Argentina is busy finalising arms deals with China regarding warships, which they predicatbly will name "MALIVINAS CLASS",
http://en.mercopress.com/2015/02/05/chin...ol-vessels
Russia however has offered Argentina the SU-24 which is a very versatile surface attack platform.
http://www.janes.com/article/47293/uk-re...-argentina
These assets are all well and good but they underestimate the resolve of the British, they simply do not understand us as a people at all. We do not crumble in the face of overwhelming odds, nor do we fear them, but I gaurantee Kercher will shit her knickers when a cruise missile flies through downtown Buenos aeries.
SU24 was a very capable platform in the 70's and 80's flying scrap now not on the frontline of any first world nation's now now there ecm will not defeat any of our anti aircraft armaments
I believe the real reason for Argentina's belligerence is the prospect of Oil reserves that would bolster their terrible financial situation. Didn't they default on loans from the USA?
I'm not completely sure if they just refused to pay, but the last thing they need is US sanctions, they are playing a very dangerous game for political expediency. Another point is that you can't reclaim something that wasn't yours in the first place, they must surely realise that they are better with us as friends than enemies. The only people that will suffer are the Argentinian conscripts forced to fight for their governments mistakes.
Let's look at a few facts shall we ?
Argentinas military government had been unpopular, and making rabble-rousing noises about the Falklands for some time. What was the UK response ? To scrap the only British ship in the vicinity, HMS Endurance, and to deny many Falklands residents UK citizenship in the UK Nationality Act.
This sent a message to Argentina that the door was open. Lord Carrington, foreign secretary, repeatedly warned about the Argentinians intentions.
Hostilities commence, 3 days later Carrington resigns. Within days of hostilities a UK task force sets sail, almost as if they expected to.
Peru brokers peace talks, Argentina are willing to talk, then inexplicably a UK sub sinks the Belgrano, outside the exclusion zone, whilst it is sailing away from the Falklands.
Peace talks collapse.
Etc..
It stinks.
Endurance fought in the conflict and continued for quite a while beyond...it was certainly a very hasty and ill equipped task force that put to sea...I don't think it was that premeditated and don't forget the cold war was still on with a lot of units kept at high level of readiness...royal marines and the remnants of 16 bde are/were always ready to deploy at the drop of a hat(no pun intended)
A note about Endurance from Wikipedia:
"Endurance was due to be withdrawn from the navy on 15 April 1982 under the 1981 defence review.[2] Indeed her withdrawal from Antarctic patrol without replacement was perceived in Britain [3][4] as having encouraged the Argentine invasion, and the subsequent Franks Report (1983) acknowledged it as a factor (Main entry Events leading to the Falklands War)."
I know that SD won't like an argument about this, so my last comment is a quote from Simon Weston, I'm sure most people will know who he is.
"The only winners are the financial houses, the arms companies and the politicians who've used the system and current affairs to aid and abet their desire for power"
whilst I agree that demise of the endurance without any obvious replacement in the 1981 strategic review may have given hope to Argentina that we had no interest in the Falkland islands I still don't believe it was a planned or intended come on to the Argentines
(8 April 2015, 15:05)Midnitemo Wrote: [ -> ]I still don't believe it was a planned or intended come on to the Argentines
+1
The Argentinians may have seen an opportunity and jumped at it, but to suggest the war was pre-planned or pre-conceived between the 2 countries is in my opinion nonsense.
(8 April 2015, 07:25)Steve Wrote: [ -> ]"The only winners are the financial houses, the arms companies and the politicians who've used the system and current affairs to aid and abet their desire for power"
So the British subjects of the Falklands did not benefit from life as free men rather than captives of the Argentines?
The British military did not benefit from pride at a successful response to the call of duty?
British subjects world wide did not benefit from a feeling of support from their nation no matter where they were residing or doing business?
Every British subject did not benefit from being able to hold their heads high and say "We still protect our own!"?
Every country benefits from war, the point is that either your country benefits from war or the enemy benefits from war.
It used to be called winning or losing and the result was loss of land, transport into slavery, debilitating restitution, mass castration, watching you wife and children sold on the auction block and other "negative benefits".
Now it is simple loss of status. That makes it much easier to refuse to support your own.
(8 April 2015, 18:41)Mortblanc Wrote: [ -> ] (8 April 2015, 07:25)Steve Wrote: [ -> ]"The only winners are the financial houses, the arms companies and the politicians who've used the system and current affairs to aid and abet their desire for power"
So the British subjects of the Falklands did not benefit from life as free men rather than captives of the Argentines?
The British military did not benefit from pride at a successful response to the call of duty?
British subjects world wide did not benefit from a feeling of support from their nation no matter where they were residing or doing business?
Every British subject did not benefit from being able to hold their heads high and say "We still protect our own!"?
Every country benefits from war, the point is that either your country benefits from war or the enemy benefits from war.
It used to be called winning or losing and the result was loss of land, transport into slavery, debilitating restitution, mass castration, watching you wife and children sold on the auction block and other "negative benefits".
Now it is simple loss of status. That makes it much easier to refuse to support your own.
That quote is from someone who knows the realities of war better than most.