Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Colonol Dekker on February 16, 2012, 09:57:19 am
-
Sean Penn?
Everyone's entitled to an opinion.
But his sounds very wrong to me. I might just be biased.
Discuss (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/falklandislands/9085950/Falklands-Sean-Penn-should-be-fed-to-crocodiles-says-Ben-Fogle.html)
-
Penn is an idiot, it's a very old, difficult situation that has led to hostilities in the past, and he's joyfully leaping in and stirring up the flames and making the matter far more volatile and actually making it harder for the Governments to even begin to approach the problem.
-
Argentina isn't likely to do anything. But really, it's not worth provoking them over a rock with fish and sheep.
-
Argentina isn't likely to do anything. But really, it's not worth provoking them over a rock with fish and sheep.
and oil
-
Our subjects are there too :lol:
-
Penn really is an idiot here. As far as I know, the people on the Falklands actually want to be part of the UK. Siding with Argentina over this just sounds like a whole bunch of "siding with the underdog because the UK are bad" kind of deal.
-
I love how we are supposed to be colonialists and yet Argentina wanting to use force is nothing short of imperialistic
-
Best bit, for me, is them complaining about the 'militarization' of the Falklands since they started making noise over it.
Whatever could cause us to do that? It's not as if they invaded it and generated a war that left over 900 British, Argentinians and Falklanders dead last time this kicked off...
Oh wait....
Whilst I do actually feel that the sovereignty of the Falklands is a murky area that needs to be cleared up, surely Argentina understands that throwing insults and rattling sabres is not the way to get Britain to the table, especially considering the recent history of the Isles.
-
I don't think I can contribute constructively to the current discussion. I don't follow celebrity gossip other than knowing that Sean Penn is some actor guy. Maintaining deterrence is fine, but if Argentina does do something stupid to improve Kirchener (the Thyroid/Botox issues First Lady)'s election chances, it would be best for both parties for the UK to just withdraw and let them have their penis moment.
A more interesting discussion is what a war would look like if it actually happened. Thing is, the UK doesn't have an aircraft carrier anymore. Well, they have one, but it carries helicopters. At the same time, the Royal Navy has kept with technology while the Argentines basically have what the exact same equipment, just older. It would be interesting to see how things would go without the Brits having air support.
-
Astute hunter killer and Type 45 destroyers pams air defense system combined with the ews, aa systems and the high quality infantry give me little reason to worry.
-
Any such war would be a curbstomp, both in military and political terms.
-
The Brits would probably still win, but it would be tougher without any CAP. As it was they lost half their destroyers.
Decker, what is this pams air defense system you speak of?
-
Not that tough. It takes a lot to take down a modern Destroyer, and shooting down Exocets is not that hard for them either.
-
We have CAP :p (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_Falkland_Islands)
-
Modern warships are flimsy compared to ordinance. The Argentines would have done a lot more damage if their bomb fuses actually worked. Almost any modern naval combatant is likely to be pretty much screwed after 1-2 bomb or missile hits. Not necessarily sunk, but the first things to go will be fire control and radar, then internal fires which take out a good deal of the ship's innards. The Stark only survived in 1986 (?) because of a heroic effort on the part of its crew. No one was expecting it to. Any hit to a warship cruiser or below is really, really bad news nowadays given how dependent the modern warship is on electronic gadgets that are shredded after the first few chunks of shrapnel.
I hope you have CAP, Dekker, and I'm not talking about baldness caps.
edit: Four Typhoons is you CAP? FOUR?! Well, I guess given what they're up against...
-
Belated-
:welcomered:
It was 82, and Argie bomb fuses are adequate. I'm in my head hoping their use doesn't escalate.
EOD is not fun when it's cold and wet.
-
Thing is, in modern political thinking, there's no real way that Argentina could justify any pre-emptive action against the Falklands, because, no matter what Sean Penn says, that would be a blatant act of colonialism. It would probably go like 1982, it'd take a few weeks for the UK to get into position, but when they are in position, they would simply roll over any occupying forces.
The Ark Royal has not been sold or scrapped yet to my knowledge, and, if needed, I'm pretty sure it could be pulled out of Mothball quite quickly, in fact, I wouldn't be surprised if that very option isn't being quietly considered right now, but, as Dekker says, hopefully it won't come to that.
-
Sean Penn should not have said what he said, there's a lot of people watching and everything that hits the public media will echo for a long time, long enough to make some start caring about this issue.
For me this is just a charade formulated to make ppl gaze away from real internal problems in Argentina.
There is however, a valid concern from the general population (ever since we lost the war) about what's to happen with the islands, and this will have to be answered somewhere down the line. UK ppl cannot expect Argentinians to forget about that happened a few years back, that's just an impossible hope and denying dialogue is a childish move coming from their representatives.
Currently tension is building up on both sides for nothing and this cannot be good since you're actually expected to take a side on a heated discussion right?.
Obviously south America will back the reclaim (aside from Chile) but they will go no further, while the rest of the world will play the "don't look at me, I'm freaking neutral" card.
Can't actually talk about countries backing up UK, but the ppl living on the islands have made their thoughts pretty clear, and just because of that I don't see any valid reason to let this go on.
I don't even want to start about the hole oil thing, or about that supposed "free fishing zone" that's killing all life on our coasts or any other crap that everyone round here is talking about, that's just looking for something to justify their opinions. I'm not informed about that so I can only guess at best.
For me the islands are a far away land, there's nothing to gain from them and I honestly give a **** who gets them at the end.
So for me this is a time where I just sit and watch our beloved representatives bang their heads really hard while accomplishing nothing at all.
Said that, why would English ppl care about this anyway?, I would be more concerned about how their representatives seem to be as stupid as ours.
-
Thing is, in modern political thinking, there's no real way that Argentina could justify any pre-emptive action against the Falklands, because, no matter what Sean Penn says, that would be a blatant act of colonialism.
Oh my god. Never start a conversation between a Chilean and an Argentine about icebergs. You won't believe how possessive they can get about "our icebergs!"
Saying they can't justify invading the Falklands is like saying Ethiopia can't justify invading Eritrea. It has nothing to do with that. The Argentines clearly just want to show the world another Tsushima and impress everyone with how they're in the league of the old colonial powers.
It would probably go like 1982, it'd take a few weeks for the UK to get into position, but when they are in position, they would simply roll over any occupying forces.
I think there is enough uncertainty in the outcome to say there's a 5% chance that Argentina manages to damage the entire battlegroup to the point where England withdraws and doesn't think a second go is worth it. I don't think international opinion would be particularly on England's side, even; in 1982, there was a very good PR campaign against the UK (with a lot of celebrities involved) and basically no one cared.
The Ark Royal has not been sold or scrapped yet to my knowledge, and, if needed, I'm pretty sure it could be pulled out of Mothball quite quickly, in fact, I wouldn't be surprised if that very option isn't being quietly considered right now, but, as Dekker says, hopefully it won't come to that.
Yes, but that would take time to train up the pilots and so forth and it would just make the scenario I concocted even less fair.
Belated-
:welcomered:
It was 82, and Argie bomb fuses are adequate. I'm in my head hoping their use doesn't escalate.
EOD is not fun when it's cold and wet.
Ay, Gracias! That's probably the second time I've been beamed in five years. nvm
I'm talking about EOD on a ship, where they might not have pumped all the water out yet and the ground below you is heaving in the middle of a south Atlantic squall.
-
It's all down to posturing Rodo, had the two Governments started a quiet, civilized dialogue (something that was outwardly not on the Agenda, but there are ways) then the whole thing could be discussed, and, eventually, an agreement might have been reached. Instead, it boiled down to hurling insults from 200 years ago at the UK and calling in US actors to be their mouthpiece.
Personally, what I would have done is talked quietly to the US and said "Look, we want a dialog about the Malvina's, but the UK won't even consider it, if you can help us diplomatically then you might just get your foot in the door if any oil is found there". Sneaky, I know, but that's diplomacy for you. It lets the US play it's favourite role as 'World problem solver', it means the UK actually have to listen, and it means Argentina finally get their grievances heard for better or for worse.
@samiam, the thing is, the UK and Argentina have now both made this a matter of Pride, the political cost of backing down to the UK, particularly after some of the comments made about the UK in general over the past few weeks, would probably be considered worse than the financial cost of 'what it takes' to re-capture them if it happened.
That said, I don't think it would happen, Argentina was under a completely different, more militaristic Government back then, which was why the US backed the UK's right to the Falklands at the time.
-
the
English UK cares because there are UK citizens living on the Islands who would be threated if an armed conflict arose.
-
the end of the day the UK is governed by a democratic system which entitles the islanders to petition for independence and though I only have a basic overview of the political situation I have heard of no such petition which means that Argentina has no political right to contest ownership as the local population it would seem is content to be part of the UK. If a petition was to be made and rejected by parliament then Argentina would have a political footing as they would be acting to free the island.
Also militarily there are differences such as the level of military force, particularly air power stationed in the area which much greater than the 82
-
Self-determination is certainly going to be a focal point of the matter, but to summarize the current interaction between the Government, it pretty much boils down to:
"Colonial Empire Builders!"
"British people live there."
"Colonial Empire Builders!"
"British people live there."
I suspect we will probably get a few months of this, and then something else will come up for both Governments and it'll be put on hold until the next time.
-
So, it's a dove fight?
-
There is certainly a history of this rising into the public eye and then falling again, particularly in Argentina. This is often blamed on the Government wanting to distract from internal issues, which is, indeed, the case on occasion, but should not be disregarded as the only reason.
I think part of the problem is that the population of the UK is actually quite widely misunderstood in parts of the world. We are a pretty resilient bunch when it comes to our nationality most of the time, several film directors have stated that they look to UK actors to play the bad guys in a lot of films because the UK are one of the few countries left that get confused at the idea that this is 'racist' in some way, rather than simply a job (and let's face it, we do pull off a good bastard)
But we are also sticklers for manners, that still hasn't been rubbed out of our culture entirely, and have a rather vicious belligerent streak when we do feel insulted. That's nothing really to do with 'arrogance' as is assumed, and more to do with the fact that we feel that if you've crossed the line then you must have been pushing pretty hard for it, so if it's insulted you want, insulted you'll get.
So regardless of public opinion as to whether talks over the Falklands should take place or not, the moment you start a conversation with words like 'Colonialism', the whole country will collectively raise it's eyes skywards and say 'Oh, for crying out loud, not that again...' and you've already effectively united them in ire. Had the situation been approached differently, Cameron could have been left with an awkward situation, with him saying 'We won't discuss the Falklands' and at least a section of society would be saying "Why not? What are you worried about?". The approach taken bought out the 'screw you' in us, however.
-
the UK is governed by a democratic system which entitles the islanders to petition for independence
Not too long ago, I got thinking about the US Civil War, and I thought "why are there no provisions for secession in the constitution?". Interesting to know that the UK actually has provisions for it. Hm... was that the case back in the 1770s?
-
The other interesting thing is that the Argentinians once offered to pay the Falkland Islanders the equivalent of around half a million each in order to buy the islands. The Islanders told them where to stick it. So I doubt a vote on whether they'd be willing to be part of Argentina for free would ever go their way.
Oh and before this goes any further it should be pointed out that the Argentinians are just as much colonialists as the British are when it comes to the Falkland Islands. About the only country with any right to claim anything different is France because at least they were first.
-
edit: Four Typhoons is you CAP? FOUR?! Well, I guess given what they're up against...
Technically they can probably get their entire Typhoon force there if they want, along with Tornados for strike. The Brits invested in some tanker capacity after the first round. It'd be difficult, but definitely doable.
The Type 45 is not to be sneezed at as an AAW platform either.
-
Argentina's the PRH and we're Manticore.
-
Except that implies a level of parity. Argentina's the Silesian Confederacy and you're Manticore.
-
Ok, they're pre-alliance Grayson.
-
Well they probably want to make an issue of it while you're down to just the Illustrious. Attempting to rest control of the islands after the Queen Elizabeth class comes online probably isn't palatable.
-
Must admit, I find Obama's stance this time round to be a bit of a double standard. Whilst bombing some countries' established leaderships to allow the people the right of self-determination on one hand, he's refusing to acknowledge those very same rights in other countries. Imagine what his reaction would be if the UK suggested that Texas should be given back to Mexico...
-
Oh and before this goes any further it should be pointed out that the Argentinians are just as much colonialists as the British are when it comes to the Falkland Islands. About the only country with any right to claim anything different is France because at least they were first.
No they don't, the islands belong to Mother Earth and Sister Moon!
edit: Four Typhoons is you CAP? FOUR?! Well, I guess given what they're up against...
Technically they can probably get their entire Typhoon force there if they want, along with Tornados for strike. The Brits invested in some tanker capacity after the first round. It'd be difficult, but definitely doable.
The Type 45 is not to be sneezed at as an AAW platform either.
If the Brits have any kind of advance warning they can move in a significant Tornado and paratrooper contingent within a few days. At that point, forget about it. I don't know why this didn't happen in 82. I assume that they didn't have a working airfield or weren't expecting things to happen so fast.
-
If the Brits have any kind of advance warning they can move in a significant Tornado and paratrooper contingent within a few days. At that point, forget about it. I don't know why this didn't happen in 82. I assume that they didn't have a working airfield or weren't expecting things to happen so fast.
There are some very interesting histories of the SAS that actually talk about this. SAS units were dropped onto the islands within a few days of the initial strike and provided significant on-the-ground intelligence to remaining British forces. The limited numbers meant their active combat role at the time was somewhat limited, but the 82 conflict was primarily about naval power rather than actual ground control anyway.
-
There are 8.3 billion barrels of oil in the waters around the Falklands. That's more than in the UK's part of the North Sea, and about 1/8th the reserves of Kuwait. If I was Argentina I would want to tap dat oil too. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Brazil wanted some.
Also, since we're talking about 1982, I thought it was interesting that the Argentines had a squadron of Learjet redshirts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escuadr%C3%B3n_F%C3%A9nix) to distract the British CAP away from the fleet.
-
edit: Four Typhoons is you CAP? FOUR?! Well, I guess given what they're up against...
Technically they can probably get their entire Typhoon force there if they want, along with Tornados for strike. The Brits invested in some tanker capacity after the first round. It'd be difficult, but definitely doable.
The Type 45 is not to be sneezed at as an AAW platform either.
I was reading about the Type 45 last night. It sounds like a bruiser... sure it's classified as a Destroyer but it's a really big ship with quite a lot of capability. The kind they would have loved to have in 1982.
-
It seems to me like Argentina is being unreasonable. I've read some of the history of the islands and while there is room to contest them...Argentina has about as much claim as several other nations including Britain. Britain happened to be the first country to establish permanent residence and they never left. Furthermore, as the current (and only) population is primarily interested in remaining British subjects it seems to me like the only reasonable course of action is to keep the Falklands as British. If resources such as oil are a consideration then negotiate for some sort of mutually beneficial trade agreement.
It does seem to me that if Argentina really wanted to try for a second round that they would be more sorely beaten than the last time. The RAF and RN have more capabilities than before and Argentina does not. I'm assuming some sort of logic is prevailing in Argentina and that this is all smoke, mirrors, and sabre rattling to distract from internal issues.
-
We're in the running for most incoherent GD thread ever. FWIW, I think making an argument over the proper, historical owner of an island with no original human presence is about equivalent to the Shivans arguing we shouldn't colonize the Moon.
It seems to me like Argentina is being unreasonable. I've read some of the history of the islands and while there is room to contest them...Argentina has about as much claim as several other nations including Britain. Britain happened to be the first country to establish permanent residence and they never left. Furthermore, as the current (and only) population is primarily interested in remaining British subjects it seems to me like the only reasonable course of action is to keep the Falklands as British. If resources such as oil are a consideration then negotiate for some sort of mutually beneficial trade agreement.
It does seem to me that if Argentina really wanted to try for a second round that they would be more sorely beaten than the last time. The RAF and RN have more capabilities than before and Argentina does not. I'm assuming some sort of logic is prevailing in Argentina and that this is all smoke, mirrors, and sabre rattling to distract from internal issues.
The Royal Navy has downsized a lot too though. They have two Type 42s for long range antiaircraft. Then there's the Type 45s, but they only have three active, and if they can only deploy one to the theater they better hope it's radar doesn't malfunction. However the whole thing is moot if the Argentines don't have any spare parts or reliable bombs for their fifty year old aircraft, many of them collecting dust for the past few years, which might be the case.
The one thing that really crimps things is the presence of a Eurofighter wing at Stanley, as Dekker so critically pointed out. They would have to deal with that first. They could take them out in a commando raid or something, since hitting the EFs on the ground would be the easiest way. Otherwise the Argentines are very reliant on tanker aircraft to even reach the Falkands, and their aircraft that do have decent range like the A-4 are terrible dogfighters. If Argentina had agreed to purchasing 36 F-16As a decade ago, when the US offered them, their odds would not be quite as bad.
-
The A-4 is not a terrible dogfighter. (No really, it's not, there's a reason they were used for aggressor training.) It's simply that this is one of the few cases where going BVR could be put into practice easily and without risk. You have a limited number of very capable aircraft facing a large group of much less capable aircraft. You don't want to mix it up with them, they'll drag you down and clobber you with bodies.
-
You're right about the A-4 being a good dog fighter. One of them killed a MiG with a rocket over Vietnam. That's like a Harbinger kill on a Dragon. I was mistaken.
The A-4 has no afterburner, though, and it would have a hard time staying on a modern fighter's tail. So since the EFs could easily evade, it's down to the Skyhawk's ability to do sufficient damage to the airfield to make it unusable. And they might just be able to get away with that, because fighters can only carry so many AMRAAMs and bullets.
If they had almost a wing of F-16A MLUs, though, with decent ordinance and logistics, they have a good chance of securing air superiority early on and then making it impossible for naval forces to come near the island. They just haven't bothered to make an investment that would allow them to pose a serious threat, despite considering F-16 and Mirage 2000 purchases.
-
I've read some of the history of the islands
And right there you've done more than Sean Penn or pretty much most of the people who comment on the Falklands Islands have ever done.
-
Kara, do you get moderately angry in political threads often?
-
With the exception of people who don't read them, who doesn't? :p
-
With the exception of people who don't read them, who doesn't? :p
I do. I get depressions :P.
-
Argentina's the PRH and we're Manticore.
Dekker - that is hilarious. I made that exact comment to my father whilst we were together a while ago.
Great minds think alike, or fools seldom differ.
-
You're right about the A-4 being a good dog fighter. One of them killed a MiG with a rocket over Vietnam. That's like a Harbinger kill on a Dragon. I was mistaken.
The A-4 has no afterburner, though, and it would have a hard time staying on a modern fighter's tail. So since the EFs could easily evade, it's down to the Skyhawk's ability to do sufficient damage to the airfield to make it unusable. And they might just be able to get away with that, because fighters can only carry so many AMRAAMs and bullets.
The A-4 is a decent dogfighter, but remember that P-51 Mustang also is. It's not like it's incapable of air combat, but just can't compare with modern aircraft. Lack of afterburners and weapons compatibility (especially BVR ordnance) makes it somewhat obsolete. If supported by SAMs, these Eurofighters stationed on Falklands could most likely wipe the floor with most of Argentina's air force.
There's also another thing. Getting that far would require a lot of fuel, so A-4s would have to watch their tanks, or they won't be able to return. Dogfighting can easily empty one's tank in no time.
One EF-2000 can carry 13 missiles and 150 rounds for it's guns. That's enough for at least 14-16 Skyhawks, if the pilot is good.
-
Ah, the good ol' P-19 Mustang.
Argentina only has 34 Skyhawks, so it's probably better off in a low-altitude, low-speed run with its propeller aircraft hoping their radar blips get mistaken for speedboats or birds. Then they might have a chance at bombing the place.
-
P-51 Mustang
P-19 Mustang
How does this even happen?
-
I've read some of the history of the islands
And right there you've done more than Sean Penn or pretty much most of the people who comment on the Falklands Islands have ever done.
It's actually an interesting history... some of these folks like Sean Penn should read it :)
-
You're right about the A-4 being a good dog fighter. One of them killed a MiG with a rocket over Vietnam. That's like a Harbinger kill on a Dragon. I was mistaken.
The A-4 has no afterburner, though, and it would have a hard time staying on a modern fighter's tail. So since the EFs could easily evade, it's down to the Skyhawk's ability to do sufficient damage to the airfield to make it unusable. And they might just be able to get away with that, because fighters can only carry so many AMRAAMs and bullets.
The A-4 is a decent dogfighter, but remember that P-51 Mustang also is. It's not like it's incapable of air combat, but just can't compare with modern aircraft. Lack of afterburners and weapons compatibility (especially BVR ordnance) makes it somewhat obsolete. If supported by SAMs, these Eurofighters stationed on Falklands could most likely wipe the floor with most of Argentina's air force.
There's also another thing. Getting that far would require a lot of fuel, so A-4s would have to watch their tanks, or they won't be able to return. Dogfighting can easily empty one's tank in no time.
One EF-2000 can carry 13 missiles and 150 rounds for it's guns. That's enough for at least 14-16 Skyhawks, if the pilot is good.
Assuming every missile hits it's target...yeah :)
But you're absolutely right. The Typhoon is a top notch combat aircraft...at least by the numbers and there isn't much a Skyhawk can do assuming both pilots are well trained. My money would be on the RAF pilots having the edge but I'm somewhat unaware of what Argentina's training regime is like and how much flight time their combat pilots get.
-
But you're absolutely right. The Typhoon is a top notch combat aircraft...at least by the numbers and there isn't much a Skyhawk can do assuming both pilots are well trained. My money would be on the RAF pilots having the edge but I'm somewhat unaware of what Argentina's training regime is like and how much flight time their combat pilots get.
They managed to bomb a few British ships with dumb bombs, which is an accomplishment. They didn't score any AA kills, but that's to be expected when fighting Harriers and not having any decent missiles. I would say that the FAA has at least a few good pilots.
-
Q: how do you get 50 Argentinians into a phone box
A: tell them they own it
-
Assuming every missile hits it's target...yeah :)
Ah, I should have also mentioned that A-4's ECM suite is completely outdated. :)
Without burners, it'd be really, really difficult for an A-4 pilot to actually outmanouver an AMRAAM, and it's unlikely it'd be fooled by it's ECM.
-
Q: how do you get 50 Argentinians into a phone box
A: tell them they own it
Tell them it's British ;7
-
Must be a TARDIS then.
-
Three pages without any reference about killing those bloody Argies who dare to make a diplomatic protest. Looks like this forum has changed a lot since the last time I was around. In a very positive way.
Oh! By the way: Elections were held MONTHS ago, current president won by an astonishing margin, and the economy, I have to admit, is doing quite well. So no, sorry, this is not smoke and mirrors because currently there are no problems to hide.
Q: how do you get 50 Argentinians into a phone box
A: tell them they own it
Oh! You... :lol:
-
I don't think the UK, or at least the population of it, really want to be banging heads with Argentina any more than any other country, that's part of the problem I suppose, both countries assume that because our Governments say something, that must be the united opinion of the people, and tend to jump to conclusions over it.
I suppose the first step towards having a sensible dialogue about all this is to treat each other like adults, something Sean Penn did not do, and I'm afraid that his sticking his nose in purely for the sake of hurling somewhat out-of-date insults has pretty much galvanized the situation from the point of view of the British public.