New Falklands buildup

Remove all ads!

Weve had many wars over oil in the past, well looks like there's a new one brewing, off the coast of the Falkland islands several British companies are preparing to drill the oilfields off the coast of the islands, which the Argentinians are claiming as their own - in an area recognised as British maritime waters (not that this bothers Argentinia since they still claim the Falklands even after their defeat in 1982)

some reading material:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...s-UK-complacency.html?ITO=1708&referrer=yahoo

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/feb/17/shipping-argentina-falklands-tightened

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/feb/17/falkland-islands-oil-argentina-uk-sanctions

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ain-maintaining-Falklands-force-MoD-says.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/feb/17/argentina-falklands-shipping

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8522117.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/highlands_and_islands/8519694.stm

 

I remember building a plastic model of the HMS Sheffield in honor of the first Falkland war.

 

I remember singing "Always Look on the Bright Side of Life" in memory of the HMS Sheffield (the crew sang the Monty Python song as the ship sank -- instead of doing damage control and actually preventing the minor damage from sinking the ship).

 

T2 -- seriously? They just gave up? There must be more to the story than that!

 

He is kidding and he is not.

Maybe the Argentinians are getting cocky now that the Brits have phased out the Sea Harrier FRS.2 and have their hands full in Afghanistan, no? We will see.

 

The poor damage control of the Sheffield caused stirs thoughout all of NATO and refocused the Royal Navy to beef up their proficiency in damage control. It was a common belief at the time the Royal Navy was weak in damage control and this incident served to solidify the belief.

The biggest problem was the fire from the Exocet burned uncontrolled (the Exocet is not believed to have detonated, but the propellant cause extensive damage) -- compare this to the USS Stark which was hit with two Exocets (one of which detonated). On both ships there was extensive damage and fire, but the Sheffield was unable to isolate the damage. There were many who believed the crew gave up the ship as lost and simply waited on deck to be rescued while the fire raged. On the Stark, they actively fought the fire and never considered abandoning the ship. Truth be told, I believe the lessons learned from the Sheffield saved the Stark.

Edit: Ragusa included an interesting quote about how the fracture water main "doomed the ship to be consumed by the raging fire." This comment is actually misleading, the fire main is broken into parts and each part can be isolated -- in this way when damage occurs in one part of the ship and the fire main is damaged, the crew can continue fighting the fire by simply turning two valves and running a few hoses to restore the fire main. For some unknown reason this was not done on the Sheffield. It is widely assumed this was due to inadequate training (which has since been corrected).

Edit2: One last (hopefully) item, when the crew abandoned the Sheffield they did not "set zebra" which is a material condition of readiness which maintains watertight integrity of the ship. Once the ship started to flood from the damage the flooding spiraled out of control like on the Titanic and the ship sank with having only been hit with a single Exocet missile. The USS Samuel B Roberts ran into a naval mine which nearly ripped her in half, but she remained afloat due to the crew maintaining 'zebra' conditions and not allowing the flooding to spread (the Roberts was also hit below the waterline making the issue much more difficult).

 

Interesting things I hadn't known about the navies. It does make sense that after building a boat you would want to prevent its sinking.

About the whole geopolitical issue this strikes as one of the multiple spots in the world where more than one nation has a claim, and while I'm unsure as to if this will actually spark a war this may be a time when it could be settled by referring to an international court-it sounds odd but the claims made on the whole of Greenland were settled in this manner.

 

Ideally, yes. This kind of thing is the reason the UN was established, after all. Realistically, though, there's no guarantee they'd abide by any decision. It's like marriage counceling: just saying who's right doesn't solve anything, because then the couple will just argue about whether or not you're right. The court would have to have serious oomph behind it.

 

Why would Argentina abide by any legal decision? They'd have to admit that the Falklands isn't theirs, they have no claim to it and the UK's actions are legal.

Even ignoring the (very) strong historical UK claim, the islanders want to be British. Why should they be forced to become Argentinean, or as has also been suggested lose their homes and way of lives solely because Argentina claims that the island belongs to it?

EDIT: And yes I am biased. 907 people died in 1982 because Argentina refused to accept facts and decided to illegally enforce their spurious claims.

 

Tarrasque,
Germany and the Netherlands settled a dispute over the sea borders in the north sea in the international court in the Hague, and everybody was happy with the result. It was far cheaper than war too.

And anyway, everybody calm down: Argentina Rules Out Military Action in Falklands

Or not. That they say, but do they mean it?

Of course, then there is the neo-conservative analysis. Thanks to a supernatural* ability they alone can see through smokescreens everyone else's limited perception fails to penetrate - thus it is clearly evident to them that that's all just deceptive talk in an attempt to hide that the Argentinians are going to attack.

That is why Britain must preventively attack first, and double the defence budget. Also, all options must always be on the table, including in particular nuclear first strike (because excluding that would weaken deterrence, and make them look like a p*ssy, or sane, and they can't have either. Looking the p*ssy is irreconcilable with their self image, and generally, being or appearing sane and predictable also weakens deterrence).

* Lore has it that it is acquired through the continued consumption of copious amounts of psychotropic substances over an extended period of time. Neo-conservatives vehemently deny that, and indeed, evidence remains elusive.

 

Thanks Rags thats funny, was laughing as I went through it.

I'm sure a smart Neo-Con could point out to me why I shouldn't be but it was funny.

 

Argentinia are saying that a millitary response wont happen because they dont want more Royal Navy vessels in the waters, if they strike it will be quick and unexpected*

*as unexpected as can possibly be under these circumstances

 

Is there any basis to this hate or is this just your mad paranoid ramblings? I mean, if someone has actually suggested this, I'm all with you on it, including the psychotropic substances likely used. If not, though, it sounds like your axe to grind with neo-cons has gotten a little heavy and you've let it drop early.

 

Ragusa - That's great. The "Fog of War" not withstanding their "uncanny" abilities.

 

You are an ignoramus.

Yes, there is ample basis in reality that allows me to parody them in the way I did. You can be with me safely. The National Security Strategy they did under Bush 43 included for the first time the declaration that the US would use nuclear weapons first. What do you think the phrase 'all options are on the table' is about? It explicitly includes the nuclear option. Have you forgotten about their doctrine of pre-emptive war? What about their reflexive calls for increased defence spending?

I prescribe to Britain what they prescribed to the US. The effect is, just as I intended, amusing because it is absurd.

Neo-cons were and probably still are notoriously wrong, on about all the analysis they did and do. For them the desired policy dictates the outcome of the analysis. For neo-cons detente had to die (because ... Appeasement! Munich 1939!), and defence spending had to be increased to confront the Soviets, so, to justify that, Soviets needed to be three metres tall. So Team B then saw Soviets that were three metres tall. Alas, they weren't. Instead their empire was slowly collapsing. Iraq had to be attacked, that needed a justification, like WMD, thus their 'analysis' came to the result Saddam had WMD. Alas, he didn't. The key words are 'politicisation and distortion of intelligence analysis' to push for policies they favour, and that is harmful. The neo-cons were kept under adult supervision in the Reagan and Bush 41 administrations for a reason. You only need to look at their disastrous policies in the Bush 43 administration to see why.

I won't go into any more detail, because I have better things to do and have already written far more than your reply merits. Do your own research, preferably before you post.

In the end it doesn't matter why they were wrong - psychotropic substances or Straussian analysis. The psychotropic substances explanation is more fun though. And relax.

 

Now, now Ragusa....

 

Ragusa, aren't personal insults against the rules? I know I've tried hard to keep them out in previous topics. Please do the same. I was polite enough to admit that you may have justification. Please recognize that I have justification for my doubt.

I'm sorry, could you point out where the US came into this? I'll admit I didn't read all of the initial news links, but I thought this was between the UK and Argentina.

Could you explain this? It sounds to me like you're saying you're prescribing the worst neo-con nut fears of the US to the UK, but I'm not sure. Or are you saying you just threw the neo-con hate in there because you thought it was funny?

 

Let it rest NOG, this needs not go further.

 

Just for clarity's sake, do you have any information on US involvement in this?

 

You are aware that neo-conservatives exist in Britain, too? Ideology has little to do with nationality.