Falklands War part 2?

[CanOWorms]

To me Argentina is escalating the conflict by implementing these sanctions. You can argue all you want on who should own the Falklands. However at this time, the Falklands are recognized British territory and the UK is within their rights to respond.

Respond to the sanctions? If so, in what way do you think they will respond?

 

[WelshBloke]

No, they can stay on the island and Argentina can regain control of them. It is my position that Argentina is the rightful owner of the Malvinas. I have no idea how the UK, which is so far away from the Malvinas and only are there due to conquest, can be the rightful owner of the Malvinas.

Could you just lay out the case for the Argentinian ownership?

 

[Nebor]

Respond to the sanctions? If so, in what way do you think they will respond?

Sarin gas on Argentina's population centers. It's well known that the UK never disposed of their stockpiles of chemical weapons. They've been key to putting down revolts in far flung territories for almost a century now.

 

[KMFJD]

"We have no doubt in our sovereignty over the Falkland Islands. Here, the principle of national self-determination is applied inherent in the UN Charter. Negotiations on sovereignty cannot be held, unless the islanders themselves decide to hold them," said a representative of British foreign department a couple of years ago

Hmmmm

 

[CanOWorms]

Sarin gas on Argentina's population centers. It's well known that the UK never disposed of their stockpiles of chemical weapons. They've been key to putting down revolts in far flung territories for almost a century now.

I don't think that would be viewed favorably by the international community. Moreover, while this is definitely a far flung area in respect to the UK, it is not a revolt.

I also question if the UK military even has the capabilities to transfer large quantities of chemical weapons thousands of miles. They are a shell of their former selves.

 

[WelshBloke]

I don't think that would be viewed favorably by the international community. Moreover, while this is definitely a far flung area in respect to the UK, it is not a revolt.

I also question if the UK military even has the capabilities to transfer large quantities of chemical weapons thousands of miles. They are a shell of their former selves.

 

[CanOWorms]

That doesn't help at all.

 

[WelshBloke]

That doesn't help at all.

If you say so.

 

[CanOWorms]

If you say so.

Let me elaborate. Your answer doesn't help since it lacks details. You merely posted a picture of a submarine. A submarine may be useful if it can safely transfer chemical weapons and transfer large quantities of the chemical weapons. Perhaps a single submarine's lack of storage can be mitigated by having a fleet of submarines. But that still leaves open whether it has the capability of storing a large capacity of chemical weapons, enough to apparently wipe out large population centers thousands of miles away.

 

[Nebor]

That doesn't help at all.

That submarine loaded with the air dispersal cruise missiles we've sold them could easily deliver devastating amounts of chemical agents over every major population center in Argentina.

 

[CanOWorms]

That submarine loaded with the air dispersal cruise missiles we've sold them could easily deliver devastating amounts of chemical agents over every major population center in Argentina.

Link?

 

[Nebor]

Let me elaborate. Your answer doesn't help since it lacks details. You merely posted a picture of a submarine. A submarine may be useful if it can safely transfer chemical weapons and transfer large quantities of the chemical weapons. Perhaps a single submarine's lack of storage can be mitigated by having a fleet of submarines. But that still leaves open whether it has the capability of storing a large capacity of chemical weapons, enough to apparently wipe out large population centers thousands of miles away.

You realize one British sub of that sort can carry enough nuclear ordinance to level every population center on a given continent, right? Chemical weapons aren't as effective, but they could easily handle Argentina with one sub. And Argentina would be unable to respond.

 

[Nebor]

I don't think that would be viewed favorably by the international community. Moreover, while this is definitely a far flung area in respect to the UK, it is not a revolt.

I also question if the UK military even has the capabilities to transfer large quantities of chemical weapons thousands of miles. They are a shell of their former selves.

Has that ever stopped them before? Do you really put the use of chemical weapons on civilians past them?

 

[CanOWorms]

You realize one British sub of that sort can carry enough nuclear ordinance to level every population center on a given continent, right? Chemical weapons aren't as effective, but they could easily handle Argentina with one sub. And Argentina would be unable to respond.

I know that they carry nuclear weapons, but I'm not sure about chemical weapons. I imagine that there is a host of different considerations and technical issues involved there.

 

[CanOWorms]

Has that ever stopped them before? Do you really put the use of chemical weapons on civilians past them?

No, but a new world has emerged since they last used them.

 

[RabidMongoose]

You realize one British sub of that sort can carry enough nuclear ordinance to level every population center on a given continent, right? Chemical weapons aren't as effective, but they could easily handle Argentina with one sub. And Argentina would be unable to respond.

The British wouldn't use nuclear weapons against Argentina. If they did, then I'm sure that the US and the rest of the world will punish the British and turn the UK into an Argentinian colony.

I don't think that the UK really has the capability to prevent Argentina from taking over the Malvinas if they so desired. Even former UK military officials confirm this. We also saw it in Libya - the UK no longer has the capability of projecting significant force much beyond its own mainland borders.

However, I think that these discussions of force and capability are pretty immature, I don't think that we'll see armed conflict.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Ya I was A big fan of the britts . Than I started reading more and more. As it is today if they were going to be nuked and I could stop it . I would turn my back on them.

 

[Karl Agathon]

A thing of beauty!!!

 

[Nemesis 1]

You realize one British sub of that sort can carry enough nuclear ordinance to level every population center on a given continent, right? Chemical weapons aren't as effective, but they could easily handle Argentina with one sub. And Argentina would be unable to respond.

You realize Argentina has real resources they own not stolen . The britts have nothing that they didn't steal and rape and murder to get.

 

[Infohawk]

It seems like there's been some new votes for the thread derail option. Perhaps people were inspired by this thread.

 

[Nebor]

The British wouldn't use nuclear weapons against Argentina. If they did, then I'm sure that the US and the rest of the world will punish the British and turn the UK into an Argentinian colony.

I don't think that the UK really has the capability to prevent Argentina from taking over the Malvinas if they so desired. Even former UK military officials confirm this. We also saw it in Libya - the UK no longer has the capability of projecting significant force much beyond its own mainland borders.

However, I think that these discussions of force and capability are pretty immature, I don't think that we'll see armed conflict.

If you actually read the article, you'd see that the former General was saying that they couldn't retake it once lost. However the island is much more fortified now than it was in 1982, and has some 1,400 troops stationed there, with a large airfield for reinforcements.

 

[WelshBloke]

A thing of beauty!!!

They are amazing machines in their own right aren't they?

 

[Nebor]

Link?

My apologies, I should have provided it with my previous post.

 

[RabidMongoose]

If you actually read the article, you'd see that the former General was saying that they couldn't retake it once lost. However the island is much more fortified now than it was in 1982, and has some 1,400 troops stationed there, with a large airfield for reinforcements.

Hmm, thanks for pointing this out. Though I don't think that would be enough to prevent an Argentinian takeover, so my point pretty much stands. The UK doesn't really have enough capability to project force beyond its mainland, IMO.

 

[WelshBloke]

If you actually read the article, you'd see that the former General was saying that they couldn't retake it once lost. However the island is much more fortified now than it was in 1982, and has some 1,400 troops stationed there, with a large airfield for reinforcements.

He was also trying to get an increase in the military budget, and/or change the way the carrier upgrade was being handled.