Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Guest 686- Registered: 5 May 2009
- Posts: 556
Re: Post #20: I hope you're right Barry because it will be another 10 years or so before Britain has the capability to put fighters into the air from a ship.
Despite an old James Bond movie to the contrary, submarines cannot shoot down aircraft!
Phil West
If at first you don't succeed, use a BIGGER hammer!!
Guest 658- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 660
Also a government spokesman stated typhoons from the UK could provide cover using in flight refuelling. It took ten tankers to get one v bomber down there for one mission.
beer the food of the gods
Guest 658- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 660
On a personall note my daughter is serving on HMS Bulwark and they expect them to land Royal Marines on a hostile shore without fast jet cover, but its alright the French or yanks will provide air cover. I would love the captain to say get stuffed but it wont happen.
beer the food of the gods
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
If they were to be successful in taking them Howard - the big difference is that they are not the sitting duck they were before 1982.. Only the airfield need be defended along with maintaining air superiority and they have the means to do that. Even the army cooks, bottlewashers and technicians that make up the majority stationed there are combat trained and capable of defending fixed positions.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Perhaps the Argentines have become allies of Iran. In which case they may be seriously brewing something up.
If it has something to do with oil, then the aim would be to deprive the West of oil supplies, Iran in the Gulf and Argentina at the Falklands.
If the Argentine president has been stating that they will take the Falklands by military force, then this is paramount to allying themselves with Iran with the intention of starving western Europe and the USA into economic submission.
It's a much worse threat than one might imagine, and goes beyond claiming sovereignty over our Falkland Islands
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
thats makes us a province of germany then alex.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
No, Brian. Britain has North Sea oil for a while, whereas western Europe has just about no oil apart from Norway, and the USA cover 25% of their oil consumption with their own oil fields.
If there were an urgent need for oil in the West, only Britain could supply it by extracting it from the Falklands territorial waters.
An Argentine threat to this potential supply could cut western Europe from oil supplies if something brewed up in the Gulf, and also the USA. We would be one of the few countries in the West to somehow get through on our own production, which comes from the North Sea.
The Argentine government is playing a dangerous game by threatening us.
The whole of the West in Europe and North America could actually be on our side if the Argentines continue threatening us.
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
alex,the north sea oill is nearly at an end,still trying find more resourses.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
Guest 703- Registered: 30 Jul 2010
- Posts: 2,096
That's probably normal procedure and would even have happened when he moved to Anglesey, those Welsh Nationalists might have been quiet recently but you never know!
(just wondering who on here I might have upset now and spoiled their good mood after the rugby
)
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
I heard on the radio this afternoon, that Argentina had not allowed two cruise ships to dock at one of their major ports because they had called in at the Falklands.
That is stupid and provocative.
It's also denying their businesses the ability to generate some money.
Roger
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
It seems Parliament is determined to underline British Sovereignty over the Falkland Islands.
My guess is that oil reserves there are considered an essential asset, and that Britain will certainly enjoy the approval of the West, that is Western Europe, Ireland, USA and Canada, in any future oil extraction, considering the Iran crisis.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
two reasons we should keep the islands, the people want us to and as alex mentions the high possibility of oil being close by.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
The important one being the UN right of self-determination and the wishes of the islanders. The oil is an added bonus, a big one though.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
And once the oil is on stream we shall refuse to sell it to the Argies I presume.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
correct peter,at 5000 dollers a barrel.
