Swampy 147 Posted January 3, 2013 Report Share Posted January 3, 2013 There are 194 countries in the known world at some point in history we have invaded 172 of them :laugh: About fecking time we got our fingers out and invaded the remaining 22 IMO! Out of interest with that statistic, do you know how many of those 172 countries existed as sovereign nations before we went there? I'm betting a decent number of them didn't even exist until after we left/were forcibly evicted/asked to leave! I'm sure it includes Wales or West England as IT SHOULD BE KNOWN! Colonial Ning rgds and HNY Malt From Swampy Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Malt 379 Posted January 3, 2013 Report Share Posted January 3, 2013 There are 194 countries in the known world at some point in history we have invaded 172 of them :laugh: About fecking time we got our fingers out and invaded the remaining 22 IMO! Out of interest with that statistic, do you know how many of those 172 countries existed as sovereign nations before we went there? I'm betting a decent number of them didn't even exist until after we left/were forcibly evicted/asked to leave! I'm sure it includes Wales or West England as IT SHOULD BE KNOWN! Colonial Ning rgds and HNY Malt From Swampy Trust you! Hope you're well pal? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
paulus 26 Posted January 3, 2013 Report Share Posted January 3, 2013 There are 194 countries in the known world at some point in history we have invaded 172 of them :laugh: About fecking time we got our fingers out and invaded the remaining 22 IMO! Out of interest with that statistic, do you know how many of those 172 countries existed as sovereign nations before we went there? I'm betting a decent number of them didn't even exist until after we left/were forcibly evicted/asked to leave! I'm sure it includes Wales or West England as IT SHOULD BE KNOWN! Colonial Ning rgds and HNY Malt From Swampy where you been Quote Link to post Share on other sites
byron 1,179 Posted January 3, 2013 Report Share Posted January 3, 2013 hidennnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnning..lol 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Swampy 147 Posted January 3, 2013 Report Share Posted January 3, 2013 Its Winter . Hibernating in the woods. And filling the pot with bedraggled wet birds and deer. But don't tell folk as I was supposed to be working. HNY year all. Heres to a less rainy 2013 and come March the Falklands will be a done deal and ms Kirchner and her dodgy plastic surgery can concentrate on the real issues of a country that is in melt down and heading for yet another dictatorship/junta.. Then we can really rub their noses in the cold wet snow of Queen Elizabeth Land further south. Damn I love the royals!!!!! Rgds Swampy May all your nings be fruitful 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Born Hunter 17,775 Posted January 3, 2013 Author Report Share Posted January 3, 2013 I'll 'ning' to that! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Frann 882 Posted January 3, 2013 Report Share Posted January 3, 2013 apparently President Kirchner has just ordered a fleet of glass bottomed boats so she can review her airforce from 1982 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
JohnGalway 1,043 Posted January 3, 2013 Report Share Posted January 3, 2013 They don't want to invade, they can't anyway. But if they had the will to do so, there would be no public posturing from their side. It is not so long since the Falklands were still pretty much undefended. Had they wanted to retake the islands, and been successful, seeing as the UK has no aircraft carrier, how would they have been removed? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
chartpolski 23,933 Posted January 3, 2013 Report Share Posted January 3, 2013 They don't want to invade, they can't anyway. But if they had the will to do so, there would be no public posturing from their side. It is not so long since the Falklands were still pretty much undefended. Had they wanted to retake the islands, and been successful, seeing as the UK has no aircraft carrier, how would they have been removed? I don't get your staement "not long since...........undefended". Before the war, the only ship stationed down there was HMS Endurance, an ice breaker. Since the war there has been a warship and submarine presence, most lately one of the most advanced warships in the world. There has also been a very large army/marine contingent and an RAF squadron permanently based in the Falklands since the end of the war, along with many anti aircraft missile batteries. The advance in ship and submarine launched munitions mean that an aircraft carrier would not be as important as it was 30 years ago. Although I'd still like to have at least one in active service, ( we technicaly still have an aircraft carrier, or "Through Deck Cruiser", but since the de-commissioning of the Harriers, it is now a Helicopter Platform. Cheers. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Born Hunter 17,775 Posted January 3, 2013 Author Report Share Posted January 3, 2013 Had they wanted to retake the islands, and been successful, seeing as the UK has no aircraft carrier, how would they have been removed? With great f*****g difficulty! LOL. I'm not sure our current politicians would have the balls for it without a carrier strike group anyway. I don't know shit about this but I imagine if it did get that far and Cameron had the bollocks for it UAVs, special forces and Nuclear attack subs would be used to gather intelligence on the islands while a task force composed of heli carriers, destroyers, frigates, RMs and the 16th Air Assault Brigade would get over there. Guided missiles launched from the attack subs would attempt to take out key land targets (air fields, sensor systems etc) to get troops and kit on the ground. Dauntless class destroyers would keep the task force safe as houses but I think their reach would fall short for defending ground troops from air attack. For this reason attacks may also have to take place on Argentine Military instalations where they would be launching their attacks on us from, this was planned in the 80s also. Not only are we without a carrier, our troops have commitments in Afghanistan. It would mean pulling our top infantry out of there and pissing off the yanks royaly! Failing that, wait 5 years and go whole hog with 2 Queen Elizabeth class carrier strike groups and do a proper job! It'll never come to any of that though, it's impossible for the Argies to take the islands, and a good job to because we don't want more needlessly dead British soldiers! 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Malt 379 Posted January 3, 2013 Report Share Posted January 3, 2013 Had they wanted to retake the islands, and been successful, seeing as the UK has no aircraft carrier, how would they have been removed? The issue for them is taking them in the first place John.. Read an interesting blog the other day which linked to study that concluded that the entire Argentine Air Force would be needed in one go just to neutralise the 4 of these babies that are there on permanent station, and even then it's not a given: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofighter_Typhoon Their problem is its not just those that are there, there whole entire Air Force could probably be tracked and engaged by one of these, which I believe there's one of also stationed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_45_destroyer Then we've got troops on the ground equipped with these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starstreak_(missile) And these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapier_(missile) Overcome all that and gain air superiority, you've still got the 1000 odd troops that are garrisoned there.. Its rumoured that there's even one of these to contend with permanently in the area in case they want to come by sea: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trafalgar_class_submarine Quote Link to post Share on other sites
JohnGalway 1,043 Posted January 3, 2013 Report Share Posted January 3, 2013 You're right actually, I was led to believe the forces were beefed up only since the oil discovery. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
paulus 26 Posted January 4, 2013 Report Share Posted January 4, 2013 You're right actually, I was led to believe the forces were beefed up only since the oil discovery. we and the argies have always known of the vast mineral deposits in the antartic, the problem has always been the technologhy and finance to collect them, however that day will soon come and who ever hold the rights to these vast deposites of not just oil will become more powerfull and a whole lot richer than those who dont own the soverign rights to them Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Born Hunter 17,775 Posted January 4, 2013 Author Report Share Posted January 4, 2013 Paulus, do you think that that really is the fundamental reason for all this? I used to but not so sure now. All of these hydrocarbon reservoirs and mineral formations are only hypotheses at this time I'm led to believe, it's suspected that there could be vast amounts but not yet proven so I'm told. In my opinion, it's got little to do with money, the Argies genuinely believe the Islands are theirs and we stole them off of them. Argy politicians see It as their 'go to' when they need to drum up national moral. For us, it's a matter of principle, the Islanders are British by birth and choice and have been for hundreds of years, as such we should defend and support them as we would any other of our countrymen. To let the Argies have the islands would open the door for others to lay claim to our other overseas territories. When we are able to mine/drill the Antarctic then I'm sure our motives will be different but currently I don't think that oil and minerals are our main concern with the Falklands. Maybe I'm giving our politicians too much credit? lol 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Malt 379 Posted January 4, 2013 Report Share Posted January 4, 2013 Sure there's a global agreement not to exploit any Antarctic resources if there's any there.. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.