we don't CARE? You keep trotting out these figures as though one or more of them will change our minds. IT WON'T!! Defence of the Falklands could go up to £400 BILLION every other month and WE'd still be there. Because no bit of latino scum will ever get their hands on them. If EVERY Islander were to decide to leave, WE'd blow them to kingdom come. With nuclear charges. So that NO-ONE could go near them for a thousand years. They are OURS. They cost 258 British lives. Whatever it costs, they will be British until the Sun explodes.
@156 So?
158 LEPRecon (#) Jan 15th, 2013 - 08:30 pm Report abuse
@154 - womble

“And I really can't see the US confronting China over the Falklands. That really is stretching the 'backyard' principle.”

Then you don't understand US foreign policy. There is no way on earth that the US would risk China getting a military foothold in South America. And getting that foothold is probably the only reason China would risk a confrontation with the UK, and NATO.

@156 - Maldives

As I understood they objected to the deployment of weapons of mass destruction in the South Atlantic. Well Britain doesn't have weapons of mass destruction in the South Atlantic.

Also the mention the demilitarisation of the South Atlantic. That means Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay etc..need to get rid of their navy's for this to happen, and not be allowed to fly military planes anywhere over the South Atlantic.

However, the real point is that the UK has the right to put its military anywhere it wishes in British territory, for the defence of that territory. And the Atlantic doesn't belong to anyone, so anyone can sail any vessel they like wherever they like.

To try to stop such vessels would contravene the Convention of the Laws of the Sea, which are so close to Argentina's heart.

Face it, while Argentina present a potential threat to the Falkland Islands and their people, the UK military will remain.

No one, not even the UN, can stop a country defending itself and it's people from an aggressor.

So unless Argentina tries to invade the Falklands then there will be no problems. Britain will not start a war, just like we didn't start the war in 1982. We will, however, finish it.
159 agent999 (#) Jan 15th, 2013 - 08:45 pm Report abuse
@156
You keep finding these obscure links
You post these links based on the headlines.
You never actually read the contents of these links.
“most recently in Angola, in 2007. South Americans involved Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay and Africans Angola, Benin, Cape Verde, Cameroon, Congo, Ivory Coast, Gabon, Gambia, Guinea, Equatorial Guinea, Liberia, Namibia, Nigeria, Democratic Republic of Congo, Senegal, South Africa and Togo ”
160 redpoll (#) Jan 15th, 2013 - 09:30 pm Report abuse
@159 Thats what malevo is paid to do
161 Shed-time (#) Jan 15th, 2013 - 09:57 pm Report abuse
Everyone supports the demilitarisation of an fictional entity, the Malvinas because they don't exist. Having a sheet of paper saying we support the demilitarization of the Malvinas is like saying you support the demilitarisation of middle earth. It's completely meaningless.

One minute it's the demilitarisation of the South Atlantic, then it's the demilitarisation of someone else's country. Basically, the Argies lost the War of Aggression in 1982, which they started and the current government is still rewarding supporters with medals. So, it makes perfect sense to militarise the Falklands.

Get over it.
162 Zethee (#) Jan 15th, 2013 - 10:42 pm Report abuse
”An I don't like to discuss issues with intolerant and bigoted people (like you) that insult others beacuse they think different from you. So enjoy your day !!”

Translation:

I was wrong, i was proven wrong and i have no way of even trying to prove you wrong. So i am using this as an excuse to give up without actually admitting i am wrong.#

I did not insult you because you think differently than i do. I insulted you because even after being given the correct wage and calculation for working out the desired number, you STILL got it completely wrong.

I insulted you because you did not think at all.
163 zethe (#) Jan 15th, 2013 - 10:52 pm Report abuse
“All the information I took about a total yearly cost of 365/400 million punds were from British media or English written sites so I really doubt thay were estimated by Argentininas.”

No-one said they were made by Argentinians. The media print many things that are not true.

Many(Recent) news articles state the real figure:
articles.businessinsider.com/2012-02-14/europe/31057552_1_defense-budget-uk-falklands
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2119639/Falklands-defence-budget-cut-despite-conflict-Argentina.html
www.independent.co.uk/news/people/diary/diary-so-what-is-the-real-cost-of-defending-the-falkland-islands-6896566.html

Oh lookie, Mercopress:
en.mercopress.com/2012/03/25/uk-media-and-opposition-claim-spending-on-falklands-defense-is-to-fall
164 Xect (#) Jan 15th, 2013 - 11:36 pm Report abuse
Zethe, I am bemused why you keep on about this value? It's extremely insignificant to the UK. I realise some challenged you on the numbers but I think you answered them in a reasonable manner but now you are just flogging a dead horse.

Shall we move on?
165 Pete Bog (#) Jan 15th, 2013 - 11:40 pm Report abuse
@156
“Ghana, along with other 21 countries from South America and Africa, supports the demilitarization of Malvinas.”

That's a bit difficult as you can'de-t militarise/militarise somewhere that doesn't exist.
166 womble (#) Jan 16th, 2013 - 02:26 am Report abuse
LEPR.
When did China gain a military foothold in South America? I was talking about a jigger creating an incident with a Navy vessel, which would suit Argentinas purposes.

No need to escalate it to WW3. Think more the Cod War against a small country (which the UK didn't come out of too well). It doesn't look good a destroyer attacking a fishing boat.

Argentine wants to embarrass the UK. It doesn't need to involve armies or navies. Expect a lot of South Americans turning up in Stanley trying to register for the referendum.

Obviously they won't get a vote, but their story will make a good soundbite on the news programmes for CFK.
167 warteiner (#) Jan 16th, 2013 - 08:49 am Report abuse
@153, we can develope anything, 300km? lol, that is what we want you to bealive. We are not making the same mistakes as we did with Condor II.
Also, Dardo 3 can get to 200km and any aircraft in the FAA (even pampa) can fire it.
Dardo II was a stand of bomb, not Dardo III. Get your facts right, looser.
You are a patetic looser who cannot live without Argentina, the same goes for the mayority in here.
168 lsolde (#) Jan 16th, 2013 - 09:43 am Report abuse
@167 warteiner,
We don't want anything to do with Argentina & we don't need you either, one-wart.
Judging your country's performance, military capability & standard of living, l would say that you are most definitely the losers.
note: its loser, not looser.
Looser would describe the state of the Argentine soldier's bowels, when they heard that the Gurkhas were coming.!
Who cares what fireworks you have developed(snigger)we're a lot more advanced than that, loser.
169 ChrisR (#) Jan 16th, 2013 - 11:01 am Report abuse
167 warteiner

Firstly, insulting me does nothing but weaken your argument.

And, there is NO Dardo III, unless you can provide a link. Typing Dardo III into the query of that amateurish Defence Ministry website returns the classic ‘no page found’ in Espanol of course.

It took the development team of Dardo II from 2007 when the bomb was first fitted with a pair of wings and a cranked tube motor to 2011 to publish and you say that somehow miraculously that Dardo III is now all things to all planes and can be fired from a rubber band balsa wood airplane, which is what you lot are using if you claim more than 10 airworthy planes in total.

You do realise that the result of firing anything like a missile onto the Falklands, as you now claim Putridjelli is lying (which is normal for any argie ‘minister’), is likely to be a serious mistake, don’t you? Not only would that be an act of war, if someone was killed the UK government would have to retaliate at least three times heavier in force or face removal from office by a vote of no confidence in the House of Commons.

BTW, we did not lose in 1982, you did, loser. Why don’t you just go away and play with the rest of the children with their paper planes and leave the grown-ups alone.
170 LEPRecon (#) Jan 16th, 2013 - 11:54 am Report abuse
@166- womble

Why would there be an incident? The Chinese jiggers have been arrested by the Argentine authorities, and China hasn't declared war on Argentina.

So your argument, such as it is, falls down at the 1st hurdle.

Anyway, the Chinese jiggers are free to buy fishing licences from the Falkland Islands Government. If they don't and are found to be fishing illegally, as they were in the Argentine EEZ, they would be arrested.

It certainly wouldn't cause China to go to war. They haven't gone to war with Argentina, which, lets face it, their military is practically non-effective so it would be a cake walk.

On the other hand, the Chinese have had personnal experience of fighting the British (okay it was in the 50's but they have long memories).

The British Army regiment (approx 1,200 men) the Glosters (forever known as the Glorious Glosters), held off an ENTIRE Chinese Army (over 20,000) for 3 days, buying time for the UN troops to form a defensive line. They fought so well, that the fighting ability of the Chinese Army was comprimised, buying even more time for the UN troops.

The Chinese General repudidly said to the Commanding Officer of the Glosters, “If this is how you defend a country that means NOTHING to you, I PITY the men that try to invade England.”

Nothing has changed in the past 50 years.

The Chinese know these things:

Argentina's claim is a LIE.

Britain WILL defend the Falkland Islands WHATEVER the cost.

They won't get involved in something that has nothing to do with them, no matter how many Chinese fishermen get arrested for illegal fishing.

You can try to scaremonger all you like, but everything you have said is a falacy based on an assumed premise that the Chinese will fight rather than go through diplomatic channels, and that China would risk war with the UK, and risk their trade relationships over a minor incident.

You are fooling yourself, or hoping to fool others, but are failing spectacularly on all fronts.
171 womble (#) Jan 16th, 2013 - 12:29 pm Report abuse
I have never mentioned China fighting. There are plenty of warmongers on here without me adding to them.

I'm suggesting Argentina might be a bit more subtle than most people give them credit for. They are hardly likely to do anything that would warrant a military response from the UK, and yet, that is the main point of the story in the Telegraph.

Last month, they sent over a Rugby team, and win or lose, it gains them positive publicity... “here we are, trying to be friendly...”.

If they want to disrupt the referendum, they are likely to do so in a way that a Typhoon or destroyer won't be able to prevent.
172 JuanGabriel (#) Jan 16th, 2013 - 02:28 pm Report abuse
@171, I think it was last year (April) the rugby team went over, and far from being positive publicity its always been a massive failure when they go over that pisses all the islanders off because they are incapable of acting apolitically
173 womble (#) Jan 16th, 2013 - 03:16 pm Report abuse
No. They were here about a month ago. See Rugby sin Fronteras website

I think the idea of their visit is to piss of the islanders. But but in a way that doesn't get them banned. And it looks, ostensibly, as if they are trying to build bridges.
174 Clyde15 (#) Jan 16th, 2013 - 04:54 pm Report abuse
#171
Surely the answer is to “ban” all Argentinian visits when the referendum is taking place .
Don't the island council have a say in who can be allowed to land ?
175 womble (#) Jan 16th, 2013 - 05:29 pm Report abuse
Last week there were 700 Argentines in Stanley- spending money, buying meals and souvenirs; going on tours. That was from just one ship.

Yes, no doubt they could be banned. But banning peaceful, legal, visitors has consequences. Like the people of Ushuaia have found, when you start banning tourists, you quickly lose income, and it might not return.

All this sabre-rattling and ludicrous Sun headlines (“Helmand Hardmen sent to Fortress Falklands” ) is the last thing the island's tourism industry wants. Armchair warriors might love comparing their weapons, but it has its downsides. (It's also the same tactic that's been roundly condemned when used in Argentina. Is this the example the Falklands wants to copy?)

And as the Governor has recently said - the Falklands' future lies in tourism, not oil, or as a military training ground.
176 Shed-time (#) Jan 16th, 2013 - 05:39 pm Report abuse
@175 I would suggest your governor is quite short-sighted then. The future of the falkland islands lies in education, presumably with some elements of nature-based entrepreneurialism on the periphery.

Aiming to be a one-legged tourist hourse like spain and greece, is not a great political nor economic strategy.
177 Zethee (#) Jan 16th, 2013 - 06:18 pm Report abuse
“Zethe, I am bemused why you keep on about this value? It's extremely insignificant to the UK.”

Everyone else is discussing if China is going to declare war upon us over these islands... Which is not even in the realm of plausibility.

At least expenditure is real and can be discussed.
178 Clyde15 (#) Jan 16th, 2013 - 06:25 pm Report abuse
#175
I am puzzled by your statement that 700 Argentinians arrived in Stanley by ship..
I understood that no ship was allowed to leave Argentina for the Falklands.
Where did these Argentinians board the vessel and where will they get off in South America.
Obviously it cannot be Argentina.
What do they use for money-the Peso ?

I would not rely on tourism. This requires a world population with surplus spending money. If anything else happens to the world economy, tourism will dry up, not just for you, but world wide
179 ChrisR (#) Jan 16th, 2013 - 06:28 pm Report abuse
@175 womble

I find your claim regarding the Governor discounting oil in the future of the Falklands (there are STILL no Malvinas you prats) to be unbelievable.

Please provide me with the link to the reported comments by the Governor so I can see for myself in what context this alleged claim was made.
180 womble (#) Jan 16th, 2013 - 07:13 pm Report abuse
He said the comment during a reception a couple of month sago. Try Penguin News - they report all his musings.

Clyde - they got on the ship, Star Princess, in Buenos Aires. It was well reported, even in the Telegraph I believe, where the story was all about passengers being hassled. I spoke to some visitors (Argentines), and they were generally embarrassed by the posturing of CFK, and volunteered that to say the Falklands belonged to Argentina was ludicrous. They use US dollars. No-one expects them to have Falklands pounds, and pesos aren't accepted.

And ships docking at Ushuaia get different treatment to when they dock at BA, as reported in Mercopress this week.

shed-time - You could well be right. Don't forget, he's a diplomat/politician (unelected) and not a businessman. He'll be gone soon, so doesn't have to worry about his predictions.
181 Shed-time (#) Jan 16th, 2013 - 07:33 pm Report abuse
@180 Your current government is correct, the islands need the youth to come up with ideas and blue-prints for the future of the islands. This involves them getting involved politically. What the governor says is similar to the Canadian or Australian governor saying something, it is largely ignored.

He has one thing right, which is that you cannot rely purely on one thing. Better to have a lively and vibrant economy based upon what you're good at and what you've been provided with. Given the transport issues, @178 is correct when he says tourism is not an ideal source of income.

You'd be better setting up an agricultural university, breeding your own super-high quality cows and pigs, and then selling them en-masse to the chinese where they are unable to grow their own because of widespread pollution.
182 Islander1 (#) Jan 17th, 2013 - 12:50 am Report abuse
166 Womble - in CFK Land you may be able to turn up and register to vote on the day of an election! - but we are somewhat more democractic and civilized - registrations close some weeks in advance to allow time for verification.
Election day - the only way you get in past the door is if you are Already a registered voter.
183 LEPRecon (#) Jan 17th, 2013 - 05:57 am Report abuse
@171 - womble

You said that you never mentioned China fighting, but in your post @140 you say:

“that China wouldn't risk losing British business for the sake of some fishing, but it seems to be ready to go to war with Japan over some uninhabited islands, and Japan has about $300billion worth of trade with China.”

It seems to me that you are implying that China would go to war if some Chinese fishermen were arrested by the British, and therefore the British better beware.

I have already explained that this uninhabited islands in dispute with Japan ia all about natural resources which both countries seem to think belong to them.

I have already explained to you that the Argentines arrested Chinese fishermen who were illegally fishing in Argentine waters, and that they haven't gone to war over it, despite Argentina's military is not very well equipped or funded. Yet you are implying that China would sail half way around the world and risk confrontation with a well trained and well armed British force over the arrest of some fishermen, illegally fishing? Fishermen who at worst would get their catch confiscated and a fine slapped on them?

I have already explained that Argentina tried to illegally sell licenses to Falklands waters and had NO takers not even the Chinese, because everyone knew that it was illegal and weren't willing to risk an incident with the UK.

So basically every point you have tried to make appears to be a figment of your own imagination for the purpose of trying to make the Falkland Islanders position look tenuous, when in fact it is very strong.

I also suggest that you read Islander1 post @182, which explains how the voting process in a true democratic country is done, to protect against vote rigging and fraud.
184 reality check (#) Jan 17th, 2013 - 08:33 am Report abuse
Reminds me of when I was a kid at school and stuck up for myself against the bullies, always used to run off saying they were, “Gonna fetch their big bruver!”
185 warteiner (#) Jan 17th, 2013 - 08:56 am Report abuse
@169 You spend the WHOLE DAY insulting and denigrating Argentina and it's people, so you are a loser! ok? a loooseeer!!! :D

www.b14643.de/Spacerockets_1/Rest_World/ORBIT-LSA/Description/Frame.htm

We will not make the same mistakes.
186 Clyde15 (#) Jan 17th, 2013 - 09:48 am Report abuse
#185
To what mistakes do you refer ?

It appears to me that the only point in these forums IS to denigrate each others country - if you look objectively at the postings you would come to that conclusion.
I would say that honours are about even in that respect.
187 ChrisR (#) Jan 17th, 2013 - 10:27 am Report abuse
185 warteiner

Well thank you for the light entertainment and laughs I got from reading the 'this is what 'WE ARE GOING TO DO' comical website you linked to. The ‘scientific technical data’ was a hoot. Did you / are you capable of working out the metrics for these INTENDED vehicles, because I am.

They demonstrate the same lamentable ‘rocket’ characteristics that Putridjejji, your Wop Defence Minister foolishly paraded as a medium range rocket during last year. It had a claimed payload the equivalent of 25% of the total mass. Ha, ha, ha.

The V1, a LIQUID fuelled vehicle, the most successful rocket ever built had a payload of 8%. So you morons want us to think that this piddling little firecracker of a SOLID fuel motor can lift TREBLE that!

Are you REALLY that stupid that you think something developed from a poorly performing vehicle of the 60's (53 years ago) is going to be the technical equivalent of what the UK operates NOW?

And, you are easily fooled if you think that the demonstration flight shown on video was a two stage thing. Did you see separation? Did they show any telemetry which PROVED IT? I can answer that: NO.

I am not going to respond to any more of this nonsense: please enthral your stupid friends with this crap and leave the real technology with the big boys who can already destroy you despotic government ANYTIME it wishes from the East coast of Scotland.

BTW ‘We will not make the same mistakes’ is a futile comment. YOU ALREADY HAVE! AG continually votes in a bunch of Peronist arseholes who rob you lot blind and you stupid buggers love it.
188 GFace (#) Jan 17th, 2013 - 11:54 am Report abuse
(@182, yeah, even as a liberal in the US, for which this is the “wrong” opinion for my kind, walk in/registration+voting is an invitation to voter fraud and a slap in the face to citizens who have been engaged in the priced for the long haul).
189 warteiner (#) Jan 17th, 2013 - 02:00 pm Report abuse
@187 LOL

The only thing that you are able to calculate is how many n**bs your a*se can take in :D

Nothing that you say or think is going to change the fact.

So I highly recomend you to get a life instead trashing the whole day a country, is really pathetic, you people realize how silly you look?
190 Escoses Doido (#) Jan 17th, 2013 - 03:18 pm Report abuse
These RG's on here are priceless! LMFAO!

Keep up the entertainment!
191 reality check (#) Jan 17th, 2013 - 04:37 pm Report abuse
Wow, that's a new one!
192 womble (#) Jan 17th, 2013 - 06:00 pm Report abuse
@183LEPR. You keep reading stuff into my posts which I never say, but that's your perogative.

Was I wrong about the 700 Argentine tourists last week, and the contribution to the Falklands economy?
Was I wrong about the Cod War? (Impotence of Navy against fishing boats).
Presumably I made up visit of the rugby team recently?

And don't you think CFK is more likely to pull a publicity stunt around the Referendum, rather than some sort military attack?

Thinking that because the UK has bigger and better weapons it will prevent some publicity coup is cloud-cuckoo land.
And shouting about increasing the military forces deployed can have a negative effect on the tourist industry. That's my point.
193 GFace (#) Jan 17th, 2013 - 06:50 pm Report abuse
@192, I see it likely that CFK could pull a “stunt” by sending an armed or unarmed ship or aircraft to “marginally” harass an FI interest (“I'm not touching you, not touching you, still not touching you, really really close but not touching you, even closer but still not...”) and wait for the inevitable approach of an armed UK resource and cry about “escalation.” Once again, this is how head-cases and dishonest players play the game on much smaller scales.
194 ChrisR (#) Jan 17th, 2013 - 07:49 pm Report abuse
@190 & 191

You couldn’t make it up, could you.

I would have some respect for an argie who could understand what these dreadful websites were up to. But no, he has to come out with this drivel.

I think he / she is an adolescent who thinks that because it is on and argie website it MUST BE TRUE.

Ha, ha, ha. Deluded idiots. I must say they are first class at one thing: idiocy.
195 Anbar (#) Jan 17th, 2013 - 10:13 pm Report abuse
“”“Ghana, along with other 21 countries from South America and Africa, supports the demilitarization of Malvinas”“”“”

..and Britian doesnt give a shit.

The military will stay there until Argentina stops its Colonial expansion attempts.

end of.

The entire “Malvinas” argument was shot-too-death in 1982 by the Argentina invasion and no amount of revisionist history will make the current attempts at Colonisation by Argentinas Government any more successful.

I suggest that the Argentine spend more time finding a non-corrupt set of politicians who can raise their economy into the respectable category and less time trying to do to the Falklands what they did to Patagonia.
196 lsolde (#) Jan 17th, 2013 - 10:15 pm Report abuse
Yes, l get a laugh at these stupid RGs.
When they run out of arguments, they just start with the insults.
But it is entertaining.
lt must be so frustrating for them & thats also part of the fun.
btw- whats a n**bs? don't care if its rude, someone enlighten me. lol!!!
197 reality check (#) Jan 17th, 2013 - 10:25 pm Report abuse
Isolde

It's what a man uses to give his wife, partner or girlfriend pleasure.

No! not that! that's used for tasting and licking stamps!
198 Escoses Doido (#) Jan 18th, 2013 - 05:42 am Report abuse
@ 191 reality check;

LMAO!
199 ChrisR (#) Jan 18th, 2013 - 10:17 am Report abuse
197 reality check

What has his chequebook got to do with anything?

Isolde

In polite company it is the end of a mans penis.

These argies have a fixation with homosexuality.
200 lsolde (#) Jan 18th, 2013 - 11:05 am Report abuse
Thank you Gentlemen, l guessed what it was, just had never heard that term before. All l wanted was the explanation of the **.
But moving on,
@ reality check, men who correctly use the thing for tasting, licking etc are extremely hard to find.!!!!
201 reality check (#) Jan 18th, 2013 - 08:02 pm Report abuse
Isolde

So I am led to believe. There is of course the technique of Auditory Respiration.

or as it is more commonly known.

Breathing through your ears!

Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!

Advertisement

Get Email News Reports!

Get our news right on your inbox.
Subscribe Now!