ITV NEWS Argentina plan on re taking the falkland islands

[Tired Tyres]

At what point do I even mention HMS Sheffield?

Just as I didn't claim a ship was made of aluminum.

That's twice now that you have said that I posted something that I didn't.

Enough.

 

[Sureboss]

I've been thinking (I know, everyone is scared), this thread would be so much better if we removed Argentina from the title.

 

[ExigeEvan]

At what point do I even mention HMS Sheffield?

Just as I didn't claim a ship was made of aluminum.

That's twice now that you have said that I posted something that I didn't.

Enough.

Funny that...

Aluminum melts at lower temperature than steel. It's what lost us most of the ships we lost the last time. They literally started to melt after being hit by missiles. Not nice if you are below decks.

Two ships lost by missile, exocets.

HMS Sheffield- Not made of Aluminium.
HMS Glamorgan- Exocet hit fuelly fuelled and loaded Helicopter.

Sorry if you can't understand my logical assumptions. But you've come out with an untrue statement and failed to prove it at any point. You've then accused me of assumptions that are made without any speculation but simple broader understanding of your statements.

 

[Keef]

Who the hell's idea is it that a Navy destroyer is made out of aluminum? Aluminum is more than double the price of steel while historically being even more than that, first of all, and isn't capable of supporting as much weight (something to consider on a battleship. Steel, steel, and more steel. Diesel fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel, but it does burn hot enough to drastically reduce the structural integrity of the metal. That's what happened to the World Trade Center.

Missiles tend to blow stuff to pieces. I'd say that's about what happened to whatever ship was sunk.

 

[Dotini]

We've sent our Destroyer the HMS Dauntless to the Falklands today.

I hope it is not made of aluminum!

Somewhat worried,
Steve

The original reference to aluminum was mine. I never expressed it, but I had in mind various unsatisfactory experiences with aluminum in the superstructure of US destroyers. Here is an example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Belknap_(CG-26)

I did later post an article about the HMS Sheffield, and how it was consumed with fire ensuing from a single hit by an early version of the venerable French Exocet anti-ship missile.

The latest anti-ship missile technology, and here I have Russian in mind, has the missile make a last-minute pop-up maneuver, and come down on the hapless ship from above, slamming straight down from the top through the bottom of the hull. Even the largest aircraft carriers are thought to be vulnerable to this technology.

Respectfully,
Steve

 

[sumbrownkid]

I don't think Argentina can stomach another heavy British response.

 

[BobK]

Who the hell's idea is it that a Navy destroyer is made out of aluminum?

Destroyers were never made entirely out of aluminum (to my knowlege) but the US Navy went through a period where they used a lot of aluminum in the superstructures of them, to help keep the roll center down. The hull of course was still made of steel.

Aluminum is more than double the price of steel while historically being even more than that, first of all,

This is the six-hundred-dollar-toilet-seat military we're talking about here.

and isn't capable of supporting as much weight (something to consider on a battleship. Steel, steel, and more steel.

We're talking destroyers here, not battleships, so we don't have to worry about hanging sixteen inch thick slabs of case-hardened steel anyplace. Besides, as mentioned previously the aluminum was only used in the superstructure which was still built on a steel hull.

Diesel fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel, but it does burn hot enough to drastically reduce the structural integrity of the metal. That's what happened to the World Trade Center.

US warships didn't use diesel fuel, they used bunker oil which not quite raw crude as pumped from the ground, but close. Modern turbine-powered ships use, I believe, something similar to jet fuel. The last major diesel-powered warships I can think of offhand were the Deutschland-class "pocket battleships", which included the Graf Spee.

Missiles tend to blow stuff to pieces. I'd say that's about what happened to whatever ship was sunk.

Warships don't get blown to pieces though, except for freak events such as what happened to the USS Mount Hood.

Not trying to be rude or anything here, but there was so much misinformation in your post that I had to try and set the record straight.

 

[Lucas]

Hello, I come here to say that, from what a friend of mine has heard on television these days, our president, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, has never said anything or even implied that we could possibly go to war with the United Kingdom.



From my experience, there's a channel that is basically dedicated solely to defame our president and to install fear in the country. Yet it has never said anything about a possibe war.

 

[ExigeEvan]

Hello, I come here to say that, from what a friend of mine has heard on television these days, our president, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, has never said anything or even implied that we could possibly go to war with the United Kingdom.

From my experience, there's a channel that is basically dedicated solely to defame our president and to install fear in the country. Yet it has never said anything about a possibe war.

That should be reassuring, but we didn't get much warning last time.

And why is it that routine actions like Prince William's (unarmed) Rescue Helicopter deployment and the rotation of the ships in the area have been called "provocative"?

 

[Lucas]

That should be reassuring, but we didn't get much warning last time.

And why is it that routine actions like Prince William's (unarmed) Rescue Helicopter deployment and the rotation of the ships in the area have been called "provocative"?

I'll translate some quotes from this article.

- The arrival to the Falklands of Prince William "is a provocative act that Great Britain stages with its military presence in a zone of peace where there is no armed conflict."
- "We cannot ignore the political content of this military operative having in mind that the prince is part of the royal family."




I can only quote what they say. Not what their reasoning is.
Also, you are comparing a dictatorship's choices with those of a democratic government. I'm quite confident that if something bad was about to happen, our government would warn you.

Another thing to have in mind is that, at the time, the Falklands War was a desperate excuse to gain support from the people. Right now, I doubt Kirchner needs any more support (she won the elections with over 50% of the votes). Of course, this is my assumption.

 

[dhandeh]

They just can't let it go, the Argentinian Government decide to rename the Football league season after the General Belgrano. It certainly is getting petty.

 

[Liquid]

Well to be fair, Manuel Belgrano was one of their founding fathers. That's why the General Belgrano was named as such; named after one of their founders/heroes.

The league is the General Belgrano League, the man. Not the ARA General Belgrano League, the ship.

 

[dhandeh]

Well to be fair, Manuel Belgrano was one of their founding fathers. That's why the General Belgrano was named as such; named after one of their founders/heroes.

The league is the General Belgrano League, the man. Not the ARA General Belgrano League, the ship.

It is named after the ship, the Crucero General Belgrano League, as in the Cruiser General Belgrano league. If it was named in honour of a founder father, why wait until the 30th anniversary of the conflict in which this ship was lost?

Another link, first paragraph.

 

[Liquid]

Fair enough, but I still am not worried about any conflict. I'm just not.

And even if there was conflict, I think we'd be able to defend the island.

 

[dhandeh]

It doesn't bother me either! Argentina would be foolish to attempt another raid on the Falklands. I suppose by doing things like this, it makes them look better in their own country.

 

[Liquid]

If anything, it's exactly the same as last time; a story to deflect attention from all the other things that are wrong in the countries. I want neither Parliament nor the BBC discussing a non-event. There are far more important issues to deal with than an island in the sea that's been happily under our rule for over 160 years.

 

[Seismica]

Whilst the BBC isn't the most impartial source on this issue, they have posted an interesting article:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-16939043

"We will present a complaint to the UN Security Council and the UN General Assembly, as this militarisation poses a grave danger to international security," Ms Fernandez said.

"We cannot interpret in any other way the deployment of an ultra-modern destroyer accompanying the heir to the throne, who we would prefer to see in civilian attire."

Are they under the impression that the UK is going to invade Argentina? That we are sending an heir to the throne to head the army for the glory of nation?



Either the BBC is overcome with Jingoism (Likely) or the Argentine president thinks we live in the 12th century (Also likely, from what i've read).

 

[Liquid]

Or has forgotten that as a crown dependancy the UK always has a military presence at the Falklands. And if we're sending our second in line to the throne* there, we're not going to take it lightly. His job apart from being gushing eye candy for women is working for the Air Force, so he might drop in on the BOTs from time to time...

*Always hate how people say that William is the heir. He's the heir to the heir.

 

[Seismica]

Or has forgotten that as a crown dependancy the UK always has a military presence at the Falklands. And if we're sending our second in line to the throne* there, we're not going to take it lightly. His job apart from being gushing eye candy for women is working for the Air Force, so he might drop in on the BOTs from time to time...

*Always hate how people say that William is the heir. He's the heir to the heir.

I always presumed 'heir' meant somebody declared to be in line to the throne, not necessarily the one first in line. But I may be wrong.

The BBC may have been taken her words out of context or they may have conveniently omitted the bit where she highlighted their legitimate claims to the islands beyond "It's closer to us than you". Either way I don't understand how she can say it poses a 'grave danger to international security'; the UK wouldn't attack Argentina, we do not have the means beyond being able to defend the islands; so how is our increased militarisation a problem if they weren't considering attempting to take the islands by force once more?

 

[Liquid]

I always presumed 'heir' meant somebody declared to be in line to the throne, not necessarily the one first in line. But I may be wrong.

I suppose you could consider him an heir, but the heir is the person next in line and that is Prince Charles. I personally would discourage people from using heir to mean anybody in line for the throne; second in line, third in line and so on instead.

---

Yes, there is the ulterior motive of oil but the UK is not planning an invasion of Argentina. It has only ever done what it is obliged to do; protect the Falklands and its people. Those are the wishes of the Falklanders and those wishes are fufiled by the UK and guaranteed by the Falklands' status as a British Overseas Territory; they have autonomous rule but being somewhat a microstate and not being a sovereign state, the UK handles diplomatic and defence matters. The people of the Falklands have been under British rule for 160+ years and are happy for things to remain as they are.

Simple enough, no?

 

[Sphinx]

Argentina continue to up the retoric in an attempt to make their sovereignty claim a global one.
How much more they can do must be getting close to zero as they've already restricted food supplies for the Islanders, restricted flights to one a week over Argentinian air space, banned ships flying the Falklands flag in all South American ports, and now complained to the UN accusing the British of deploying nuclear weapons near the Falkland Islands. The Un response will be the usual, 'you guys need to talk'. I'm sorry but there was a lot of 'talk' that had a lot of positives just before they decided to invade in 82, although I'm certain the Islanders would've refused, but that's not the point.

Of course they wouldn't ban all flights to the Falklands because that would only be hurting themselves by creating anger from the relitives of those who fell during the 82 invasion. Food can be delivered by other means even though it would be expensive, but unlike before, expense is no longer a factor.

What will Argentina do next; How about refusing to take part in the Olympics? I wouldn't put it past them.

 

[daan]

Interesting, but unrelated point, is that the Belgrano used to be the USS Phoenix that survived Pearl Harbor.

 

[MarinaDiamandis]

Argentina continue to up the retoric in an attempt to make their sovereignty claim a global one.
How much more they can do must be getting close to zero as they've already restricted food supplies for the Islanders, restricted flights to one a week over Argentinian air space, banned ships flying the Falklands flag in all South American ports, and now complained to the UN accusing the British of deploying nuclear weapons near the Falkland Islands. The Un response will be the usual, 'you guys need to talk'. I'm sorry but there was a lot of 'talk' that had a lot of positives just before they decided to invade in 82, although I'm certain the Islanders would've refused, but that's not the point.

Of course they wouldn't ban all flights to the Falklands because that would only be hurting themselves by creating anger from the relitives of those who fell during the 82 invasion. Food can be delivered by other means even though it would be expensive, but unlike before, expense is no longer a factor.

What will Argentina do next; How about refusing to take part in the Olympics? I wouldn't put it past them.

I don't see why the media and public are fussing over this. If Argentina wants to throw a fit, let them!

The rest of South America couldn't give a toss about their gobby little brother, the Falkland islanders are only minorly affected and their feeling of unity with the British mainland is only growing as Argentina plays silly beggars, and if anything does kick off (contrary to what the media and most Daily Mail readers would have you believe) our armed forces are more than capable of dealing with it.

I highly doubt the RN would allow a submarine to break UN law by carrying nuclear weapons out to the South American coast.

As long as we (the U.K) keep a cool head and don't react, it is up to Argentina to keep making the mistakes.

A load of fuss over nothing!

 

[BobK]

I highly doubt the RN would allow a submarine to break UN law by carrying nuclear weapons out to the South American coast.

For what it's worth, there are those who would try to tell you that any nuclear-powered warship is a nuclear weapon.

At the risk of going a bit off-topic here, why is a conventional munition with 1000 lbs of explosive okay but a 0.5KT (= 1000 lbs) nuclear device isn't?

 

[Dennisch]

For what it's worth, there are those who would try to tell you that any nuclear-powered warship is a nuclear weapon.

At the risk of going a bit off-topic here, why is a conventional munition with 1000 lbs of explosive okay but a 0.5KT (= 1000 lbs) nuclear device isn't?

Radiation, maybe?

 

[MarinaDiamandis]

Radiation, maybe?

This. Conventional weapons explode and that's that. Nuclear weapons leave radiation behind.

 

[sumbrownkid]

Argentina might get its pants pulled down if it comes down to the militaries dealing with the issue.

 

[grrlpurple]

On one hand I am tempted to think that this is nothing more than harmless sabre rattling by Argentina as they would be completely insane to attempt to take the Falkland Islands by force... on the other hand I would have thought the very same thing in the '80s!

With 1000 (ish) troops permanently deployed to the islands and a naval presence they are far better protected than they were in the '80s however I cannot help but feel that the loss of aircraft carrier capability from the RN would create some logistical difficulties should the need arise.

Personally I think that the Argentine stance right now has more to do with the potential for oil reserves than the actual sovereignty of the islands. Wars from now on are most likely going to be waged for natural resources, food and water.

 

[ExigeEvan]

and now complained to the UN accusing the British of deploying nuclear weapons near the Falkland Islands.

I highly doubt the RN would allow a submarine to break UN law by carrying nuclear weapons out to the South American coast.

I find the whole Nuclear subs issue quite hilarious as the RN subs roam the international seas and have done for decades. They've probably sat in international waters just off the Argentinian coast many, many times but only now has it occurred to them.

What will Argentina do next; How about refusing to take part in the Olympics? I wouldn't put it past them.

I'd enjoy that.

The rest of South America couldn't give a toss about their gobby little brother, the Falkland islanders are only minorly affected and their feeling of unity with the British mainland is only growing as Argentina plays silly beggars, and if anything does kick off (contrary to what the media and most Daily Mail readers would have you believe) our armed forces are more than capable of dealing with it.

A load of fuss over nothing!

Most the South American nations have played along with Argentina's little games to make life hard for the Falkland Islanders. There is support in the region for them, maybe not to the point of conflict (except a few) but certainly in the political spectrum.

With 1000 (ish) troops permanently deployed to the islands and a naval presence they are far better protected than they were in the '80s however I cannot help but feel that the loss of aircraft carrier capability from the RN would create some logistical difficulties should the need arise.

There would be logistic issues, but we could fly air-refuelled strike sorties into the region with greater success than we did in the original conflict. However, to do that true justice the MoD needs to pull it's thumb out of it's arse, boost EF pilot training and get the full combat suite signed off on the EF platform. Otherwise we're using Tornados, which haven't got the best record in those missions.

 

[Liquid]

Interesting article

Argentina are really trying to turn up the heat.