RE: OT: 30 years since the Argentines attacked the Falklands

Matrix Games Forums

Recruiting Privates for Germany at War: Barbarossa 1941!

Ageod takes you back to the Civil War

Battle Academy iPad and PC 50 per cent off!

Close Combat Last Stand Arnhem v5.60.53 update

Allied Corps Walkthrough playlist and AAR

Conflict of Heroes: Ghost Divisions Released!

Pandora Beta Playthrough Videos

Germany at War: Barbarossa 1941 Announced!

Great Battles Medieval coming to your tablet with a 50 per cent off launch sale!

Matrix Games / Slitherine / AGEOD are recruiting AGAIN!

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: OT: 30 years since the Argentines attacked the Falklands

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room >> RE: OT: 30 years since the Argentines attacked the Falklands

Page: << < prev 2 3 4 [5] 6 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: OT: 30 years since the Argentines attacked the Fal... - 4/6/2012 10:18:23 AM

ilovestrategy

Posts: 3628
Joined: 6/11/2005
From: San Diego
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Encircled

Yes there is such a thing as a shared carrier.

How it works though is beyond me!

I tried googling it, not too much information. So it will be basically a timeshare? I'm just wondering how the skills of each crew will be maintained while the other country has the carrier.

_____________________________

After 16 years, Civ II still has me in it's clutches LOL!!!
Now CIV IV has me in it's evil clutches!

(in reply to Encircled)

Post #: 121

RE: OT: 30 years since the Argentines attacked the Fal... - 4/6/2012 12:29:57 PM

tocaff

Posts: 4026
Joined: 10/12/2006
From: USA now in Brasil
Status: offline

Somehow the concept of a "shared carrier" leaves me thinking that as long as nobody really needs it the plan works, otherwise....

_____________________________

Todd

I never thought that doing an AAR would be so time consuming and difficult.
www.matrixgames.com/forum/tm.asp?m=2080768

(in reply to Encircled)

Post #: 122

RE: OT: 30 years since the Argentines attacked the Fal... - 4/6/2012 1:16:50 PM

Historiker

Posts: 4721
Joined: 7/4/2007
From: Deutschland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: tocaff

Somehow the concept of a "shared carrier" leaves me thinking that as long as nobody really needs it the plan works, otherwise....

There are some who advocate EU-Carriers. This is just beyond reality.
Just look at Libya. Even there, Europe wasn't united. So how should a EU-Carrier work? German machine personal gets the order not to cooperate in an "offensive" mission?
Nuts!

Cooperaiton between France and GB might work to some extend, though. Both are declining powers with the claim to be a great power. So there might actually be the understanding that working together is the only way to keep some influence in the world.

< Message edited by Historiker -- 4/6/2012 2:42:16 PM >

_____________________________

Without any doubt: I am the spawn of evil - and the Bavarian Beer Monster (BBM)!

There's only one bad word and that's taxes. If any other word is good enough for sailors; it's good enough for you. - Ron Swanson

(in reply to tocaff)

Post #: 123

RE: OT: 30 years since the Argentines attacked the Fal... - 4/6/2012 3:43:57 PM

mike scholl 1

Posts: 1177
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline

I've always assumed that the reason Great Britian backs up all the US "plays" in the last 30 years is that there is a secred reciprical agreement that the US will provide a couple of carrier groups to back Britian if there is another attack on the Falklands or some other last remnant of the Empire.

(in reply to Historiker)

Post #: 124

RE: OT: 30 years since the Argentines attacked the Fal... - 4/6/2012 4:48:41 PM

Buckrock

Posts: 25
Joined: 3/16/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ilovestrategy
I tried googling it, not too much information. So it will be basically a timeshare? I'm just wondering how the skills of each crew will be maintained while the other country has the carrier.

I notice the plans for the new Brit CV design has two separate control centre islands on the top deck.

Perhaps when sharing, each nationality has its own island and gets to steer on alternating days.

_____________________________

This was the only sig line I could think of.

(in reply to ilovestrategy)

Post #: 125

RE: OT: 30 years since the Argentines attacked the Fal... - 4/6/2012 5:12:12 PM

Historiker

Posts: 4721
Joined: 7/4/2007
From: Deutschland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Buckrock

quote:

ORIGINAL: ilovestrategy
I tried googling it, not too much information. So it will be basically a timeshare? I'm just wondering how the skills of each crew will be maintained while the other country has the carrier.

I notice the plans for the new Brit CV design has two separate control centre islands on the top deck.

Perhaps when sharing, each nationality has its own island and gets to steer on alternating days.

Reminds me of the three-headed knight...

_____________________________

Without any doubt: I am the spawn of evil - and the Bavarian Beer Monster (BBM)!

There's only one bad word and that's taxes. If any other word is good enough for sailors; it's good enough for you. - Ron Swanson

(in reply to Buckrock)

Post #: 126

RE: OT: 30 years since the Argentines attacked the Fal... - 4/6/2012 5:36:06 PM

tocaff

Posts: 4026
Joined: 10/12/2006
From: USA now in Brasil
Status: offline

The UK and France, hmm. France and the UK, hmm. Nah, each one of them has a different agenda and that alone is enough to cause problems. The only country I can think of that doesn't need a military of it's own is Canada because the US would never allow any foreign incursion there.

_____________________________

Todd

I never thought that doing an AAR would be so time consuming and difficult.
www.matrixgames.com/forum/tm.asp?m=2080768

(in reply to Historiker)

Post #: 127

RE: OT: 30 years since the Argentines attacked the Fal... - 4/6/2012 6:33:40 PM

janh

Posts: 1150
Joined: 6/12/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ilovestrategy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Encircled

Yes there is such a thing as a shared carrier.

How it works though is beyond me!

I tried googling it, not too much information. So it will be basically a timeshare? I'm just wondering how the skills of each crew will be maintained while the other country has the carrier.

I can't find the original article anymore. On wiki you can find stuff on the "Future French aircraft carrier" the new British "Queen Elizabeth" class, but it only say that the close collaboration with design and building was canceled in 2008. There is also an overwhelming amount of information here,
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/design-preparations-continue-for-britains-new-cvf-future-carrier-updated-01630/
It actually contains some interesting new infos.

What I recall about the "shared carrier" idea was that around 2007 there were some sizable funding cuts for military in GB and France, which messed up the ordering schedule for the two CV both nations planned to purchase. Then there was a proposal to delay also one of the first two ships, at that time still binational projects, and to initially share the other CV. At that time it seem to be a serious proposition, but it seems fortunately they didn't follow through with this. Fortunately? Perhaps not, maybe it really would be time to develop a common service for Europe?

(in reply to ilovestrategy)

Post #: 128

RE: OT: 30 years since the Argentines attacked the Fal... - 4/6/2012 9:42:51 PM

RCH

Posts: 176
Joined: 1/19/2011
Status: offline

Since the discussion has turned to carriers I'd like to see how many people here on the forum thinks that carriers are obsolete? With the current anti ship weaponry, I think it will be to easy to lose a carrier and way to hard to replace one. You can look at the current challenges that the US Navy now has concerning the Chinese Pacific threat. China is working towards weapons system that directly targets the US Navy with an emphasis on anti ship missiles that are a threat to our carriers.

I think navies will be making smaller ships and not larger ones once it is realized the truly destructive and effective anti ship missiles that are in development. We are going to a push button military world. It only takes one missile to get through and you have a lost ship.

I still see a need for smaller carriers that mainly carry helicopters that would provide support for certain land operations.

It can also be argued that manned fighter planes will soon be a thing of the past.

(in reply to janh)

Post #: 129

RE: OT: 30 years since the Argentines attacked the Fal... - 4/6/2012 10:13:22 PM

Canoerebel

Posts: 9164
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline

I don't know how aircraft carriers would do in a conflict beteen major seapowers, but they certainly aren't obsolute under the current "peacetime" conditions. They serve an important role in the projection of power.

_____________________________

"Rats set fire to Mr. Cooper�s store in Fort Valley. No damage done." Columbus (Ga) Enquirer-Sun, October 2, 1880.

(in reply to RCH)

Post #: 130

RE: OT: 30 years since the Argentines attacked the Fal... - 4/6/2012 10:30:49 PM

Sredni

Posts: 695
Joined: 9/30/2004
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: tocaff

The UK and France, hmm.� France and the UK, hmm.� Nah, each one of them has a different agenda and that alone is enough to cause problems.� The only country I can think of that doesn't need a military of it's own is Canada because the US would never allow any foreign incursion there.

I think the US was very glad we have a military of our own in recent years. The inclusion of canada and other countries in recent military ventures I think lent a much needed air of legitimacy to the war in afghanistan internationally.

There was certainly a lot of grousing from the states about our lack of military and how underfunded it was and how we depended too much on america and how lucky we were to have america to "protect" us in the years before the recent war we took part in (from the news, from talk shows, from politicians, from comedians). That kind of talk is gone now of course but I expect it will pick back up once memory fades.

There are also our own national interests. As global warming continues and the northwest territories become more open to habitation and exploitation (mineral wise), and the northwest passage becomes a viable shipping route, we are going to see disputes over authority in those area's from all over the world. Just policing and controlling the NW passage is I think going to be a major issue with the rest of the world. And the only times we'll be able to count on america to "protect" us is when it coincides with their own interests.

So for the purposes of protecting our national interests I think a military is required by canada for the foreseeable future. Even with america there to "protect" us.

< Message edited by Sredni -- 4/6/2012 10:31:48 PM >

(in reply to tocaff)

Post #: 131

RE: OT: 30 years since the Argentines attacked the Fal... - 4/6/2012 11:34:03 PM

vettim89

Posts: 3234
Joined: 7/14/2007
From: Toledo, Ohio
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RCH

Since the discussion has turned to carriers I'd like to see how many people here on the forum thinks that carriers are obsolete? With the current anti ship weaponry, I think it will be to easy to lose a carrier and way to hard to replace one. You can look at the current challenges that the US Navy now has concerning the Chinese Pacific threat. China is working towards weapons system that directly targets the US Navy with an emphasis on anti ship missiles that are a threat to our carriers.

I think navies will be making smaller ships and not larger ones once it is realized the truly destructive and effective anti ship missiles that are in development. We are going to a push button military world. It only takes one missile to get through and you have a lost ship.

I still see a need for smaller carriers that mainly carry helicopters that would provide support for certain land operations.

It can also be argued that manned fighter planes will soon be a thing of the past.

I think the WWII experience showed that the two best ways to sink a carrier are submarines and another carrier. Recent use of the USn CVNs has largely been in an environment where they quite frankly don't belong. The lack of a threat from a developed power allows them to conduct ops in confined spaces that would never had been contemplated during the Cold War. One of the biggest dangers to the USN is that they have been neglecting ASW for some time now. With the Sov fleet mostly now rusting away, the money has gone towards attack aircraft (namely F/A-18E). Still the Iranians could easily pop one with either a Kilo class SS or a sea skimming missile in the Persian Gulf quite easily. However if the carriers moved out even into the Arabian Sea, it would be much harder for the Iranians to get close enough to launch be it a TT or an ASM.

In a true open ocean contst, there is no navy in the world that can contest the USN at this time. For all the rumblings about the Chinese, they still lack the logistical system to support off-shore operations. As to the Ballistic ASM: there are a lot of technical hurdles that would need to be overcome to bring such a weapon to operational status. As the ChiComs move forward on this, the USN is coming up with counter measures. Already a high altitude Chaff rocket version of the SM-2 is being developed that could play havoc with such a weapons terminal guidance. Sea Skimming missiles cause the USN to develop the Mk15 Phalanx, RAM, and ESSM. Nothing happens in a vacuum. I am sure the USN will do its best to keep ahead of the Chinese.

A USN CVBG off the Falklands would have eliminated the Argentine Air Force in a matter of days. AWACS would have picked them up as the lifted off and the TomCats would have had them pegged before they could even sniff firing range. The one weapon the Argentines didn't use more of that could have been a game changer was the Truck Mounted Exocet. That would have been a problem for any amphibious force in 1982

_____________________________

"We have met the enemy and they are ours" - Commodore O.H. Perry

(in reply to RCH)

Post #: 132

RE: OT: 30 years since the Argentines attacked the Fal... - 4/7/2012 12:52:52 AM

Chickenboy

Posts: 15235
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: Twin Cities, MN
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sredni

quote:

ORIGINAL: tocaff

The UK and France, hmm.� France and the UK, hmm.� Nah, each one of them has a different agenda and that alone is enough to cause problems.� The only country I can think of that doesn't need a military of it's own is Canada because the US would never allow any foreign incursion there.

I think the US was very glad we have a military of our own in recent years. The inclusion of canada and other countries in recent military ventures I think lent a much needed air of legitimacy to the war in afghanistan internationally.

There was certainly a lot of grousing from the states about our lack of military and how underfunded it was and how we depended too much on america and how lucky we were to have america to "protect" us in the years before the recent war we took part in (from the news, from talk shows, from politicians, from comedians). That kind of talk is gone now of course but I expect it will pick back up once memory fades.

There are also our own national interests. As global warming continues and the northwest territories become more open to habitation and exploitation (mineral wise), and the northwest passage becomes a viable shipping route, we are going to see disputes over authority in those area's from all over the world. Just policing and controlling the NW passage is I think going to be a major issue with the rest of the world. And the only times we'll be able to count on america to "protect" us is when it coincides with their own interests.

So for the purposes of protecting our national interests I think a military is required by canada for the foreseeable future. Even with america there to "protect" us.

Since you used "protect" in quotes several times, I infer your insincerity about the use of the term...

I recall reading the minutes of Canadian parliament just a couple of years ago when they were debating the military budget. It was "illuminating" to see where the military ranks in the collective mindset of the Canadians, based on budget expenditures. Something like 0.8% of GDP, isn't it? One of the conservative MPs had an "illuminating" quote-something to the effect that "we should either give the military what they need or stay home and stop pretending that we're a world power." Probably a bit harsh, but only a bit.

In my opinion, perhaps we (the US) spend too much of our budget / GDP on defense. However, I'd rather be where we are now than the years of poor morale and a 'hollowed-out' military. We've been there several times historically (was it Peru or Ecuador that had a larger standing army than we did at the onset of WWII?) and it's ugly trying to come back.

For our European Allies that spend <1% of their GDPs on the military, I bid you well and hope that your minesweepers, hospital ships and battalion-sized peacekeeper forces can carry the day for you in your moment of need.

I agree that the Canadians will have "issues" with the Northwest Territories and the grab for the Northern resources as they open up with climatologic change. I fail to see how that will be an American issue, anymore than a foreign power infringing on one of our protectorates or territories would be a Canadian or a European issue.

As we have our own sovereign rows to hoe, we'll need our own respective military competencies and capabilities. Woe unto those leaders outside of the United States that assume American blood and treasure will bear their cross. "Beware entangling alliances" indeed, Mr. Washington.

_____________________________

(in reply to Sredni)

Post #: 133

RE: OT: 30 years since the Argentines attacked the Fal... - 4/7/2012 3:35:03 AM

USS America

Posts: 15201
Joined: 10/28/2002
From: Raleigh, NC, USA
Status: online

quote:

In my opinion, perhaps we (the US) spend too much of our budget / GDP on defense. However, I'd rather be where we are now than the years of poor morale and a 'hollowed-out' military. We've been there several times historically (was it Peru or Ecuador that had a larger standing army than we did at the onset of WWII?) and it's ugly trying to come back.

It was Poland that had a larger army than the US. Yes, the army that lasted 5 weeks was larger than the US Army in 1939.

< Message edited by USS America -- 4/7/2012 3:37:23 AM >

_____________________________

Mike

"Good times will set you free" - Jimmy Buffett

"They need more rum punch" - Me

Artwork by The Amazing Dixie

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 134

RE: OT: 30 years since the Argentines attacked the Fal... - 4/7/2012 10:00:21 AM

Historiker

Posts: 4721
Joined: 7/4/2007
From: Deutschland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: USS America

quote:

In my opinion, perhaps we (the US) spend too much of our budget / GDP on defense. However, I'd rather be where we are now than the years of poor morale and a 'hollowed-out' military. We've been there several times historically (was it Peru or Ecuador that had a larger standing army than we did at the onset of WWII?) and it's ugly trying to come back.

It was Poland that had a larger army than the US. Yes, the army that lasted 5 weeks was larger than the US Army in 1939.

Almost everone had a larger army than you, Poland's army was rather big

The nation mentioned often was Romania, IIRC.

_____________________________

Without any doubt: I am the spawn of evil - and the Bavarian Beer Monster (BBM)!

There's only one bad word and that's taxes. If any other word is good enough for sailors; it's good enough for you. - Ron Swanson

(in reply to USS America)

Post #: 135

RE: OT: 30 years since the Argentines attacked the Fal... - 4/7/2012 11:17:12 AM

HansBolter

Posts: 3150
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: St. Petersburg, Florida, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chris H

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

The US did not get involved in the first Falkland war because it in no way served our strategic interest. I like our British allies but that was a wise policy decision then and it is now.

You mean just like we did in Afganistan and Iraq. Oops sorry, we did get involved even though it in now way served our strategic interests. Not a wise decision on behalf of our government.

Agreed, and for the most part not a wise decision on anybody's part.

I'm afraid I can't go down the path of classifying it in such simplistic terms. Can anyone truly say that the Arab spring would have happened without it? I know that democracy is a messy business and that what is happening can't truly be classifed as democracy yet and that there are more decided cons than pros to handing the popular vote to a populous that may well vote to unleash it's Jihad against the world, but I have to remain steadfast in the belief that spreading democracy to the world will always be in our strategic interest.

_____________________________

Hans

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 136

RE: OT: 30 years since the Argentines attacked the Fal... - 4/7/2012 11:20:57 AM

tocaff

Posts: 4026
Joined: 10/12/2006
From: USA now in Brasil
Status: offline

My comment about the US protecting Canada was and is based on the assumption that a foreign military presence in Canada would never be tolerated. Strategically it would be held akin to foreign forces in the US itself. It serves the USA's interests to have a peaceful border and trading partner that is mineral rich.

_____________________________

Todd

I never thought that doing an AAR would be so time consuming and difficult.
www.matrixgames.com/forum/tm.asp?m=2080768

(in reply to Historiker)

Post #: 137

RE: OT: 30 years since the Argentines attacked the Fal... - 4/7/2012 11:40:59 AM

Cannonfodder

Posts: 1326
Joined: 10/22/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

In my opinion, perhaps we (the US) spend too much of our budget / GDP on defense.

For our European Allies that spend <1% of their GDPs on the military, I bid you well and hope that your minesweepers, hospital ships and battalion-sized peacekeeper forces can carry the day for you in your moment of need.

US military power... You never wonder where the money to maintain it comes from? Battalion sized forces might not impress you but at least it is affordable...

On the other hand, economic depression and cutting defense budgets somehow leads to war... Humans... bluh

< Message edited by Cannonfodder -- 4/7/2012 12:08:46 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 138

RE: OT: 30 years since the Argentines attacked the Fal... - 4/7/2012 3:59:25 PM

Dobey

Posts: 327
Joined: 12/28/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

I've always assumed that the reason Great Britian backs up all the US "plays" in the last 30 years is that there is a secred reciprical agreement that the US will provide a couple of carrier groups to back Britian if there is another attack on the Falklands or some other last remnant of the Empire.

From a political point of view it would be imperative for Britain NOT to involve the US or anyone else in a Falklands conflict. Britain claims the Falklands a sovereign territory, so they need to be able to demonstrate that they can defend it with their own resources.
Britain calling the US to defend the Falklands would be about as realistic as the US calling Britain to defend Puerto Rico. (ie a humiliation.)

As an example Britain could easily have asked her Empire to help in 1982 (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, etc) but to ask for help to defend your own sovereign soil would only prove Argentina correct when it says that geographically Britain does not have the ability to defend the Falklands.

That's why the UK Never asked the US to assist in 1982. It was imperative that the UK prove they could defend the Falklands WITHOUT outside assistance.

(in reply to mike scholl 1)

Post #: 139

RE: OT: 30 years since the Argentines attacked the Fal... - 4/7/2012 4:09:21 PM

witpqs

Posts: 12434
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: online

Better, yes. Imperative? How about Kuwait? France? And so on.

(in reply to Dobey)

Post #: 140

RE: OT: 30 years since the Argentines attacked the Fal... - 4/7/2012 6:42:52 PM

Dobey

Posts: 327
Joined: 12/28/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Better, yes. Imperative? How about Kuwait? France? And so on.

I assume you're referring to Kuwait in 1990\1991 and France 1940?

I don't see how either one of those is comparable. In neither case was the conflict about Britain defending what it considered its own territory and in neither case was the UK the major combatant. Also the caliber of the enemy in 1982 was vastly different to, say 1940 Germany.

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 141

RE: OT: 30 years since the Argentines attacked the Fal... - 4/7/2012 7:25:52 PM

Sredni

Posts: 695
Joined: 9/30/2004
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: tocaff

My comment about the US protecting Canada was and is based on the assumption that a foreign military presence in Canada would never be tolerated.� Strategically it would be held akin to foreign forces in the US itself.� It serves the USA's interests to have a peaceful border and trading partner that is mineral rich.

yeah, I probably went off a little more then I should have heh, apologies. You're right of course in that physically canada is immune to anything short of full out world war simply because the states wouldn't tolerate a foreign country threatening a country so tied into their sphere of influence. I wonder if mexico would merit the same attention... certainly they're safe from an oversea's power (I would imagine), but I wonder if central america united and decided to menace mexico if the US would intervene. who knows. kinda pointless speculation I guess since I can't imagine central america uniting heh.

I was simply emphasizing that while there's no real chance of a random country deciding to annex and occupy british columbia or newfoundland without the US intervening, there are many other factors involved that demand we maintain our own military presence. That america's protection only coincides with america's self interest. Which doesn't necessarily coincide with canada's self interest. And also I guess that despite perception, canada maintains today a decent sized and effective military. In spite of shots about our relatively low GDP% spent on the military.

Realistically any country in the world today is only really threatened in any real way by it's neighbors or by the worlds super powers, and canada's only neighbor is the superpower heh.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

I fail to see how that will be an American issue, anymore than a foreign power infringing on one of our protectorates or territories would be a Canadian or a European issue.

That was precisely my point

it's not. Canada needs a military to protect it's interests since american protection only extends to american interests. And I'm not casting blame or assigning anything negative to this fact (I had protect in quotes because I see it as folly to expect one nation to protect another for anything but self interest). It's simply the way nations operate. And also that canada's military (contrary to perception) is effective enough to suit current national needs, and even to support allies in wars that have absolutely nothing to do with us.

------------------------

And I guess I should comment on the threads topic some more heh, enough derailing! I find myself a little shocked that the EU doesn't have binding and effective mutual support clauses. That was just a throw away comment from me about germany and france getting involved in a new falklands dispute, I was honestly assuming it was a given that they would. How odd. Is it just because it's a "foreign" property held far away from the UK's real borders? Or would it be the same if say turkey decided to invade greece or something?

(in reply to tocaff)

Post #: 142

RE: OT: 30 years since the Argentines attacked the Fal... - 4/7/2012 7:28:13 PM

witpqs

Posts: 12434
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: online

The point is about any country defending what it considers to be its territory. The assertion being called into question is, basically, (in my own words) "if you can't defend it then it's not yours". That is no different in the case of the Falklands than for any place else in the world. "I have it" versus "I want it" is what it boils down to. The argument that the UK "had" to retake the territories on its own because they are so far away does not hold water. Plenty of countries have failed to hold or re-take plenty of territories on their own, including their very heartlands. That does not make their claim to those territories any less valid. Singling out UK and the Falklands for such a burden is wrong.

(in reply to Dobey)

Post #: 143

RE: OT: 30 years since the Argentines attacked the Fal... - 4/7/2012 8:46:54 PM

Chickenboy

Posts: 15235
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: Twin Cities, MN
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sredni

quote:

ORIGINAL: tocaff

My comment about the US protecting Canada was and is based on the assumption that a foreign military presence in Canada would never be tolerated.� Strategically it would be held akin to foreign forces in the US itself.� It serves the USA's interests to have a peaceful border and trading partner that is mineral rich.

yeah, I probably went off a little more then I should have heh, apologies. You're right of course in that physically canada is immune to anything short of full out world war simply because the states wouldn't tolerate a foreign country threatening a country so tied into their sphere of influence. I wonder if mexico would merit the same attention... certainly they're safe from an oversea's power (I would imagine), but I wonder if central america united and decided to menace mexico if the US would intervene. who knows. kinda pointless speculation I guess since I can't imagine central america uniting heh.

I was simply emphasizing that while there's no real chance of a random country deciding to annex and occupy british columbia or newfoundland without the US intervening, there are many other factors involved that demand we maintain our own military presence. That america's protection only coincides with america's self interest. Which doesn't necessarily coincide with canada's self interest. And also I guess that despite perception, canada maintains today a decent sized and effective military. In spite of shots about our relatively low GDP% spent on the military.

Realistically any country in the world today is only really threatened in any real way by it's neighbors or by the worlds super powers, and canada's only neighbor is the superpower heh.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

I fail to see how that will be an American issue, anymore than a foreign power infringing on one of our protectorates or territories would be a Canadian or a European issue.

That was precisely my point it's not. Canada needs a military to protect it's interests since american protection only extends to american interests. And I'm not casting blame or assigning anything negative to this fact (I had protect in quotes because I see it as folly to expect one nation to protect another for anything but self interest). It's simply the way nations operate. And also that canada's military (contrary to perception) is effective enough to suit current national needs, and even to support allies in wars that have absolutely nothing to do with us.

------------------------

And I guess I should comment on the threads topic some more heh, enough derailing! I find myself a little shocked that the EU doesn't have binding and effective mutual support clauses. That was just a throw away comment from me about germany and france getting involved in a new falklands dispute, I was honestly assuming it was a given that they would. How odd. Is it just because it's a "foreign" property held far away from the UK's real borders? Or would it be the same if say turkey decided to invade greece or something?

OK. Good post.

Watching the Europeans go through their efforts to have a euro-zone RDF is alternatively painful and humorous. How long has this been bandied about now to no effect? I think our European friends on the forum are right. Europe has shown zero aptitude in putting together a common European defense force. It's 'every country for themselves' with the crossed fingers that NATO (particularly the US) will be there if things really go to hell. There's no significant military threat to the continent (yet), so this approach-hope for the best, cut defense spending, rely on others-is the path of least political resistance, particularly in a period of fiscal austerity.

_____________________________

(in reply to Sredni)

Post #: 144

RE: OT: 30 years since the Argentines attacked the Fal... - 4/7/2012 9:05:00 PM

Historiker

Posts: 4721
Joined: 7/4/2007
From: Deutschland
Status: offline

quote:

Watching the Europeans go through their efforts to have a euro-zone RDF is alternatively painful and humorous. How long has this been bandied about now to no effect? I think our European friends on the forum are right. Europe has shown zero aptitude in putting together a common European defense force. It's 'every country for themselves' with the crossed fingers that NATO (particularly the US) will be there if things really go to hell. There's no significant military threat to the continent (yet), so this approach-hope for the best, cut defense spending, rely on others-is the path of least political resistance, particularly in a period of fiscal austerity.

To have a united force, you need to be united.
Europe is vastly divided, and a EU doesn't change **** about that.

France and UK live off old glory, and as security council members and nuclear powers, they still see themselves as world powers - even though reality doesn't really match with that.
Germany might have more possibilities, but is extremly pacifistic. Consequently, we won't invest more in our military. Even if we had more military power, it won't see any use. When a french president was able to order military strikes all by himself, we have an extremly tight control of the military by the parliament. Being a mostly leftist country with an even more pacifistic culture, you can guess youreself where that's heading.
Poland instead embraces its freedom, has a proud military history and is thus willing both to commit money to its forces and to let the forces play with their tools as well.
Greece is more interested in preparing for war against Turkey than anything else, while Romania is willing to commit its forces but has no money...

Now you can guess what that means, should those nations work together in military means. The best case is, that Europe defends itself in coordination and that Germany or another country doesn't say "if we don#t help poland, we won't get attacked" (which is quite possible).
But offensive action? Combined, with a military that is dependend on capacities by another nation because it doesn't have those material itself any longer?
Forget it, no chance!

There are some dreamers about that, but should that ever happen, the only result would be an even more incapable Europe!

I can only advise the Americans to put their trust into Poland, UK, and propably Romania, France, Spain and the Netherlands. But better don't put your bets on Germany the next time you need us!

_____________________________

Without any doubt: I am the spawn of evil - and the Bavarian Beer Monster (BBM)!

There's only one bad word and that's taxes. If any other word is good enough for sailors; it's good enough for you. - Ron Swanson

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 145

RE: OT: 30 years since the Argentines attacked the Fal... - 4/7/2012 9:24:57 PM

Encircled

Posts: 632
Joined: 12/30/2010
From: Northern England
Status: offline

quote:

As an example Britain could easily have asked her Empire to help in 1982 (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, etc)

I think even the most wildly optimistic Brit wouldn't claim we had an "empire" in 1982!

(in reply to Historiker)

Post #: 146

RE: OT: 30 years since the Argentines attacked the Fal... - 4/7/2012 9:36:13 PM

Historiker

Posts: 4721
Joined: 7/4/2007
From: Deutschland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Encircled

quote:

As an example Britain could easily have asked her Empire to help in 1982 (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, etc)

I think even the most wildly optimistic Brit wouldn't claim we had an "empire" in 1982!

How much do those three feel bound to the UK anyways? Is it a real possibility that those three might join a next war of the UK, expecially a local and restricted war like 1982?

_____________________________

Without any doubt: I am the spawn of evil - and the Bavarian Beer Monster (BBM)!

There's only one bad word and that's taxes. If any other word is good enough for sailors; it's good enough for you. - Ron Swanson

(in reply to Encircled)

Post #: 147

RE: OT: 30 years since the Argentines attacked the Fal... - 4/7/2012 9:49:30 PM

Encircled

Posts: 632
Joined: 12/30/2010
From: Northern England
Status: offline

No idea to be honest.

I can't see anybody but us fighting for the Falklands.

(in reply to Historiker)

Post #: 148

RE: OT: 30 years since the Argentines attacked the Fal... - 4/7/2012 9:59:53 PM

Empire101

Posts: 1896
Joined: 5/20/2008
From: Coruscant
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dobey
As an example Britain could easily have asked her Empire to help in 1982 (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, etc)

Empire!!!??
You are a little behind the times me old China, the Empire as a construct is long dead, both physically and metaphorically, with rampant greed, avarice, and consumerism taking the place of pride in one's country unfortunately (in most peoples minds).

I think this thread has run its course.....

< Message edited by Empire101 -- 4/7/2012 10:00:44 PM >

_____________________________

Our lives may be more boring than those who lived in apocalyptic times,
but being bored is greatly preferable to being prematurely dead because of some ideological fantasy. - Michael Burleigh

(in reply to Dobey)

Post #: 149

RE: OT: 30 years since the Argentines attacked the Fal... - 4/7/2012 10:06:40 PM

warspite1

Posts: 11037
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Historiker

quote:

ORIGINAL: Encircled

quote:

As an example Britain could easily have asked her Empire to help in 1982 (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, etc)

I think even the most wildly optimistic Brit wouldn't claim we had an "empire" in 1982!

How much do those three feel bound to the UK anyways? Is it a real possibility that those three might join a next war of the UK, expecially a local and restricted war like 1982?

Warspite1

I recall the Kiwi's offering to assist the Royal Navy with a frigate - Robert Muldoon(?) was the Prime Minister at the time and he kicked the Argentinian ambassador out of New Zealand in a show of solidarity iirc

Typical of the Kiwi's

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty - Horatio Nelson 1805.

(in reply to Historiker)

Post #: 150

Page: << < prev 2 3 4 [5] 6 next > >>

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room >> RE: OT: 30 years since the Argentines attacked the Falklands

Page: << < prev 2 3 4 [5] 6 next > >>

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

0.109