It probably isn’t neccesary, as the Type 45 air defense destroyer is designed specifically to kill aircraft and touted as the best in the world at it. Warships are great places to pack full of SAMs and a huge radar.
I would be very interested to see how the Argentinian air force will fare against it.
Well, the (Barzilian TV) network TV Globo has been running some pieces on the year anniversary of the Falklands/Malvinas War.
One interesting bit was about an Argentine guy (married to a British woman) who works on the islands-he reports that the quality of life is much better there than on the mainland.
Meanwhile, the Argentines are making noises again about “British imperialism”.
It passes my understanding as to why anybody in Argentina would care anything about the Falklands…unless there is a great deal of oil there.
Based upon what has been seen of the quality and moral of the Argentinean military a platoon of Royal Marines should be able to handle that.
I don’t think they’ll have poor morale if they outnumbered the Royal Marines as much as they will.
when they… I’ve forgetten English
I dunno. The Argentines seem to be quite serious about wanting the islands (even as they’re going about it in an extremely counterproductive way): HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost
Yes but from your quote:
And
My cousin is doing his PhD on this topic specifically and will visit the islands sometime this year. I’ll ask him for a copy of his dissertation, but honestly there is zero chance of any military action occurring.
Also, keep in mind that today is Malvinas Day holiday in Argentina, akin to our Memorial Day of sorts. The rhetoric is high, but it’s just barking.
I think a more interesting question is - if it did happen, and the UK did retake it, what then?
At this point it would be clear that simply retaking them isn’t enough. The UK won’t want to repeat this every 30 years. So what measures do you take to ensure that this is the last time?
Nuke Buenos Aires from orbit. It’s the… well, you know.
meh, I bet you that Argentine sabre rattling is entirely to squeeze a profit sharing deal from the UK for any oil fields that end up being profitable. Someone will strike oil, Argentina will obstruct the deal by not letting crews or cargo ships use Argentina to refuel and resupply, they’ll end up getting a percentage and the whole Argentine sovereignty over the Malvinas thing will go away.
In all likelhood a deal like the Timor-Australia one will be struck and that will be the end of it.
As this thread pointed out, they took those measures last time. Argentina couldn’t mount a serious threat to the Falklands now.
Rockhopper petrolem hits oil-160 billion barrels of light sweet crude.
Geologists predict the firld could produce for 30-40 years!
Stanley become s boom town-kelpers find they can rent their houses out for $5000/month. Every Kelper is now (potentially) a multi-millionare! (Rolls-Royce opens a dealership in Stanley).
Now comes Argentina: their claim-we want OR share of the oil.
What will HM government do?
Pay them off. Look at a map, no oil fields in the Falklands could be developed economically without the cooperation of Argentina. It’s expensive enough operating on an oil platform in the middle of the sea, but without resupply from Argentina and access to workers from Argentina it would never happen. There is no other sizable towns within 1000’s of km’s of the Falklands apart from Rio Grande (Argentina) and Rio Gallegas (Also Argentina).
Yes you could ship in all your workers and supplies from North America but I imagine the additional costs would make the oil uneconomical to recover.
Turn Port Stanley or somewhere else in the Falklands into the Aberdeen or Sullom Voe of the South Atlantic.
Why North America? South Africa and Chile are much closer. But flying workers from the UK isn’t going to be too much of a bother - after all there are flights from the UK to South Africa. You’ll likely need to extend and improve the runway at Port Stanley first, of course.
That should be Mount Pleasant Airport, of course. :smack:
I would suspect that Argentina can put enough pressure on Chile not to cooperate, and you have to overfly Argentina to get to Chile anyway from the Falklands.
Yes it’s possible, but oil is cost dependent just like everything else, if the costs of servicing the fields go up, they’re not economical to develop. The blunt reality is that Argentina can probably work out exactly how much extra it will cost to work the fields if nothing can go through Argentina and they can settle for a share of the profits that’s half of the extra costs accrued by having to ship everything from overseas direct to the Falklands.
As they do now — the only scheduled air passenger service to the Falklands is via Punta Arenas, which is on the Strait of Magellan and only about 20% further than Rio Grande or Rio Gallegos. As far as shipping goes — well, if Argentina tried to interdict shipping in the Strait of Magellan, then we’re really dealing with a regime that has gone off the deep end. The major powers don’t like it when you mess with transit passage of “international straits”.
So if we’re talking about the scenario where Argentina had successfully re-invaded the Falklands, then the resupply thing might be a concern. But I doubt that Argentina could stop resupply of oil development in this way, when Punta Arenas already has a port that they’d be more than happy to expand should Rockhopper strike oil.
with the rising cost of oil… “uneconomic” doesn’t sound right, cost of labor tends to be minor compared to the infrastructure.
pay the argies the difference? no, because much of the difference will be spent on things like transport which invest in your own economy, whereas giving black mail money to argentina gains you little.
I think directing an asteroid there would be more appropriate