MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
UK Secretary discusses Falklands’ defence in Parliament
UK Defence Secretary Philip Hammond said on Monday that the British military presence in the Falklands has not increased recently since there was no recorded change to Argentine force levels, and there was no “current or credible” threat. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesPhilip Hammond: “The FIDF will be given ninja training by Sensei Tomodachi himself and access to the new tazer Argistop-5000”
Feb 21st, 2012 - 08:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0They (the UK) should take some of that 'surplus' air force, artillery, armour and naval equipment they arev planning to retire (too soon, and very unwisely) and store it on the Islands, plus create a public works programme to build some dispersal airfields so as to not be totally dependent on Mount Pleasant and Stanley for high performance aircraft operations. That, plus a nuclear Tomahawk-missile armed hunter-killer submarine on station within a day or two's sail from the Argentinean mainland should put the evil bitch back in her box. Too much 'make nice' with the manic wing of Argentinean politics. They should be made to understand that any military action, or evenmere threat of military action, including embargo or blockade, against the Islands WILL result in unrestricted warfare against Argentina itself. Sad. Avoidable. Not what the British or Falklands peoples want. But, this persistent drumbeat of 'we want 'our' Islands back', when there is absolutely no historical, legal or moral basis for the Islands remaining anything but BRITISH demands a clear response in order that this current (and all future) Argentinean Governments clearly understand the dangerous path they tread in seeking to make the Falkland Islands a prize for Argentinean national socialists and other manic historical revisionists.
Feb 21st, 2012 - 08:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0Military Base on colonial territory
Feb 21st, 2012 - 09:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0I just wonder with what they are planing to defend the islands?
Feb 21st, 2012 - 09:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0No carries, no air superiority... war lost ah! I know they will ask the argies to invade the island when they get out of the economic mess at the moment. Lets say 2020 if they are lucky.
@El Supremo
“That, plus a nuclear Tomahawk-missile armed hunter-killer submarine on station within a day or two's sail from the Argentinean mainland”
Well didn’t that worked in 1982 why do you think that your nuclear and I don’t know what rubbish because as far I know you BGM-109 Tomahawk cannot be armed by UK with N warhead. You have to develop one first. Did you? Nope.
More rubbish about weapons that you don’t have operational.
Prove it Marcel.
Feb 21st, 2012 - 09:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0Former Labour minister Denis MacShane (Rotherham) claimed Britain was in the “weakest position in five centuries of naval history”.
Feb 21st, 2012 - 10:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0Not only the UK Defence Secretary would believe that Mr MacShane had “succumbed slightly to hyperbole”.
The strength of a position is both relative and absolute.
The strength of a position is relative to the strength of the opposition. Today, the opposition is Argentina. It's position is so incredibly weak that MacShane's argument is absurd.
Even in terms of 'strength over the five centuries of naval history' the deployment of a couple of nuclear submarines makes the UK massively stronger than in the pre-nuclear age.
Only the size of 'armies' change; the greater the weapon-force, in general terms, the less the need for 'the poor bloody infantry'.
The *real* and unseen defensive-threat of subsurface vessels is not the same as the more-PR-savvy surface deployments.
Real politicians, rulers, and military men know this and take great care to not tweak the tail of the underwater tiger.
@4 Dany
Feb 21st, 2012 - 10:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0Not to stretch the point but no-one, not even in the midst of a hot war is insane enough to actually want to use nuclear weapons.
The BGM-109A and the BGM-109G are nuclear weapon, and the UK doesn't have any.
The BGM-109C and the RGM/UGM-109E both have conventional 1000lb warheads, enough to make a fairly substantial hole in most things.
I believe the Royal Navy have had the RGM/UGM-109E on the Trafalgar class submarine since 2008
Given the frankly questionable maintenance record of the FAA, I'd query the not having air superiority as well.
Air supremacy would be more questionable but if I were a fighter pilot then I wouldn't be happy about trying to fly offensive missions over the Falklands. Especially in an aircraft that is old enough to start qualifying for long-service medals in it's own right, that is only capable of carrying missiles with relatively short range and having to engage at the outer edge of it's effective combat radius trying to attack an airfield with far more modern and better maintained fighters, with longer range missiles that is bristling with SAM systems without any element of surprise, while all the time wondering whether or not you're going to have an airbase left to land on should you get back safely.
If I did have to do that, I'd be wanting to set my affairs in order before I took off.
@3 Are you talking about your military base in 1982 on South Georgia, another island that you just decided you just wanted. No historical basis there either.
Feb 21st, 2012 - 11:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0@4 No one uses nukes any more, you just bomb all their power plants and turn the place into a humanitarian disaster. Nukes are so passé.
Ah yes, just like in 1982!
Feb 21st, 2012 - 12:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Philippe
More nonsense from The Great Inbred Unwashed. They'd be better to invest the money in cosmetic dentistry.
Feb 21st, 2012 - 12:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The big mistake the UK made in 1982 was to restrict the conflict to the Falklands (there are no Malvinas). Yes, I know that the UN mandate was to remove the Argies only.
Feb 21st, 2012 - 12:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0But given the rhetoric at the time emanating from Argentina a lot of us in the UK would have been very happy to see the nearest Argiebase and all the regional power plants decimated.
The loss of life would have been minimal and the effect catastrophic on the whole country. We would not now be in this ludicrous position of Argentina lying and bleating to the world over the Falklands.
4. Danny you're at it again you lunatic!
Feb 21st, 2012 - 01:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Air Supremacy? Britain can easily achieve air supremacy and it could even do it against the whole of South America put together.
The Falklands have very sophisticated air defenses, you've then got the Typhoon which can decimate anything Argentina put in the skies, in fact I'd go as far as saying its a non-match given the Typhoon can shoot any Argentina aircraft down before they get anywhere near getting in range to launch a missile and if that wasn't bad enough the UK has a Type 45 Destroyer parked down there which is the most sophisticated warship in the world.
The Type 45 can simply watch and wait for air craft to take off, track them and knock them out of the sky with ease.
I'd really feel for any Argentine pilot asked to fly a mission against one of the most (if not the most) sophisticated air defense in the world with aircraft that are embarrassingly out of date.
And just to make matters worse you can guarantee one or several of our submarines would immediately start striking Argentine infrastructure and airports with cruise missiles which in the event of them managing to return to base they wouldn't have anywhere to land.
If there ever was a suicide mission this would be it.
“Military Base on colonial territory”
Feb 21st, 2012 - 01:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Possibly, but definitely not on Argentine territory. Best you get used to that fact.
@ Requested military defences on a self-governing Overseas Territory. Notice the “self-governing”, argie imperialist colonialist. Will YOU be the first to try to set foot on the beach?
Feb 21st, 2012 - 01:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@4 Getting worried, McDonalds Burger? Remember that your own foreign minister, the Tinman, says that Britain has put nuclear weapons in the area. And he wouldn't lie, would he? Another thought. The British-operated Trident D5 missile actually has a British-designed and British-built warhead. How long do you think it would take to design and build a nuclear warhead for a Tomahawk? And we don't necessarily go shouting out what we have. Could we have nuclear missiles in the Falklands or on our submarines? You pays your money and you take your chance. Are you feeling lucky? Well, are you?
@7 Please see my response to the chopped and shaped gay meat substitute @4. You're probably quite right about the UK not having any BGM-109A or BGM-109G in its inventory. Especially since the BGM-109G was withdrawn from service in 1987. Doubtful if we would want the BGM-109G as it was ground launched. But is there a British-built unannounced equivalent? There's the question. I was watching a programme called Submarine Patrol on cable last night. I noticed that there was a navigation device that originated with that fitted to the Avro Lancaster during WW2. As the captain said, “It works. If it isn't broke, don't fix it.” Is Britain capable of putting a nuclear warhead on a Tomahawk? You know we are. And why not? 1 boat facing 40 million in defence of 3,000 or so. Let's do what it takes!
@9 & 10 What? Who do you think you are speaking to? On the available evidence, you're argies. Meaningless comments by meaningless individuals.
@11 Agreed. Maybe next time, eh?
@12 Also agreed. Probably be best if we wiped a few selected places off the face of the planet. Starting with Buenos Aires. Followed by Cordoba, Rosario, Mendoza, Tucuman, La Plata, Mar del Plata, Salta, Santa Fe and San Juan.
California was given to US by Mexico by a treaty, as Hong Kong back to China , DIego Garcia Is. a scandal ,.... but in HK , UK has asked to their people about self-determination???? no... that is hypocrisy when try to impose the self-det in our Malvinas, where don´t apply and all the World dont support.......
Feb 21st, 2012 - 02:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@14 I think we're all underestimating the lack of interest in opiatic nationalism on behalf of the Argies. They're typically the same people as we are, and often just misled using the 'carrot and stick'. Being realistic, they're probably sick to the back teeth of sh!tty politicians ruining their economy and making their life rubbish. The thought of using a nuclear threat in this situation isn't realistic. I for one in no way condone the use of the use of nuclear weapons or the threat of nuclear weapons except for in a last resort scenario.
Feb 21st, 2012 - 02:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Better to use conventional means if they invade again.
It's hard to envisage any military scenario that would work for an Argentinian invasion of TFI.
Feb 21st, 2012 - 02:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Air: a full Unasur deployment of - probably - all attack and transport planes in South America would be necessary to swamp the defensive weaponry.
Unasur’s full S.A. participation could not be won politically without an actual UK attack on Argentinian mainland. Logistically, it’s forces could not be aggregated for a co-ordinated strike without the similar upgrading of defence capabilities.
Destruction of an attacking air bridge would only begin with the crossing of a geographical 'line', following notification by the UK to the great powers and the UN, that such a transgression would be met with deadly repulsive force. No negotiation.
Could a massed air bridge swamp defenses? Yes, probably, but absolutely not once the allied-Unasur forces faced up to the allied NATO forces of the other.
Chinese potential deployments would be discouraged by forcefully coersive real politik. The Chinese cannot realistically extend to a war on the other side of the world.
Land: Transporting sufficient invading troops is problematic. Air transport would need the largest civil aircraft to plug the shortfall in SA military troop transports. It needs functioning airports and turn-round capabilities. An attempted Arnheim troop-dump is a turkey-shoot. Massed marine troop-transport is a possibility, using eg bulk tankers for the ‘300 mile dash’, but offloading of troops, vehicles and equipment is another killing floor. The Overlord 20 mile Channel-crossing was tough but, to overload the UK submarine fleet, a radially-co-ordinated 300-1,000 miles dash across the Southern Ocean is impossible.
However: The spasmic destruction of Israel and much of Iran, and a full military conflagration across the arab world extending through Turkey into Europe might relegate TFI to a minimal defence, and probably a 'write-off' in a greater ‘world’ war.
@17 Surely in this day and age they have something that guards against troop-dumps? That you just set onto automatic mode and it picks out everything in the sky that looks vaguely man-using-parachute like and sticks it full of lead? The kind of thing you leave going while you have a cup of tea and a sandwich and then some nice cakes on a tier?
Feb 21st, 2012 - 03:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Surely?
@15 Hello. My name is nitrojuan. I'm an uneducated, illiterate pillock.
Feb 21st, 2012 - 04:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@16 I understand your reservations BUT, argieland has, so far, invaded the Falkland Islands at least NINE times that we know of. There has to be a way to persuade them NEVER to do it again. Conventional weapons cost money. So do nuclear weapons. In 1982, argieland lost 649 killed. They had 1,068 wounded and 11,313 taken prisoner. Have they learned from this? They have not. But if we wipe their five largest cities off the face of the planet, or even the whole cuntry, they (whoever is left) might learn not to put belligerent, mendacious gangsters in power. I suggest that argieland should think hard about this. How much of their cuntry are they prepared to lose in an attempt to get the Islands? Question for argieland. Are the Islands worth 3,000,000 of your population in our first strike. Listen up. We are tired of you. we are tired of your actions against our citizens. See whether you can remember that there isn't a single piece of international law that prohibits against an aggressor. You are an aggressor. Be warned. Our patience is not inexhaustible!
Conqueror - you really should wind your neck in. You sound as daft as the most rabid of the malvinistas.
Feb 21st, 2012 - 04:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Conqueror, you are absolutely right. Don´t doubt to take your threats to the UN in order to Argentina and their allies become very afraid.
Feb 21st, 2012 - 06:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0El Supremo can join you and help to the speech there.
You are the only patriots that remain in UK, lead the charge!
@3 Kohen. Constructive comment, shame it is completely incorrect. You have been to the islands, you have seen the place with your own eyes and you know of the elected MLAs who make the decisions regarding the Falklands. You have all the facts, but you keep lying to yourself.
Feb 21st, 2012 - 06:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It is also funny how your country is based on colonialism and implanted populations from Europe, but you dont seem to have a problem of Argentina's bloody history of conquering lands. Hypocrite springs to mind Kohen. Seems like you are a typical Argentine.
@4 DanyBerger
Feb 21st, 2012 - 06:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Actually the British have always built their own nuclear warheads, a requirement of the nuclear non proliferation treaty, the missile system may be bought from the US, but the Subs and warheads are British designed and built.
Each Tomahawk can easily be fitted with up to 3 nuclear warheads, the British have a few hundred nuclear warheads.
Lucky really Conqueror is not in charge, or large parts of SA would be “Glow in the Dark”
Sometimes I wonder if the UK is simply being too kind to the Argentinian's, I mean the UK can cause havoc in Argentina in any number of different ways should it wish to do so.
Feb 21st, 2012 - 06:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0However I guess there is an old euphemism that says 'don't sink to their level' and quite honestly the UK would have a long way to go to reach the disgraceful levels of the Argentine government.
I actually feel sorry for the Argentine people to be represented by these liars, I know this site has its fair share of crazy Argentines but on the whole I wouldn't be surprised if the general population where just decent normal folk who do not want this.
We all know Argentina getting into any sort of fight with the UK is a huge mistake.
24
Feb 21st, 2012 - 07:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Sometimes I wonder if the Whole World is simply being too kind to the British, I mean the World can cause havoc in UK in any number of different ways should it wish to do so.”
It seems that this statement is a lot more probable of being true that yours.
23 Conqueror is not in charge even of his own pills, one of these days he will sit down on his preferred kukri.
@24 I think there is a danger of this. Chinese tactician SunZi always said you should rouse your enemy in order to see their mettle. But in the case of Argentina, they're basically some fallback to WW2 where Nazis and their ideology could hang out and fester. These people have no freedom, they're slaves to an ideology that hasn't changed since Mein Kampf was penned.
Feb 21st, 2012 - 07:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The issues is that they've invaded the falklands 9 times, they're guilty of genocide, they don't care about democracy only decree, and they sponsor terrorism (hijacking, etc) so they're poison.
But like a garden weed, they keep coming back. So, if you can suggest a weedkiller, it might help.
There is no need for the UK to do anything. In fact, to do so would just allow the widow-woman to play the victim. Nothing has changed and nothing will change on the Falkland Islands unless they want it to.
Feb 21st, 2012 - 07:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0However, things are going to get a lot worse in Argentina. Pointing at mythical islands to distract the population is not going to work for much longer.
Ridiculous poster 25. It's hard to even reason with that level of idiocy.
Feb 21st, 2012 - 07:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As for the UK that sits in the highest seats of the most powerful world organizations and still has huge diplomatic and economic power. Military power isn't worth discussing since this shouldn't be part of the picture unless Argentina does something very foolish.
And unlike Argentina has a very real impact on world affairs.
28
Feb 21st, 2012 - 07:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I enjoy that our boys don´t have to die useless in Hellmand or in Basra and I enjoy not living with 1500 terrorist cells around me.
I enjoy that we are calling the 82 war “a military adventure”, and you can´t call Tony`s lies (and its thousands of victims) for its name.
Where is really the idiocy?
Quite frankly as a sponsor of terrorism you probably do have 1500 terrorist cells around you even if they mean you no harm.
Feb 21st, 2012 - 07:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Also attempt at deflecting attention, although calling 82 conflict a 'military adventure' goes someway to showing your level. A lot of decent servicemen lost their life from both sides but in your little world it was a fun little adventure.
So where really is the idiocy?
The answer is: trying to make a british colonialist to reflect about the consequences of his own acts.
Feb 21st, 2012 - 07:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Sorry, I`ll not repeat such mistake.
@25 Pheel
Feb 21st, 2012 - 07:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Well Ghurkha custom does says that “once the kukri has been drawn, blood must be shed”
They however just nick their thumbs before sheathing it again, assuming they haven’t cut anyone meantime.
@31 I'm pretty glad that you Argies aren't colonists and were spawned by a fungus rather than being supplanted on the aboriginal population from Mussolini's Italy, Nazi Germany and Spain. I'm really glad you're not colonists.
Feb 21st, 2012 - 07:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0'Argentinian minds are full of potato”, a wise man
RE #9
Feb 21st, 2012 - 08:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The British in 1982 never suspected that fascist Argentina was preparing an invasion of the Falkland Islands. That is why I said now is “just like in 1982.” Indeed there are no visible threats. But, some people in this blog do not understand plain English.
Philippe
Sun Zi, the chinese strategist said “Thus we may know that there are five essentials for victory: He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight. He will win who knows how to handle both superior and inferior forces. He will win whose army is animated by the same spirit throughout
Feb 21st, 2012 - 08:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0all its ranks. He will win who, prepared himself, waits to take
the enemy UNPREPARED. He will win who has military capacity and
is not interfered with by the sovereign.”
Besides, we all know they tried it 9 times before, so it's only a matter of time before they try it again, regardless of how much the other despots on the C24 applaud.
33 The aboriginal population is mostly mixed in actual population, that has been the origin of the gauchos for centuries.
Feb 21st, 2012 - 08:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0A difference with British colonies, don´t you think?
Like Australia, for example.
BTW: repeating again and again the same fallacy is a goebbelian tactic, doesn´t matter if the lier is “malvinista” or “falklandero”.
Silly boy myself: again trying to make reasoning those rabid & self-centered-white-greedy-fundamentalists!
@36 are you just using repeating words that we used about Argentina? It appears that your vocabulary is dependent on what someone said to you. It must be difficult for you to put across your opinions using this strategy of unoriginality.
Feb 21st, 2012 - 08:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0PS. Goebellianism is where you seize control of the media and then propagandaise your extremist ideology repeatedly through it, like they do in Argentina.
@17GeoffWard,
Feb 21st, 2012 - 09:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Your last paragraph about a war in Europe & Britain's inability to protect the Falklands has often been in my mind also.
That is why a lot of this oil money must be spent on defence & the Falklands have to develop its own heavily armed Defence Forces.
@20 ldlehands,
Although its true that Conqueror gets a bit too much at times, unfortunately it seems to be the only thing that these malvinistas understand. So some of his views have merit.
Haven't been counting, but if we've been invaded 9 times, then that is their mindset.
They will come again & again & again until we do something about it.
They won't go away if we ignore them.
Somehow we have to break the cycle.
l would hesitate to use nuclear weapons, but always keep it as a last resort.
l am more in favour of breaking Argentina up into smaller more manageable countries.
Actually the way things are going over there its quite possible that they will do it themselves.
One can only hope!
the british only need to drop one EMP and that will stop argentina in its tracks for decades,
Feb 21st, 2012 - 09:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0will it not ? .
@39 I think Argentina will do a Zimbabwean implosion before we ever get to that. It's only a matter of time.
Feb 21st, 2012 - 09:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0she is running out of time .
Feb 21st, 2012 - 09:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0All interesting points and some downright funny.
Feb 22nd, 2012 - 12:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0The point I am making is that it would benefit both the Argentinean and the British Governments for the British (the 'defenders', versus the 'attackers', so to speak) to make it totally crystal clear to the 'attackers' (current or future) that as with any attack on the UK proper, any attack on the Falklands would result in unrestricted warfare which would of necessity have to include the destruction of the 'attacker's' or 'attackers'' assets on their own home territory.
This legitimate action could be, but might not necessarily be, limited to the military and naval assets on those shores, as well as any legal target in the air or at sea.
It is just a matter of letting the potential 'attacker' or 'attackers' know what the true cost of their adventure may (preferably 'will') be; and thereby establishing a baseline for them to consider their position correctly, as opposed to back in 1982 wherein it appeared to have been a case ot the blind leading the stupid. Some combination of those players appear to have multiplied in recent years within Argentina and elsewhere (Venezuala springs to mind).
In the meantime, as I have posted many times on this site, I personally recommend the establishment of a joint condominium ownership of the Islands. Both for the benefit of reasoning the current impasse and as a gesture to the future.
And, as a means of cementing what should be a natural alliance between the fine peoples of both Argentina and Great Britain, as well as greatly benefiting the Falkland Islanders.
Any Argentinean leader with any common sense might by now have put forward such a proposal for the consideration of the parties, instead of beating the old drums in dealing with matters of ancient history.
But, lacking all that, the reality will be that the Islands are and will remain part of Britain in some form and might well be realigned as British Counties with seats at Parliament, in London.
Then, case closed.
@GeoffWard2
Feb 22nd, 2012 - 01:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0And from what source you assume that Argentina is weaker than before?
Your intelligence service? the same that said that Iraq had WMD?
@GreekYoghurt
“you just bomb all their power plants and turn the place into a humanitarian disaster”
Really? and do you really think that UK is so stupid to engage with the main land and trigger SA war ? Are really so naive to believe so?
@ChrisR
The day UK bombs Argentina’s mainland your life as Islander will end badly they will bomb you day and night until no penguins will be left. All your little Island’s ports, oil rigs will dissipater they will not hesitate to kill you like dogs.
Ask the Paraguayan about how bad boys can turn Argentinians when they are pissed off, they killed all men and their sons in the war.
@Xect
The only lunatic I can see here is you that have no clue about what is talking about, a drop of argies guide bombs will left Mount Pleasant out of service. And I don’t even mention about their missiles hitting your ass day and night.
Your defence is a joke to repel an argentinian attack.
Your only option to get away with it is to go nuclear and if are so mad to do so they will strike back soon or later so your view of UK supremacy is just a joke. 30 years ago they damaged very badly UK and next time will be worse.
Dany #43
Feb 22nd, 2012 - 08:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0Are you seriously suggesting that the Argentinian armed forces are STRONGER than at any time in the country's history???
Read your newspapers; ask your officers; just don't ask your government.
@43 I didn't necessarily say the British bombed their assets, I just suggested someone could. FIDF could press the button.
Feb 22nd, 2012 - 08:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0Then the Argentinians would be at war with a country that they claim doesn't exist. The UN would have to recognise the Falklands in order to get them to negotiate and the UK would step in to clean up militarily, just like last time.
Any recent war just shows that if you take out their infrastructure, then they just end up marauding gangs in SUVs, at which point you isolate them and they turn into Mad Max World at best, Escape from New York at worst.
43 DanyBerger
Feb 22nd, 2012 - 11:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0Are you for real? Do not confuse your governments rhetoric with reality.
You don't even have any modern fast jets!!! The only things you have flew in 1982 Mirage 3s & 5s all with terminal aiframe fatigue. I really pity your pilots having to fly this rubbish.
Where are the bombers you claim exist AND the guided bombs? Or are you saying the 'rest of SA will join forces with you'?
Chavez would love to, he is like a mad dog and the USA would LOVE him to make a move outside his pathetic country. That would soon be the end of him if the cancer does not get him first.
In any event it would not matter much: the existing Typhoons can kill your Mirage crap without even seeing them, the Type 45 can deal with ANY air threat simultaneously (it's capacity is measured in HUNDREDS of targets at once). AND we would not need nuclear weapons to knock-out ALL your power plants because we have more than enough cruise missiles with conventional warheads while you only have the 30 year old probably unserviced original cruise missiles.
AND where are the fabled 'missiles' that can allegedly carry a 25% payload when the best so far anywhere else for a similar rocket is 8%?? Still struggling to get out of the plywood cases, nevermind fly more than 100 meters I think.
But it won't come to that because CFK is all mouth and scared shitless that things might get out of hand and that would be the end of her 'Dynasty'. The only thing scaring her almost as much is the upcoming crash in the economy later this year / early next year.
WHAT A JOKE YOUR COUNTRY IS AND YOU JUST DON'T SEE IT DO YOU?
@46 Does anyone else see the size similarity between MAASSIVE Maxi kirchner and kim jong-un? What is it about dynastic despots kids not knowing what sport is?
Feb 22nd, 2012 - 11:27 am - Link - Report abuse 047 GreekYoghurt
Feb 22nd, 2012 - 12:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Although we talk about a 'Dynasty' it is very easy to see alternative endings for them.
Once the forthcoming economic crash happens CFK may well want to exit the country pretty quickly for her bolt hole (some think in the USA) no doubt taking the super heroes 'FatBoy' and 'ThinGirl' with her.
What the rump of no-hopers like 'Timmidman' and 'Juggello' et al will do (if they are still living) is anybody's guess.
It could all turn very nasty indeed if the 'workers' riot in every city in the land, and why shouldn't they if they loose everything, again?
@48 I guess Timerman would go to Israel. The Israelis dislike the UK with a deep passion, as they gave national war memorials and national ceremonies to those terrorists who killed Lord Moyne who was a friend of Churchill, and lots of Arabs in Dier Yassin.
Feb 22nd, 2012 - 12:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Basically Israel provided the Argentinians with weapons and training during the first Falklands War and nothing has changed since then, so I guess they'd do it again, and provide Timerman with somewhere to go.
@GeoffWard2
Feb 22nd, 2012 - 01:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And you are planing to engage into war with Argentina by planning your strategy while reading Argentine press?
Are you really serious?
Newspapers have said that Japan’s nuclear disaster was reaching Argentine cost. Predicted economy collapse since 10 year ago, also that Argentinean population will die for strange diseases, that Cristina will not have a second term, etc, etc. keep reading I recommend you La Nacion you will love it.
@ChrisR
You already have showed your ignorance before, so why are you still going on?
So you don’t know that Agies have guided bombs? 3D radar, Uavs, mid range missiles and all that kind of stuff?
You are really amazing.
So why don’t you send your navy if you have a win/win situation and see what will happen to your Royal Navy?
@50 Because no one cares one jot about you Argfags. Better just to let you fester in your own sh!t until it really kicks off. Then we step in maintain the status-quo, and not lose many valuable British lives.
Feb 22nd, 2012 - 02:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win” Sun Zi, 500BC. This is why you Argfags never win.
I'd love to see an Argfag UAV... that would be hilarious.
50 DanyBerger
Feb 22nd, 2012 - 04:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Please provide evidence, in the form of INDEPENDANT links that you indeed have “guided bombs? 3D radar, Uavs, mid range missiles”
PLEASE DO NOT INCLUDE THE PATHETIC S/S ROCKET that has been touted as the latest thing since sliced bread and will be made in Argentina.
@ChrisR
Feb 22nd, 2012 - 07:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And why I would do that lazy monolingual kebab eater?
Calm down boys,
Feb 22nd, 2012 - 08:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The British government has stated that it has no intentions or ratching this up, it has no need to, the British government can and will defend the Falklands, alone if necessary,
Argentina is well aware the basic power of the UK government,
And we of them, governments may be corrupt and incompetent, but they are not stupid,
The facts remain, as log as the UN and all its signatories agree to freedom , and self determination, as is democracy, the UN or anyone else, cannot, and will not give a free democracy to a dictatorship, and that is a fact, if you believe in anything else, then one is totally brainwashed, and not worth the effort,.
.
@53 DanyBerger
Feb 23rd, 2012 - 07:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What is wrong with being “a lazy monolingual kebab eater”, or a Camden Town Market education for that matter!
Distaining attitudes like this towards the common people are what breed revolutions.
Up against the wall for your Romanoff goodbye!
#48 “I guess Timerman would go to Israel.”
Feb 26th, 2012 - 10:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Much as i dislike Israel for its racist anti-Palestinian policies, yuor prediction somewhat undercuts your argument that Kirchnerism=Naziism does it not? As in, to spell it out for you, no members of hitler's government would have fled FROM Argentina TO Israel, would they?!
53 DanyBerger
Feb 27th, 2012 - 12:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0Probably because your 'weapons' are useless.
The UAV is nothing but a big version of the radio controlled plane I made when I was 14, apart from the twin boom tail.
You have no rocket programme since the Americans bought you out, though the thing you were developing NEVER had a successful test flight because the flight control system was badly flawed and needed USD6Billion spending on it (US sources).
The bombs (if they still exist) need planes to drop them and the only planes you have are very badly airframe fatigued. Even if they take off they would be brought down by a missile from the Type 45 Destroyer.
Bragging never works: actions and courage do. Argentina lacks both, Britain has both in Spades.
Pathetic country while it is governed by the CFK mob.
@56British_Kirchnerist,
Feb 27th, 2012 - 10:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0“no members of hitler's government would have fled FROM Argentina TO lsrael, would they?”
Why not? lt would be the last place anyone would look for them, wouldn't it?
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!