Argentina demands UK nuke apology - Page 2

Unspeakable Horror · December 9, 2003, 08:01

Quote:

Originally posted by CerberusIV
I wouldn't worry too much about leftover nukes. If they are salvageable the Royal Navy has had 20 years to quietly recover them. [...]

This still sounds like a politician trying to score a few points with the electorate.

I agree

KrazyHorse · December 9, 2003, 08:26

Quote:

Originally posted by Unspeakable Horror
they are our islands after all.

Unspeakable Horror · December 9, 2003, 08:27

BeBro · December 9, 2003, 09:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Cruddy

As for the Argentinians not having subs, I'm pretty sure one was damaged and captured within striking distance of Ascencion Island. It couldn't have been that far away as the hull was punctured by Sea Skua's fired from a Navy Lynx, not at all a long range weapon.

I think it was the "Santa Fe", but not close to Ascension Island (which is several thousand km away from the Falklands), but close to South Georgia ca. 1000 km east of the Falklands, which was occupied by the Argentines (or is it Argentinians

) too during the conflict.

Ecthy · December 9, 2003, 09:16

König des Krauts?

BeBro · December 9, 2003, 09:16

What´s wrong with kraut?

Ecthy · December 9, 2003, 09:20

Weiß auch nich. Biste schon von randalierenden Berliner Studentenhorden überrollt worden?

BeBro · December 9, 2003, 09:23

Nö. Schieb ne ruhige Kugel derzeit

Ab und zu betätige ich mich als Streikbrecher, wenn so´n paar Girlies mich nicht in die Bibliothek lassen wollen....

Streikt ihr auch?

Ecthy · December 9, 2003, 09:25

Sol irgendwie arrangiert werden, aba geht schlecht weil unser Budget im nächsten Jahr um 10% steigt

Wie is das jetz nochmal mit dir, studiern tuste selba nich mehr ne?

BeBro · December 9, 2003, 09:26

Doch, neben dem Job. Hab aber erst vor drei Semestern damit angefangen

Ecthy · December 9, 2003, 09:30

und was is job und was studium? biste nich eh schon knochenalt?

BeBro · December 9, 2003, 09:34

Für Bafög ist man nie zu alt

Job: Fotolabor - richtig Berufsfausbildung gehabt, aber der Branche gehts schlecht

Studium: neuere, neueste Geschichte + Politikwiss.

mrmitchell · December 9, 2003, 09:35

Remind me why people would fight over a few useless islands, again?

Ecthy · December 9, 2003, 09:35

siehste, ich mach geschichte + poliwiss, in P wall poli in B-HU nich als hauptfach geht, an der FU wär's wohl gegangen, hätte dann daselbe gemacht was du jetze machst

und wieso is man für bafög nie zu alt, sogar mir gehn se schon aufn sack. wie machst?

Ecthy · December 9, 2003, 09:36

prestige, mitchell

also an FU wollte ich aba nich weil Steglitz etc. zu teuer zum wohnen... nich das potsdam irgendwie billiger wär oder so...

BeBro · December 9, 2003, 09:39

wg. Bafög: man muss AFAIK bis 30 angefangen haben zu studieren, dann kriecht man nochwas. Positiv issses, wenn man eine abgeschlossene Ausbildung und (oder? - habs vergessen) mindestens 3 Jahre Berufspraxis vorweisen kann (was ich ja beides hatte).

Bei dir sollte es eig. keine probs geben - was sagen die denn?

Ecthy · December 9, 2003, 09:42

noch nichts, hatte nur mal angefragt wies is wenn man wechseln will, hat se sofort aufgehorcht die dame und gemeint wenn ich wechseln will muss ich eh sofort ansagen, bekomm dann erstmal gar nix, hab dann gesagt war ja nur ne frage... zippe.

molly bloom · December 9, 2003, 09:50

Quote:

Originally posted by mrmitchell
Remind me why people would fight over a few useless islands, again?

The Argentinean government needed to distract the public and get them behind it, because it had a tendency to kill dissidents, drop civilians into the South Atlantic and kidnap the children of people they 'disappeared' and farm them out to childless supporters of the regime. A war with Chile, Brazil or Paraguay was out, and thanks to several misleading manoeuvres on the part of the British government, a patriotic effort to 'reclaim' the Falklands Islands was the option felt most likely to succeed.

Margaret Thatcher at that point in her career was the most unpopular prime minister since the end of WWII- a small war against a beatable opponent would make up for the errors and miscalculations that had contributed to the Argentinean invasion, and would enable her to drape herself in the flag and call and win an early election.

End result- the beginning of the restoration of democracy for Argentina, the securing of the freedom of the Falkland Islanders, and Margaret Thatcher returned to office. Defence cuts reversed, British reliance on outdated anti-missile defences highlighted, and too many people dead who shouldn't have died.

Jorge Luis Borges expressed it best:

'Two bald men arguing about a comb.'

Except of course, that given the choice, most sane people would prefer not to live under a military junta.

CerberusIV · December 9, 2003, 09:56

Quote:

Originally posted by mrmitchell
Remind me why people would fight over a few useless islands, again?

Apart from the political reasons that Molly has identified there are also economic reasons.

First, the fisheries within 200 miles of the islands are quite valuable.

Second, it was, and possibly still is, thought that oil might be present in the continental shelf around the islands.

Bereta_Eder · December 9, 2003, 11:05

Quote:

Originally posted by TheStinger
Absolutely ridiculuos.

Even if we hadn't tkane any with the task force we could have nuked downtown Buenes Aries any time with our ICBM's but did we? - no.

Christ the Ruskies used to fly there nuclear bombers right toward the UK every week did we complain no

Good for you.

Ecthy · December 9, 2003, 11:10

I never knew the UK had ICBMs... thought all nukes you had were those the amis gave you in the 40s

Cruddy · December 9, 2003, 11:16

Quote:

Originally posted by BeBro

I think it was the "Santa Fe", but not close to Ascension Island (which is several thousand km away from the Falklands), but close to South Georgia ca. 1000 km east of the Falklands, which was occupied by the Argentines (or is it Argentinians

) too during the conflict.

Dead right.

Apparently Sea Skua wasn't even operational at the time, so presumably they threw pointed sticks at the sub until it surrendered.

The point is they certainly DID NOT USE NUCLEAR DEPTH CHARGES!

Cruddy · December 9, 2003, 11:19

Quote:

Originally posted by Ecthelion
I never knew the UK had ICBMs... thought all nukes you had were those the amis gave you in the 40s

Unlike Germany, the UK has never been given any form of nuclear weapons. They were all built in the UK, at Aldermaston I believe?

How many nukes did uncle Sam "loan" Germany?

And how many ICBMs you got?

See, I always said Germans were sensible people!

BeBro · December 9, 2003, 11:27

Quote:

Originally posted by Cruddy

Unlike Germany, the UK has never been given any form of nuclear weapons. They were all built in the UK, at Aldermaston I believe?

How many nukes did uncle Sam "loan" Germany?

And how many ICBMs you got?

See, I always said Germans were sensible people!

Germany had never any nukes

Cruddy · December 9, 2003, 11:37

Like I said, Germans are sensible people...

Although as the US has stationed 21 or more different types of nuclear weapon on your territory, maybe you didn't need them?

Bereta_Eder · December 9, 2003, 11:37

If it had at that time wie vould be speaking deutch

Ecthy · December 9, 2003, 11:45

they were US controlled, Bursche

Dr. Nick · December 9, 2003, 12:22

Quote:

Okay. Did the Aregentines have much of a sub force?

2 diesel electric subs, AFAIK, upgraded US subs from the WW2 era. I don't think they were new in '82 at all.

As to the situation: it's obvious cause for concern. Britain sending nuclear weapons to fight a country with no nuclear capability is something that should be considered 'overkill'.

While I agree, that an apology is ridiculous (apologise for what?) it isn't a trifle either, for Britain to have considered using nuclear weapons against a country with no nuclear capability.

As to demanding to know where there were weapons, where they are now, and their status is entirely logical. British ships weren't just operating around the islands, and it's entirely possible that weapons were lost and I think it's entirely legitimate to demand to know whether they were lost or all were accounted for.

KrazyHorse · December 9, 2003, 12:25

Quote:

Originally posted by El Awrence
While I agree, that an apology is ridiculous (apologise for what?) it isn't a trifle either, for Britain to have considered using nuclear weapons against a country with no nuclear capability.

I don't think they did. If they had, they would have sent weapons that could have been used rather than ones which could only attack a nonexistent sub force....

SpencerH · December 9, 2003, 12:28

Quote:

Originally posted by TheStinger
Absolutely ridiculuos.

Even if we hadn't tkane any with the task force we could have nuked downtown Buenes Aries any time with our ICBM's but did we? - no.

Christ the Ruskies used to fly there nuclear bombers right toward the UK every week did we complain no because and this is the point they didn't use or even threaten to use them.

Stupid defeated economic basket case idiots.

You may be thinking of the weekly bear flights from the SU across the atlantic and down the east coast to Cuba (and the reverse flight).