• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Split Thread Musings about Falklands past and present

There is something called "NATO".

If the UK truly were inable to decisively repel an Argentine invasion, they have allies. I assume that all relevant NATO members agree that the Falklands are part of the UK and thus part of the territory jointly defended.

US sends a carrier group, Argentina loses all military capacity.
 
Oystein said:
There is something called "NATO".

If the UK truly were inable to decisively repel an Argentine invasion, they have allies. I assume that all relevant NATO members agree that the Falklands are part of the UK and thus part of the territory jointly defended.

US sends a carrier group, Argentina loses all military capacity.
Click to expand...

It depends on who is president. Maybe Trump would help the UK (he seems to be an anglophile, though the feelings don't seem to be returned). When Obama was in charge... maybe not...

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article...al-over-falklands-seems-tilt-toward-argentina
 
Seismosaurus said:
Incidentally, it's actually worse than I thought... the Argentine Air Force now has no jet fighters left at all.

Good luck with an invasion when you don't have an Air Force and the other side does.
Click to expand...


Also, most of the remaining Pucarás are currently grounded because they need new engines; only one of the 20 scheduled upgrades is known to have been completed so far.
 
Oystein said:
There is something called "NATO".

If the UK truly were inable to decisively repel an Argentine invasion, they have allies. I assume that all relevant NATO members agree that the Falklands are part of the UK and thus part of the territory jointly defended.

US sends a carrier group, Argentina loses all military capacity.
Click to expand...


The NATO treaty only applies north of the Tropic of CancerWP.

Article 6:

For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:

on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France 2, on the territory of or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.​
 
When I was in Argentina about 25 years ago on business, I got a strong impression of a former first-world nation rapidly sliding back into the third. I don't think that's gotten any better.
 
Trebuchet said:
When I was in Argentina about 25 years ago on business, I got a strong impression of a former first-world nation rapidly sliding back into the third. I don't think that's gotten any better.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Interesting trivia on a one-time popular phrase:

"In the early part of the 20th century, Argentina was among the top ten richest countries in the world, maintaining this position into the 50's. ... It was the French, seeing how lavishly the argentines spent money, who coined the phrase "riche comme un argentin" or "as rich as an argentine"."
 
SpitfireIX said:
The NATO treaty only applies north of the Tropic of CancerWP.

Article 6:

For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:

on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France 2, on the territory of or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.​
Click to expand...

I didn't know that - thanks for the education :)
 
SpitfireIX said:
The NATO treaty only applies north of the Tropic of CancerWP.
Click to expand...
Wow, I never knew that that "North Atlantic" in the name was so literal.

theprestige said:
I could have sworn someone was telling us there was no way the UK's four Eurofighters could possibly hold off the Argentine air force.
Click to expand...
He probably thought they had Phantom jets, and now it turns out they have phantom jets. What's in a capital letter? :)
 
SpitfireIX said:
That's why the full fury of NATO didn't descend on Argentina in 1982.
Click to expand...

I had always imagined that it was a matter of British pride (and a matter of being able to co-ordinate a response effectively, quickly and decisively) that they did it alone.

(I was 14 back then, and being rather ignorant of Argentine dictatorship, sided with the underdog. I remember ...
ddt said:
He probably thought they had Phantom jets, and now it turns out they have phantom jets. What's in a capital letter? :)
Click to expand...
...that the Brits had Phantom F4s stationed just about 10 km from here - a frequent sight in the skies in those days; but when the war broke out, they put Vulcans up there - loud, heavy, impressive things - for the long haul to the Falklands. I felt sorry for "my" Argentines whenever a Vulcan roared overhead.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom