Falklands war - the sequel?

[Mikey]

Silly? Really? Because no other Islamic fringe radical group has ever adopted such a strategy to prosecute a conflict which was at once cultural and religious, right? Grow up.

Indeed. And they are the ONLY radical group has ever adopted such a strategy to prosecute a conflict.

How about those Muslim Northern Irishmen, eh?
Or the Muslim Black Panthers?
Or the Muslim Front de Liberation du Quebec?
Or the Muslim Marxists?
Or the Muslim ETA?

Get real. It's the tactic of the desperate or those who believe there aren't any other way of fighting back. Thing is, Muslim countries and nations are right now at the bottom of many food chains, so it's little surprise they use extremist tactics (as despicable as these tactics end up being). History have proven time and again that total domination by any Nation-state over a people is no impediment for any desire of resistance, no matter the strength of the occupying force. Jews have taken the same means in the past, but stopped doing so when they got in actual power. Muslims nations will most likely do so if they ever get back in power.

Of course radical Islamic groups aren't the only ones to have practiced terror tactics. I never said, or even implied, that they were. I did use that nomenclature, however, because that's the one that meshes with this discussion. However, in NONE of those cases is a weaker position a valid excuse for murder - we're not talking about collateral damage here, as terrible as that may be, we're talking about willful and intentional murder. Like I said, that's not OK no matter how bad one is at it, or how much the perpetrator may feel like it doesn't have a good chance in "honest" warfare.

Further, we aren't talking about Islamic nations with an opportunity to "get back in power." We are talking about fringe, radical terrorist groups which have been shown to not represent the mindset of the majority of their constituencies, but make policy and continue their activities by practicing the same sort of fear tactics against their own people. Why do Palestinian schoolbooks include passages about the extermination of Israel, and Jews in general? Because groups like Hamas want that published, not because the Palestinian people in general want it. I'd be willing to bet that the Palestinian population at large wants precious little to do with Hamas' agenda.

Lastly, terrorism is NOT an alternative to warfare for people who can't prosecute warfare properly, as you seem to paint it. The Arab nations have tried warfare against Israel on a number of occasions. That's why Sinai and the West Bank and Gaza became Israeli territory - it was territory lost to Israel "fair and square," as it were, when a number of Arab nations prosecuted a war against Israel and lost. Terrorism, OTOH, is an attempt to cow a group of people and to make a political statement, not a method of prosecuting a war.

As an aside, why is there a continued mindset that the West bank and Gaza are "rightfully" Palestinian territories? I've never seen the same push for the U.S. to give back Puerto Rico or Guam; or the UKoGBaNI to vacate Gibraltar, Montserrat, or Anguilla; etc., etc. The way I see it, if the Islamic nations wanted that territory to remain Islamic and become sovereign Palestinian land, then they should either have fought better, or not attacked at all.

[Captain Seafort]

The use of the analogy, however, wasn't dependent on the relative threat level of the target nation - it was to illustrate the use of force against a primarily civilian target... and further, to illustrate the lack of outcry in one instance (no matter the reasons, dammit!) compared to the huge and partially misguided outcry on the other. For the purposes of that illustration, the relative threat level of Germany towards western Europe compared with that of Hamas toward Israel is irrelevant.

Far from it. It's the difference between shooting someone who's coming at you with a gun and shooting a five-year-old who's coming at you with a penknife. One is acceptable, one is not, because of the different threat levels.

Believe me, I'm familiar of the limitations of U.S. WWII bombers generally compared with the Brit heavies. I said the U.S. in particular, because the latter part of that statement continued the theme with the inclusion of the burning of Tokyo and the a-bombs.

Fair enough - I was under the impression the whole thing regarding people "mainly" having a go at the US applied specifically to Dresden.

Dresden was a stepping-stone, but by no means intended to decisively and definitely end the war in the ETO in the way that the Enola Gay did.

You'd be surprised - one of the aims in the planning stages of the raid was to inflict a harsh enough shock to force a German surrender. If it had gone ahead in the form it was probably initially intended to be done in it probably would have.

When my cousin's husband sifted through the rubble in Tel Aviv after a Hamas rocket attack looking for parts of his father's body, I daresay you wouldn't have told him to his face that Hamas attacks weren't important or dangerous enough to warrant retaliation or an attempt to silence the attackers.

Attempting to end the threat is fair enough, and every nation's right and responsibility. Doing so in the manner the IDF routinely does a) makes them barely morally superior to Hamas and b) is counterproductive - they're producing as many new Hamas members as they kill.

So, retaliation or an attempt to stop an attacker should only be employed when the civilian death toll is above a specific level?

No, but whether the nature of the response is proportionate does depend on the threat. If Hamas had good enough kit to wipe Tel Aviv (for example) off the map, then the IDF's tactics would be justified. Since this threat does not exist, the indiscriminate bombing of civilians is grossly disproportionate. Wait till they're on their own and drop an LGB on their heads. Follow them to Dubai hotel rooms and shoot them. Stick snipers on the border and when the rocket launchers come out, bang. Dropping WP and cluster bombs into the middle of a crowd of civilians is a textbook example of what not to do.

Once again, I point you towards the fact that civilian Israeli murder victims aren't resurrected by your lack of concern. How many Israeli lives, by Seafort reckoning, does it take to amount to one Brit life?

Turn that question around. How many innocent Palestinian lives does it take to equal one Israel life? By the logic you've been using in this thread the answer is "dozens".

So, I suspect, are the Afghans and the Iraqis - they keep getting dropped on their hears.

Again, I must confess ignorance to your usage of vernacular. However, I have never argued that the American actions in both sitches were the paragon of planning and execution. That said, your being dodgy - you know full well that this aspect of the discussion referred to the Western World's reaction to American action or hypothetical lack thereof. To try to sound pithy by arguing around the point doesn't further anything.

Who the fuck said a thing about counting lives you subhuman c**t?

Hmm, who indeed? Who could possibly be such a "subhuman c**t" to bring up casualty numbers? Let's see...

Really? The hundreds of British servicemen killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. The thousands injured. The fifty-two people killed in London in July 2005. That's why Obama at the very least owes us the courtesy of keeping his gob shut if he can't think of anything intelligent to say.

So where's the counting? Where did I say that the UK had lost more people than the US? I was pointing out that, contrary to your complaint that you don't owe us anything, Her Majesty's Armed Forces have been fighting and dying alongside yours. If I was demanding 200+ years of back taxes I might have a little more sympathy for your case, but since the only objection was to a single gobby idiot, you can fuck off.

Seriously, you got this up-in-arms about a suggestion of one way to avoid bloodshed

Avoiding bloodshed? It's thirty years too late for that. And yes, I do get angry when idiots even raise the possibility of negotiating away the rights of British subjects.

[Captain Seafort]

As an aside, why is there a continued mindset that the West bank and Gaza are "rightfully" Palestinian territories? I've never seen the same push for the U.S. to give back Puerto Rico or Guam; or the UKoGBaNI to vacate Gibraltar, Montserrat, or Anguilla; etc., etc.

That's because the inhabitants of those territories have no interest in becoming independent states - I can't speak for the US examples, but the inhabitants of the British Overseas Territories consider themselves British, and wish to remain so.

[Deepcrush]

Lets start with a T, R, 1, 1, 6.

[Deepcrush]

BTW, since I have no desire to get into the current debate. I'm going to just sum-out my thoughts prior. That it remains a simple fact as far as I can see it that if the AFAR can take the Islands if they apply a little thought and prep.

[Captain Seafort]

That it remains a simple fact as far as I can see it that if the AFAR can take the Islands if they apply a little thought and prep.

How? Their amphibious capacity is crap compared to 30 years ago, and most of their front-line aircraft (and all their fighters and interceptors) are pre-war vintage. The 1435 Flight Typhoons alone would be able to kill any air cover from beyond the Argies' range and then destroy Hercules and any STUFT support. With a Type 45, a reinforced air group (which we can get down there in a couple of days), and probably an SSN in the area they're completely fucked.

[Deepcrush]

Because four UK fighter craft carrying six warheads a piece trying to shoot down over one hundred enemy aircraft simply doesn't work. All the AFAR has to do is allow itself to take the losses and just wait out the RAF's missile storm. Building a few transports isn't hard either.

[Graham Kennedy]

But is the Argentine air force capable of mounting a raid of that size? They never could in the first Falklands war, after all.

[Deepcrush]

They are able, but only once and only if they are willing to suck the losses. The RAF can put 24 warheads on target and I'm willing to bet that against what the AFAR is flying, every shot will be a kill shot. Your T45 may take another half dozen or so if they are flying high.

However it comes down to numbers which the UK can't muster like it used to.

[Captain Seafort]

They are able, but only once and only if they are willing to suck the losses. The RAF can put 24 warheads on target and I'm willing to bet that against what the AFAR is flying, every shot will be a kill shot. Your T45 may take another half dozen or so if they are flying high.

There you go then - pretty much the entire operation Argentine air force wiped out. You're just counting what combat aircraft they've got on the books, and not taking account of the fact that half of them are simply spare parts bins to try and keep the rest going.

I also think you're selling the T45 short - they're easily the best AAW warships on the planet short of an Aegis ship.

[Deepcrush]

In an attack like this you would have to mix in fodder types as well as your main attack aircraft. Flying low and in tight formation you can use your fodder types to screen your attack models. But the loss of the bulk of the AFAR's air force wouldn't really change their situation any. Fighting the UK at sea or in the air over the long run is pointless. All they need is to open a gap to land troops. Be it by sea or air doesn't matter. Simply putting troops on the ground and putting the UK in the position of dealing at the table or coming to dig them out.

[Graham Kennedy]

I'd have thought the T45 would do rather better than half a dozen. It's specifically designed to deal with saturation attack by many, many attackers. Hard info is difficult to come by but a documentary on the building of the class stated that it could engage 36 targets simultaneously, whilst I've seen an interview with a guy who worked on the project and said "The thing that Sea Viper brings to the party relative to that is the number of fire control channels – there are many many more than on the Type-42. So, that allows us to overcome some of the Soviet-type saturation attacks where you get 20, 30, 40 plus missiles being fired at you; the Type-45 would be able to engage all those targets, near-simultaneously"

It's limited to carrying 48 missiles, so between them one Type 45 and the Typhoons should heavily chew up even a hundred plane raid. Of course neither system will be 100% effective, but then neither will the attackers either.

[Captain Seafort]

All they need is to open a gap to land troops. Be it by sea or air doesn't matter. Simply putting troops on the ground and putting the UK in the position of dealing at the table or coming to dig them out.

Putting troops on the ground, while it's certainly the most difficult part of the job (and will get them slaughtered en-mass), it's not the end of it. Last time round eighty-odd bootnecks took on a far larger and better-equipped force than Argentina could hope to land these days and gave them a very bloody nose. Today, there are over a thousand men there, most of whom will have done a tour or two in Iraq or Afghanistan. Whoever (if any) is left over after the T45, the Typhoons, the SSN and the Rapiers have had a go will get thumped.

[Deepcrush]

You have 500 trained light infantry on site, with some civil patrol type reserves. Not really much of a force as it means your land defenses match that of the Airport near my house. Also, where in the last war you were fighting untrained conscripts, you'll be facing troops who in some cases have been trained by British/American/German troops during UN training operations.

[SolkaTruesilver]

You have 500 trained light infantry on site, with some civil patrol type reserves. Not really much of a force as it means your land defenses match that of the Airport near my house. Also, where in the last war you were fighting untrained conscripts, you'll be facing troops who in some cases have been trained by British/American/German troops during UN training operations.

But that kind of highly operational force requires a lot of supply to operate effectively. And if the Falkland Islands really fall in Argentinian hands, I just don't see the UK just wash their hands. Is the UK fleet that spread out that it can't possibly achieve naval and air superiority over the islands when Round 2 of the war would come around?