Falklands again?

[RF]

RF,

You consider one place a better victory than the other.

I would substitute the word ''complete'' for ''better'' as the military conflict was resolved - the argument over who has ''de jure'' right to the Falklands continues but Argentina has now renounced use of military force, so thankfully we won't have to endure round two of such a conflict.

[chcrawfish]

If it were to flare up again, I'd expect a couple of RN subs to pop the Argentine airfields and other targets with Tomahawks rather quickly. Game over.

[Karl Heidenreich]

Maybe some of them could go "up" a little a terminate Hugo Chavez... terminate with extreme prejudice as was said in Apocalypse Now.

[RF]

If it were to flare up again, I'd expect a couple of RN subs to pop the Argentine airfields and other targets with Tomahawks rather quickly. Game over.

No, the British idea is of deterrence and if that fails of defeating the Argentine forces at sea or on the Falklands. Attacking mainland Argentina substantially ups the ante and is something the British would seek to avoid, and use as a last resort, as in 1982. Right strategy then, right strategy now

[RF]

Maybe some of them could go "up" a little a terminate Hugo Chavez... terminate with extreme prejudice as was said in Apocalypse Now.

If Chavez is such a problem, the CIA can deal with him. They got rid of Allende......

[Karl Heidenreich]

RF:

If Chavez is such a problem, the CIA can deal with him. They got rid of Allende......

CIA? Are we talking the same guys that have tried to get rid of Castro for forty forty plus years unsuccesfuly? Or the same guys that were not able to predict the Iraqui Invasion to Kuwait? Or that multibillion agency that was sure Saddam had weapons of mass destruction in 2003? The guys that failed to protect the Sha or Somoza when it was most needed? Or those that cooperate in the Iran Contras fiasco or failed miserably in Vietnam? Those guys?

Allende? That was during Nixon and Kissinger and they got plenty support from Chile`s military.

If we depend on CIA to get rid of Chavez then we can bet our money on an invasion from French Guyana.

[marcelo_malara]

Guys, again, you are discussing an hipothetical scenario far more improbable than a Nimitz class CAVN in the battle of Midway.

Regards

[Bgile]

Or that multibillion agency that was sure Saddam had weapons of mass destruction in 2003?

No, it's since come out that there were serious doubts that he had them, and they were ignored. That point of view didn't fit the invasion plan.

[RF]

Guys, again, you are discussing an hipothetical scenario far more improbable than a Nimitz class CAVN in the battle of Midway.

Regards

And off the title thread as well.

[chcrawfish]

If it were to flare up again, I'd expect a couple of RN subs to pop the Argentine airfields and other targets with Tomahawks rather quickly. Game over.

No, the British idea is of deterrence and if that fails of defeating the Argentine forces at sea or on the Falklands. Attacking mainland Argentina substantially ups the ante and is something the British would seek to avoid, and use as a last resort, as in 1982. Right strategy then, right strategy now

Since the main threat to a Brit force would be once again the Argentine air forces, I doubt that hitting the airfields would be considered an escalation. They had no means of doing so in 82 unless Ark Royal was to trail her coat up and down the coast.

[RF]

They did not need to do so in 1982. Hitting the Argentine mainland openly constitutes a full scale war between Britain and Argentina, the point of the operation was to retake the Falklands not conquer Argentina.
Yes the airfields pose a threat - but only in terms of their aircraft, which can be effectively dealt with outside the Argentine mainland. The Falklands are 300 miles east of Argentina, the British carriers operate to the east of the Falklands - beyond the range of Argentine forces. The Argentine aircraft are thus dealt with near the limit of their operating radius.

The strategy you propose Crawfish is how the US Navy would act if they were defending the Falklands. The US has far greater military logistics than Britain and could easily overwhelm a country like Argentina in open battle.
But Britain has far smaller defence logistics than the US and has to operate within what is feasible for British forces operating on their own. If action were needed inside Argentina, then covert special forces would be used, including SAS.