Will anything come of this? Naval Blockade? Other powers intervening?
Can the UK really defend the Falklands with troops already out in Afghanistan?
___________________
Feb-18-2010 15:05
Moral Hazard
Oppressing the 99%
Registered: Mar 2005
Location: with the 1%
hopefully you guys don't melt the decks of your own ships this time.
___________________
quote:
Originally posted by RickyM
you're just a shit version of Moral Hazard. At least he knows what he's talking about.
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
lol, i love it when moral feels the need to lay the smack down
Feb-18-2010 20:43
Jackson
Supreme tranceaddict
Registered: Nov 2002
Location: t'North England
quote:
Originally posted by Moral Hazard
hopefully you guys don't melt the decks of your own ships this time.
Sorry you lost me, what are you refering to?
___________________
Feb-18-2010 21:05
Comrade Stalin
Uncle Joe
Registered: Sep 2009
Location: Purging Traitors
Don't cry for me Argentinaaaaaa!!!!
Feb-18-2010 21:16
Joss Weatherby
Banned
Registered: May 2008
Location: The Pacific Northwest, of course
I'd enjoy seeing this pan out again...
Feb-21-2010 09:40
Moral Hazard
Oppressing the 99%
Registered: Mar 2005
Location: with the 1%
quote:
Originally posted by Jackson
Sorry you lost me, what are you refering to?
The Falklands War was the first time the Royal Navy used ship to shore cruise missiles in a real operational setting. At the time the decks of some of your ships were built with aluminum, which it turns out doesn't handle the heat of repetative missile launches very well.
___________________
quote:
Originally posted by RickyM
you're just a shit version of Moral Hazard. At least he knows what he's talking about.
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
lol, i love it when moral feels the need to lay the smack down
Feb-22-2010 13:43
Jackson
Supreme tranceaddict
Registered: Nov 2002
Location: t'North England
quote:
Originally posted by Moral Hazard
The Falklands War was the first time the Royal Navy used ship to shore cruise missiles in a real operational setting. At the time the decks of some of your ships were built with aluminum, which it turns out doesn't handle the heat of repetative missile launches very well.
Ah ok, yeah I had no clue about it.
Its amazing how many Argentinian facebook groups there are that call the us "Pirates", even though all inhabitants of the islands see themselves as British.
___________________
Feb-22-2010 17:44
Moral Hazard
Oppressing the 99%
Registered: Mar 2005
Location: with the 1%
quote:
Originally posted by Jackson
Ah ok, yeah I had no clue about it.
Its amazing how many Argentinian facebook groups there are that call the us "Pirates", even though all inhabitants of the islands see themselves as British.
They're just trying to position themselves for a share of the oil revenue if the drilling is successful, which is understandable. It's just sabre rattling.
___________________
quote:
Originally posted by RickyM
you're just a shit version of Moral Hazard. At least he knows what he's talking about.
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
lol, i love it when moral feels the need to lay the smack down
Feb-22-2010 18:11
Joss Weatherby
Banned
Registered: May 2008
Location: The Pacific Northwest, of course
quote:
Originally posted by Moral Hazard
The Falklands War was the first time the Royal Navy used ship to shore cruise missiles in a real operational setting. At the time the decks of some of your ships were built with aluminum, which it turns out doesn't handle the heat of repetative missile launches very well.
Def why I'd like to see this pan out again from a strictly military technology point of view. The first one was the only real major use of modern weapons technologies on both sides of the war, especially naval weapons, during the cold war.
How far we have come in 30 some years would be interesting, especially as for the fact that the last 10 years the UK has been moving away from the capacity to fight large scale conflicts.
Feb-22-2010 18:47
Moral Hazard
Oppressing the 99%
Registered: Mar 2005
Location: with the 1%
quote:
Originally posted by Joss Weatherby
Def why I'd like to see this pan out again from a strictly military technology point of view. The first one was the only real major use of modern weapons technologies on both sides of the war, especially naval weapons, during the cold war.
How far we have come in 30 some years would be interesting, especially as for the fact that the last 10 years the UK has been moving away from the capacity to fight large scale conflicts.
Except the UK don't really need to fight a large scale conflict to secure their interests in this case. A simple naval operation to block Argentine shipping while protecting British friendly shipping, sea to shore missile attacks on air bases and SAS raids on strategic points would do the trick nicely. No matter how this pans out it will not turn into a large scale conflict because all the UK needs to do in order to acheive their goals is to defend the shipping lanes and deflect any anphibious landing (if Argentina were crazy enough to ever try), which the Royal Navy is perfectly designed for - in fact, that is their primary raison d'etre.
___________________
quote:
Originally posted by RickyM
you're just a shit version of Moral Hazard. At least he knows what he's talking about.
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
lol, i love it when moral feels the need to lay the smack down
Feb-23-2010 14:03
Chryz707
Supreme tranceaddict
Registered: Sep 2004
Location: Here and there
lets not forget the British sunk the General Belgrano to with one Torpedo from a submarine as well... The Brits would clean up the Argentine Navy quickly if it came to it again...
___________________
Kill 1 Person thats Murder, kill 100,000 People thats foriegn policy!