MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Falklands fishing boat and Argentine Navy “unsettling’ encounter
An encounter between an Argentine Naval vessel and trawler fishing in Falklands waters was described as ‘unsettling’ today by Director of the Falkland Islands Fisheries Department John Barton. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesSend in the Royal Navy ..... a little gunboat diplomacy is required :-)
Oct 12th, 2010 - 01:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0Hoytred “as the ships were clearly visible to each other ” I think that answered your concerned from the other article.
Oct 12th, 2010 - 02:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Send in the Royal Navy” I thought they were there.
Yes please send more Warships :-)))
Oct 12th, 2010 - 04:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0Who was your PR Agent???
Marcos - I can see a long way. Now if the Argentine ship was trespassing in Falklands water then a greater 'policing' presence is obviously required. The tactics that Spain is employing around Gibraltar won't work in the South Atlantic ... after all, with a Defence Review imminent, the RN must be wanting to show how badly it's needed.
Oct 12th, 2010 - 06:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0Of course, we could always do a missile test in the area of any further 'trespassers' :-)
The Royal Navy will be loving this. An instant use for their new Astute class submarines and perfect timing as the defence review comes to fruition - just like 1982.
Oct 12th, 2010 - 06:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0Yeahhhh......
Oct 12th, 2010 - 07:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0Kill.. Kill..
Sink.. Sink..
Bomb .. Bomb...
It looks great on camera....
Armed vessel threatening an unarmed fishing vessel. Strong with the weak, weak with the strong. No Argentine threats, no requirement for RN protection from these Argentine “pirates”.
Oct 12th, 2010 - 09:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0Whose escalating matters, 'cos it ain't the British sending warships to threaten fishing vessels.
Think always loves to claim the morale high ground about “our” weapons, yet it's his nations navy harrasing people.
Oct 12th, 2010 - 09:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0Theres two sides in a war Think.
Yet more Argentine aggression against the Islanders. They really are the 'bullies' of South America, constantly upseting the peaceful Uruguayians and the Chileans and now conducting a campaign of harrassment against fishing boats which are operating legally within Falklands waters, and previously when they are in Internationalw aters, heading for Monevideo.
Oct 12th, 2010 - 09:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0It really is time for the Royal Navy to step in and show some authority, as under this dreadful Kirchner woman the Argentines are become tiresome and troublesome.
Is it any wonder that the Argentines are hated by everyone else in S. America and they all rejoice when their football team is knocked out of the World Cup?
“ ... the two boats became locked in a menacing stand-off on Thursday - the first confrontation of its kind for four years. The belligerent Argentineans demanded to know details of the Port Stanley vessel - the FV Venturer - and radioed its crew, said the Sun.
Oct 12th, 2010 - 10:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0The warship stayed just on the edge of Argentinean waters and eventually the Venturer moved away to avoid a bigger clash.... ”
http://www.chronicle.gi/headlines_details.php?id=20217
Well done Marcos .... wondered how the Argentine Navy had suddenly developed some balls :-)
@6 Hey Twinky
Oct 12th, 2010 - 11:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Yeahhhh......
Kill.. Kill..
Sink.. Sink..
Bomb .. Bomb...”
Just remember, it's your idea!
Seems we are near to have an army test match with UKI after all.
Oct 12th, 2010 - 02:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0This is a good opportunity to test capabilities, new weapons and training nothing better than the real thing.
If the RN can get down here of course before they get another budget cut.
May be we can lend then a few boats and fireworks just in case for such event.
Have you got anything to lend NiceButDim .... according to the great god Wiki - “ ...Argentina military spending is one of the lowest of South America and as of 2010, its 0.9% of GDP only exceeds Suriname...”
Oct 12th, 2010 - 03:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Apparently you don't have abudget to cut :-)
10 Hoytred ,“Gibraltar Chronicle” ?? OMG
Oct 12th, 2010 - 03:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Where's HMS Gloucester? Not welcome in Uruguay. Did they sail back home to sell all that expensive load?
7 Justin
” Argentine “pirates”.
They are sailing in Argentinian coast not Scotland
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:English_pirates
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:English_pirates
@ Hoytred
Oct 12th, 2010 - 03:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So what is the problem we will see this in the test match. Don’t you think so?
I hope your intelligence service is reading that too.
By the way did your intelligence service read wiki too before going to Afghanistan or relay just on CIA factbook?
I’m curious now
Seems special needs boy Marcos is having trouble with cut n paste
Oct 12th, 2010 - 04:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And Nicotine wants another go,bet the Keyboard Warrior is glad they dont have conscription now.
Why didn't they get the RAF Typhoons airbourne to show some back bone?
Oct 12th, 2010 - 04:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 017 Sparticus , A few weeks ago the RAF Typhoons could not land in Malvinas because a little fog and run scared (after permission request to Argentina) to land in Chile. They should check weather.com. next time, London is far far away.
Oct 12th, 2010 - 04:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://en.mercopress.com/2010/06/04/falklands-thick-fog-forces-two-raf-typhoons-and-tanker-to-land-in-punta-arenas
By law permission has to be granted.
Oct 12th, 2010 - 04:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Fog kills a lot of flyers.
”By law (in peace time) permission has to be granted.”
Oct 12th, 2010 - 05:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As Argentina and Great Britain head into another diplomatic stand-off after the local government learned of a series of military exercises carried out by the British Navy near the Malvinas Islands, Foreign Minister Héctor Timerman warned the administration would “ignore their provocations.”
Oct 12th, 2010 - 05:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Like they have another option...hahaha
fred, How's the real state bussiness in DC doing?... hahaha
Oct 12th, 2010 - 05:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Marcos special needs boy and internet stalker :-)
Oct 12th, 2010 - 06:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Britons !!!… Wake Up!!!… The Falklands Need You..... (Again :-)
Oct 12th, 2010 - 07:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0sartma.com/art_8108.html
……It was Argentine pressure that prevented HMS Gloucester from visiting Uruguay and cast another shadow over the ship’s planned visit to Valparaiso in Chile……
……The Falklands are grateful for the 100% backing Britain gives over our right to self-determination but an equal diplomatic effort needs to be initiated to counter that of Argentina if the Islands are to progress and meaningful trade can be conducted with Latin America ……
……The usual South American response is to thwart any trade between the Falklands and the mainland. With South American countries refusing entry to Royal Naval Ships the stakes have finally ratcheted up to involve the UK……
…..FINN feels that this new trend needs to be countered before the South Atlantic becomes like the South China and Yellow Seas, where the Peoples’ Republic of China have sea dominance and control trade……
…..Thought to what would happen when South American countries club together to thwart the UK should be given before there is no ‘wiggle room’ left to come to any meaningful results for trading with the neighbours.
”Argentina can do nothing” :-)))))))))))
I suggest people just report him every time he spams.
Oct 12th, 2010 - 07:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It keeps him happy
Oct 12th, 2010 - 08:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The comments here are really inspiring. Evidently, intelligence is limited, dumbness is not.
Oct 12th, 2010 - 08:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I agree with Mr. Barton's suggestion for reestablishing the SAFC, provided that no more fishing licenses are granted unilaterally by the Island Authorities (or London, whatever the case was)
No mr.Yaghan, please don´t misinterpret mr.Barton wise words, what he is asking is the return of the happy old days. Those happy days when argentine officials at that metting gave him all INIDEP data and he only gave them the thanks and always saying, with his smiling face, till the next happy metting mates!!
Oct 12th, 2010 - 08:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0even with a fishing boat, we could deal with the argies,
Oct 12th, 2010 - 09:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The FIG is acting as a government .... unilaterally, and quite legally !
Oct 13th, 2010 - 12:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0All the rest is just cr*p :-)
A bit of reality please- the Venturer,s Spanish captain stood his ground and told the ARA he was fishing legally in waters he held a license to. he did not even stop fishing - he just headed a bit more towards the Islands and further from the perimeter. The ARA continued to watch him from the edge of the zone - but what a surprise - as soon as ARA detected the approach of HMS Gloucester a few hours later - they fled!!
Oct 13th, 2010 - 02:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0Well done Argentina - 10 out of 10 - Royal Navy High Command is DELIGHTED - there is a defence review and possible budget cuts going on in UK just now - you have given the Royal Navy an excellent boost in the case for No Cuts!!
This on top of Madam,s hysteria over the test firing of a short range (6miles) surface to air missile last week - a regular event for 28 years!! - just goes to reinforce what a plonker she is.
So S American ports closed to the Royal Navy Think? How do you explain a modern type 23 Frigate in Valparaiso for a week last month(straight off her deployment here)- HMS Gloucester AND HMS Ocean(the biggest in the Navy) in Brazil last month?
@Islander1
Oct 13th, 2010 - 04:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Well done Argentina - 10 out of 10 - Royal Navy High Command is DELIGHTED - there is a defence review and possible budget cuts going on in UK just now - you have given the Royal Navy an excellent boost in the case for No Cuts!!”
Our pleasure we are glad to contribute to save many jobs in UK specially in the RN.
Officers in UKI will not have thank us we are like this, always so generous.
Tell them that to scare Mr. Cameron even more we will test some middle range missiles down there.
To make more realistic their case for a boost in the defense budget.
But the way were is my personal spell checker Cadfael?
Defense or defence ?
Defence nico, only the yanks are too dumb to realise that ... spell check @ F7.
Oct 13th, 2010 - 07:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0Good so defence and centre haha I've got a little contaminated with so many Spanglish from California I guess. Thanks.
Oct 13th, 2010 - 08:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0@32 NicebutDim
Oct 13th, 2010 - 10:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0Missile tests are always necessary. Like the cruise missiles carried by British fleet submarines. I believe each one carries around 100 missiles, each with a range of 1,550 miles.
How many British submarines are in the South Atlantic? No-one knows. Britain has 8.
9 @ Neutralite ... ... ... ... .. ”The Argentines are hated by everyone else in South America
Oct 13th, 2010 - 12:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Like the British in Europe
Found a similar point of Argentina with England?
You're wrong Neutralite in Europe If, S.américa not.
WTF? Who ever said the British were hated in Europe?
Oct 13th, 2010 - 02:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Blah, blah, blah. As writer Jorge Luis Borges adequately stressed in 1982, it is the fight of two baldmen for a comb. Fortunately, neither country has a budget to cater for actions in the South Atlantic. Sleep tight islanders, there's no risk at all. One day, however, if the MoD graciously approves your port reshuffling, the sun will rise again. Cheers.
Oct 13th, 2010 - 02:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argie does like repeating himself!
Oct 13th, 2010 - 03:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“neither country has a budget to cater for actions in the South Atlantic”
Oct 13th, 2010 - 03:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0We do. It's argentina who doesn't.
Yeah. Gonna start reporting his spamming.
Oct 13th, 2010 - 03:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argie, I think you mean two bald men, not two baldmen. A baldmen just sounds like something neolithic, like a dolmen...
Oct 13th, 2010 - 09:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0...or an englishmen
Oct 13th, 2010 - 09:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I think you will find we have more than 9 subs, and the latest has a range of over 3,000 miles for missiles,
Oct 13th, 2010 - 10:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0[nicotine] yes i remember you testing your missiles , am I right in saying your men through them over 20 feet [very impressive ?? ]
Sorry J.A., yes, bald men (a finger slip), and Hoytred, yes, I like to repeat myself. Dolmen, countrymen, Norsemen, omen, amen.
Oct 14th, 2010 - 01:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And, Zethee @ #40, oh, come off it, nobody does... not even you people. Thank Madoff and Iraq for it. Briton @ #44, instead, we have barbed wire... (other argies here will understand).
Cheers!
Well I'm glad someone understands you Argie, because I have no idea what you are trying to say!
Oct 14th, 2010 - 03:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@45 Argie. My best guess is that there is around 100,000 lbs (that's 45,000 kgs) of guidable high explosive sitting somewhere off your coast.
Oct 14th, 2010 - 08:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Now, without identifying a specific target, how much damage do you think that lot could do?
barbed wire, yes, to keep you lot in.
Oct 14th, 2010 - 09:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“And, Zethee @ #40, oh, come off it, nobody does... not even you people.”
Oct 15th, 2010 - 12:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0We still have a budget of of atleast 55,000,000,000 even with the cuts.
We have the money.
Ahh, good jokes.
Oct 15th, 2010 - 07:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0For a moment I thought Peter Cook and Dudley Moore were writing here under aliases. Then I remembered they're dead. However, some of you people can call in the BBC and ask for a trial casting... You may have a future there!
@50 On the other hand, if you clowns want to start another round, guess who is likely to end up dead.
Oct 15th, 2010 - 07:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@Typhoon
Oct 15th, 2010 - 08:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0YOU
In the real world Nico, not the one in your head.
Oct 15th, 2010 - 08:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@53 Zethee. Thank you.
Oct 16th, 2010 - 10:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0By the way, NiceButDim, you never did tell me how much damage you think 50 tons of high explosive could do?
oo, wasn't there an explosion in WW2 with around that ammount of explosives somewhere in southern england?
Oct 16th, 2010 - 11:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@Typhoon
Oct 17th, 2010 - 01:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0You are dealing with Argentina and not Zimbabwe any of you thinking that 45tons of explosive is a thread to us you may be very stupid.
And I know how much damage can infringes 45t of explosives lets say that can blowup 45/50 cars to 100 high meters in the air.
Any 1000 kg of conventional explosive liberates a force capable to lift 1ton 100 meters high.
You can kill 100.000 to 200.000 people in a high-density populated area like London or Buenos Aires.
But I prefer the use of the Bacillus Anthracis for revenge in the case such event happen.
Easy clean and very cost effective 100kg in a city like London will kill 3 million.
Easy to produce in mass even in situ just needed a infected cow may be from the countryside of England , France or Scotland. Also found the bacillus in Ground.
Can you imagine the damage and vulnerable you are now?
No need for aircraft carries, expensive jet fighters, satellites, intervention of govt., etc.
Just a private enterprise of one sole man and a biochemical friend and I didn’t want to be more sophisticate by using Sarin, or Expol.
So stop to dreaming of threaten us with your shity army even the more stupid military in your country knows that an attack over Buenos Aires will mean a disaster for both nation we will kill each other.
Your nuke threats in the 1982 didn’t work have you noted that?
Iran, Iraq and Vietnam would be a joke for you but this time will be in your island.
I hope you consider your self satisfy with my answer, Are you?
Now channel your frustration of your lost empire by doing something positive.
Now can you post your new joke please or I should start to cultivate my own bacillus?
I’m ready to laugh.
Where do you live? I just want to be sure that the first salvo of missiles gets you. and everything and everyone you've ever known. But only the first salvo you understand. There will be around 1600 altogether.
Oct 17th, 2010 - 12:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0We don't believe in biological and chemical weapons. Nasty, sneaky underhand things employed by nasty, sneaky little animals without the guts to stand up and fight.
But a biological or chemical attack is a trigger for a nuclear response.
Laugh.
Warmongers of the world, unite!
Oct 17th, 2010 - 12:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Aye, Bring it on!
Oct 17th, 2010 - 12:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Easy clean and very cost effective 100kg in a city like London will kill 3 million.”
Oct 17th, 2010 - 01:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No, just...no.
At least google stuff before you post nico, you look like an idiot.
@Zethee Yes they are don't worry you would not find on google.
Oct 17th, 2010 - 03:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“We don't believe in biological and chemical weapons. Nasty, sneaky underhand things employed by nasty, sneaky little animals without the guts to stand up and fight.
But a biological or chemical attack is a trigger for a nuclear response.”
After the 100kg your nation will be in total chaos mate who cares then.
Remember that you bombed me first.
And I will more nasty if I can don't worry just 100Kg and you will be send to stone age.
And you believe with who do you think are you talking with?
You used with the Indians bringing Koch's bacillus from Britain to kill them.
Here from your own cooking
“For example, in 1942 British bioweapons trials[38] severely contaminated Gruinard Island in Scotland with anthrax spores of the Vollum-14578 strain, making it a no-go area until it was decontaminated in 1990.[39][40] The Gruinard trials involved testing the effectiveness of a submunition of an ”N-bomb“—a biological weapon. Additionally, five million ”cattle cakes“ impregnated with anthrax were prepared and stored at Porton Down in ”Operation Vegetarian“—an anti-livestock weapon intended for attacks on Germany by the Royal Air Force.[41] The infected cattle cakes were to be dropped on Germany in 1944. However neither the cakes nor the bomb were used; the cattle cakes were incinerated in late 1945.”
We don't have or use bioweapons. Neither do we use mines(except anti tank).
Oct 17th, 2010 - 06:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“After the 100kg your nation will be in total chaos mate who cares then.”
A 100kg bomb isn't as big as you think it is...
@ Zethee
Oct 17th, 2010 - 08:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Did I said bomb?
“US Congressional Office of Technology Assessment (1993) estimated that between 130,000 and 3 million deaths could follow the aerosolized release of 100 kg of anthrax spore upwind of the Washington, D.C. area. The lethality would match or exceed that of a hydrogen bomb.”
Not convinced yet?
Yes. The whole conversation was about high explosives.
Oct 17th, 2010 - 09:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“By the way, NiceButDim, you never did tell me how much damage you think 50 tons of high explosive could do?”
“Any 1000 kg of conventional explosive liberates a force capable to lift 1ton 100 meters high. ”
“After the 100kg your nation will be in total chaos mate who cares then.
Remember that you bombed me first.
And I will more nasty if I can don't worry just 100Kg and you will be send to stone age. ”
My bad.
Oct 17th, 2010 - 09:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I just read what you said again. Problem is you are chatting utter shit so i skipped over most of it.
You may talk about making your home made bombs, I seriously doubt you have the mental capacity do such a think, much less the guts.
Oct 17th, 2010 - 09:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Anyway, in the event of an argentine bombing a British city with a bio weapon would warrant the use of nuclear weapons, which would just destroy your entire nation. And no-one wants that.
In any event, It is getting rather childish, isnt it? Grow up.
(66)
Oct 17th, 2010 - 09:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“In any event, It is getting rather childish, isnt it? Grow up”
Uuups.... The turnip sprout suddenly got an insight flash!
Congratulations lad... you just grew 2 cm :-)
A sarcastic comment from think, didnt see that one coming!
Oct 17th, 2010 - 09:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@Zethe
Oct 18th, 2010 - 04:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0“I seriously doubt you have the mental capacity do such a think, much less the guts.”
You don’t need a special mental capacity, here is plenty of Anthrax in natural way we deal each sprint with this by vaccinating cattle against it. And the spore grows readily in ordinary labs in certain conditions.
May be for you is a high tech stuff, but here it is not. Like the easy to get Glisofato (used in Vietnam war). I can buy 3 tn if I want. More of the “biological weapons” are pesticides used every day here in the lands to exterminate herbs. Ask your local biotech guy for Glisofato mixt 250 cm3 with water put it into a spry thing and go to your garden (Previous special mask to don’t kill yourself) and spry over.
Every green living thing will be dead. I have a bottle of Glisofato at home for that purpose.
And you don’t need much guts to use it just with the right vaccination widely available here.
Sodium Hypochlorite will help to deal with contaminate anthrax exposed things before you get the infection.
Look how much you have learn hey. So again as you like to show up your Nuke arsenal power I will tell how little its.
100kg of anthrax is equal to a Hydrogen bomb power to kill but like the Neutron bomb style Buildings would be intact. 1 ton of Anthrax over pass your nuclear power of 160 nukes.
By the way with 160 nukes you cannot destroy a country like Argentina this is science fiction you would need and arsenal like USA to infringe major damage to a nation close to the size of the EU.
Lets say 3200 to 5000 nukes you will need to do a big hole here but.
So as you can see we can destroy you easily than you can destroy us.
Now that we have establish how dangerous to you we are and than even GW Bush wouldn’t threat us in such stupid way. Can we continuing with the jokes of your 4 typhoon please? Or am I asking too much?
5000 nukes to destroy a country?
Oct 18th, 2010 - 06:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0lmao.
You honestly aren't worth the air you breathe. I
Nicotine the mad scientist LOL
Oct 18th, 2010 - 09:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0Maybe he's not as stupid as he sounds, Argentina probably does have some talent for making biological weapons, all those Nazi war criminals they sheltered after WW2 would no doubt have had some expertise in that area.
Oct 18th, 2010 - 10:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0@West yes we have and we can do much more we only need a good reason. Like a bomb in Buenos Aires for example.
Oct 18th, 2010 - 10:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0Ok 5000 were too much but at least 640 warheads
Zethe,
You have 160 tridents with payload MIRV able to carry only 8 warhead (restricted to 4)
And 260 warhead what makes a maximum 65 nukes loaded with 4 wh with 1.9Mt power detonation.
Payload: 8 MIRV Mk 4 or Mk 5 RVs
Warhead Nuclear W76 100 kT or W88 475 kT
So assuming luanch your 65 nukes would be 123.5 mt let’s 2,16 Tsar Hydrogen Russian bombs with 57mt each.
Well look now what Tsar 57Mt Hydrogen bomb the most powerful detonated in the world (more than 32 trident power) had done in a little island close to NZ. 400mts hole and 35 km around destruction.
Like the city of Buenos Aires 12m population.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tsar_Bomba_Paris.png a comp
See how much scare you were
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tsar_Bomba_Paris.png
OK you will kill a lot of people but just if you hit Buenos Aires with 32 nukes and then you will have another 1.16 shots of 33 nukes each around.
Your 65 shots will kill 20m perhaps but my 1000kg of Anthrax will vanish from earth the whole British population. And you will be naked then, and we will be left with 20m population and still a big country will remain with few holes of course.
And tell me how are you planing to lunch your 160 nukes with 4 subs? You only can lunch 64 nukes any way lest say 2 Tsars. Wow you are still in danger to be vanish for Anthrax, Sarin, Expol, etc.
Can you see that even with 640 warhead UK cans suffer retaliation and be destroyed and vanish from the face of earth.
So as I said before you need more power to prevent that I will not recommend to left 20m argies in anger.
You went to war in Afghanistan for a bomb imagine what will do if you nuke us.
Carry on nico, please. I need a laugh.
Oct 18th, 2010 - 11:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0You should be on stage NicoDim, you really should.
Oct 18th, 2010 - 11:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0UK nuclear deterrant - Nuke us and we'll Nuke you
Argentine nuclear deterrant - Nuke us and we'll get NicoDim to make an Anthrax bomb....
LOL LOL LOL
I can see why you call this guy Nicodim, not very bright is he.
Oct 18th, 2010 - 11:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0So, you believe that the use of Chemical weapons is justified? and you also believe that the UK holds no Biological or Chemical weapons? Well you are a fool if you think that. Just because we don't use them, doesn't mean we don't have them.
As for your comments regarding our “Shitty Army”, i am pissing myself laughing. Your country has no chance against the British Army, Even your Air Force stands no chance against our “Shitty Army.” We currently have the latest technology in Armour, coupled with our Air defense systems, it would be lambs to the slaughter. Our infantry tactics are vastly superior to your countries standards, not forgetting our constant deployment records.
Nicodim, you are nothing more than a warmongering blogger, who has never experienced any form of real life combat, you are a joke, plain and simple. Keep spending your time on the internet, looking for hypothetical scenarios.
Infact Nicodim, why not download this game, and play it for a while, read the description, i found it amusing.
http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ProSIM/TFW/TFW_page.html
After all, this is the only chance you will ever have of winning a battle, then again, i have come to expect nothing less from internet warriors like yourself, stick to the internet Nicodim, cause in real life, you are nothing.
The makings for your chemical bomb nicotine
Oct 18th, 2010 - 01:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.buenosairesherald.com/BreakingNews/View/48513
@73
Oct 18th, 2010 - 02:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Let's carry on from there, with just a few little points.
1 - I didn't mention nuclear warheads, but let's go with that thought. The immediate availability of Trident D5 warheads is 696. The maximum yield is 100 kilotons per warhead. To put that into context, each warhead would have a force between 7 and 8 times that of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. Given that the casualties at Hiroshima were about 140,000, I estimate that the potential casualties from a full Trident strike would be about 750,288,000. Worth remembering that the Tsar Bomba was detonated at a height of 4 kilometres. No point in that, it was just to see if it would explode. I reckon half a kilometre altitude for each warhead would be about right. By the way, the Trident missile can have 12 warheads, not 8.
2 - The missiles I referred to have simple explosive warheads. What I postulated was 100 missiles from each of 8 fleet submarines. Followed by a reload, and then another 800. 1600, you see.
3 - We could use both. So, after the 750-odd million casualties out of your population of 40 million, we could “carpet” the territory with conventional warheads to make sure.
You see, like so many other bullying countries down the ages, you make the mistake of thinking that because our home islands are quite small, our abilities are similar to yours. They aren't. They are immeasurably greater.
It's also worth bearing in mind that the commanding officers of our ballistic missile submarines have orders that, in the event of destruction of our government and people, they are to launch.
Any large scale chemical or nuclear is also likely to affect france. And they have stricter rules. Any terrorist attack biological or nucler to effect france is to be countered with a full nuclear attack from the place of origin.
Oct 18th, 2010 - 02:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@Hamster
Oct 18th, 2010 - 03:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You should fight against us first and then you will have proved your theory its that simple.
Nothing to loose for you after old you are... Did you say bulletproof or waterproof?
@ Typhoon
I don’t even bother to read your stupid post anymore.
“Hiroshima” made of cardboard and wood.
Do you know what is use to seal a leak of radiation? Surely not concrete and do you know of what are made Argies cities? Solid concrete and iron and do you know what reactors have outside to keep leak radiation incase of accident Oh yes solid concrete.
So your estimation are foolish a detonation in will be 100 times less efective than in London why? Because here there are more concrete an tallest buildings.
The American missile you have can have 12 and 28 the Russian (The system is Russian copy past by the Americans) but your maximum is 8 but now after SALT Agreements you have to limit to 4 warhead.
Max 1,9Megaton each.
You don’t know what your defence and govt does.?
And the warheads that you can use are those that I cited above.
The info for the manufactured, Lockheed Missiles and Space Co., Inc., Sunnyvale, Calif.
You know more than then now?
Cost $29.1 million (current production)
Three-stage solid-propellant rocket
So again whatever you use to kill us we will need a 10% of that to devastated you.
So if you think for whatever reason that you can kill all of us with 10 nukes we only need 1 (10%)
And after 1000 of anthrax your nation will be devastated and I really doubt you would nuke anyone because you will not even note what devastated you. Its that simple.
Why? Because size still matter in wars ask Napoleon and Adolf in Russia.
Case close.
@Zethe
Same case here US will not allow a nuke strike in America (continent) even here and Brasil, Chile, etc also will be piss off.
So as I said before mutual extermination for both nation and for that reason if any conflict would be limited to the islands.
So your nuclear threat is not a threat. :)
“And after 1000 of anthrax your nation will be devastated and I really doubt you would nuke anyone because you will not even note what devastated you. Its that simple.”
Oct 18th, 2010 - 04:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Of course we'll “note” what devestated us, you've been kind enough to tell us all your master plan NicoDim.
“Do you know what is use to seal a leak of radiation? Surely not concrete and do you know of what are made Argies cities? Solid concrete and iron and do you know what reactors have outside to keep leak radiation incase of accident Oh yes solid concrete.”
Oct 18th, 2010 - 04:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0LOL!
Argentina, the concrete windowless nation.
LMAO!
Never realised that the Argentines were a tougher opponent than lets say the Iraqis, Afghanistan's, Serb-Croats, or the IRA. Scuffed when them before, but i realise that the Argentines are a much stronger opponent, with there white flags, and Red-Cross insignias on everything that moves.
Oct 18th, 2010 - 04:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I am sure you are a force to be reckoned with Nicodim.........
Hows that war game going, have you lost yet??
yeah such a Stupid am I booff and now? hahaha I have made working your secret service for nothing.
Oct 18th, 2010 - 04:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Next time perhaps. I would like to know more about your weapons can you help me please?
In case of nuclear attack, shut your windows.
Oct 18th, 2010 - 05:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0rofl!
“So your estimation are foolish a detonation in will be 100 times less efective than in London why? Because here there are more concrete an tallest buildings”
I wish we used concrete for our buildings in london! Oh we are so deprived of such advanced nuclear defences!
“Because size still matter in wars ask Napoleon”
Or perhaps Wellington?
Had to pick this one up :)
Oct 18th, 2010 - 06:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Do you know what is use to seal a leak of radiation? Surely not concrete and do you know of what are made Argies cities? Solid concrete and iron and do you know what reactors have outside to keep leak radiation incase of accident Oh yes solid concrete”
Do you know what goes on inside a nuclear a reactor Nicodume....yes well done, Nuclear fission! The boiling of water using the heat radiated by nuclear ore under pressure.
Do you know what happens during a Nuclear Blast? yes well done Nuclear Fusion, the release of energy by colliding two atoms under intense pressure.
I hear on good authority that containing leaking radiating particles from an inert lump of plutonium, is alot easier than trying to contain a blast with the equivalent force of 10,000,000 tons of TNT :)
Rhaurie, he could have a building made of titanium with 20 foot thick walls, if it's got a glass window it's not going to help much.
Oct 18th, 2010 - 06:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I would be glad to help you Nicodim, we always need targets, hopefully you can oblige.
Oct 18th, 2010 - 08:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@80 What a silly boy you are.
Oct 18th, 2010 - 08:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0SALT (and SALT II) were agreements between the USA and the Soviet Union/Russian Federation. Nothing to do with the UK.
Ready to see what our 696 warheads can do?
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!