The British south Atlantic territories.

Discussion in 'Warfare / Military' started by mynoon1999, Nov 7, 2011.

  1. mynoon1999

    mynoon1999 Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2011
    Messages:
    168
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There are 3 British territories in the south Atlantic, south Georgia and the south Sandwich islands, the Falklands and the British Antarctic territory.

    My question is what sort of a defence force would the territories need to defend themselves from being taken over by Argentina, Brazil and Venezuela? And if one of the territories is take what sort of a force would be needed to take it back?

    This attack could happen, and I am not sure if the MOD has a plan for it.
     
  2. SFJEFF

    SFJEFF New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    30,682
    Likes Received:
    256
    Trophy Points:
    0
    How much does the UK want to spend to defend them?

    And since the UK maintains absolutely no military presence in South Georgia, I would say this is not a high priority issue for them.
     
  3. mynoon1999

    mynoon1999 Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2011
    Messages:
    168
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If the UK didn't want South Georgia it would get rid of it. Say the UK could spend 30 billion pounds a year of defence of the territories. As there would be oil money, fishing and tourism.
     
  4. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,494
    Likes Received:
    2,420
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You are talking about areas that pretty much nobody gives a darn about.

    The Falklands has been dispited for over a century now, and I do not see that ending any time soon due to the UK having veto power in the UN.

    As for the " British Antarctic territory", that is all a farce. The same land is claimed by Chile and Argentina, which had prior claim and who's claim is more legitimate. Besides, the Arctic Treaty is largely a face anyways, since all the countries by 4 are Northern European nations (Chile, Argentina, Australia, Norway). Most nations see it as little more then an attempt to continue colonialization.

    And in case you did not realize, the continent by international agreement is a demilitarized zone. And yes, the UK is a signatory to that agreement. So militarize the Falklands all you want, see how popular that makes the UK in South America. Militarize Antarctica, and see how the world reacts to the violating of a treaty and starting a new arms race.
     
  5. Colonel K

    Colonel K Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    9,770
    Likes Received:
    556
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's difficult to avoid the "geographically challenged American" stereotype here. Mynoon's talking about the South Atlantic, not Antarctica. The Arctic Is North, the Antarctic is South. Norway is the most northern European nation. Other than that the rest of the post is full of inaccurate strawmen. A classic.
     
  6. mynoon1999

    mynoon1999 Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2011
    Messages:
    168
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    will it seem at least 3 nation give a darn about the British territories in the south Atlantic.

    I don't see it ending because the Falklands are independent, but under UK protection from Argentina. I quess you think the Falklands should be Argentine, then, flying in the face of self determination.

    Britain claimed it first, it is our, they can share the part nobody has, or the UK could just take that part. And I think you ment New Zealand.

    Argentina and Chile have navies to how is the south Atlantic demilitarized? The other south American nation didn't like it when Britain sent a frigate down to the Falklands a few days ago, and I do care about what they have to say and there wishes, but Argentina said it is in conflict with the UK, some call the Falklands war a conflict, Britain has every right to defend those 2700 people if they want to be defended from Argentina. Argentina also say they will kick the people off it they get the island. An arms race between who, the UK, Falklands and Argentina?
     
  7. mynoon1999

    mynoon1999 Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2011
    Messages:
    168
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yes I know, Hahaha. Would you be willing to give the Falklands government £20 to spend of the defence of the Falklands, until the UK has a carrier?
     
  8. mynoon1999

    mynoon1999 Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2011
    Messages:
    168
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I would have a budget of 3.1 billion a year, using the money from foreign aid, and the saving when the UK finally leaves the pointless war in Afghanistan.

    400 troops trained by the Falklands defence force for 400,000. With army land rovers, as a light reaction force.

    1,600 paras, which would be the main force defending the Falklands on the land, they would be backed up by 10 challenger 2 tanks, 4 Apaches, 100 land rovers and 20 105 mm howitzers, 30 Starstreak's, 40 motars, 3 Rapiers and more engineer equipment.

    50 SAS, there job would be to make it as hard as possible for the Argies to move across the Falklands, and call in air strikes and the paras.

    So there would be 2050 troops defending the Falklands, plus another 20 SAS on south Georgia. I think the cost would be £1 billion or less a year.

    7 eurofighters, 13 tornado's, 2 C-130J Super Hercules, 1 VC10, 4 Chinook HC6's, with another 4 when the UK leaves Afghanistan, 3 Merlins, 5 Puma's, 1 Westland Sea King rescue helicopter and 1 reaper. 2 more Rapiers, and 8 more Starstreak's.

    So that means the UK would have 37 aircraft on the Falklands. he cost would be 1.1 billion or less a year.

    1 multirole type 45, with a merlin, 3 type 23 frigates with a merlin, 1 antimine ship, HMS Endurance, HMS Clyde with a lynx helicopter, HMS Scott and 1 Astute class attack submarine.

    So the Falklands would have 6-7 ships, south Georgia 1-2 ship and BAT 1-2 ship. So in total 9 ships.

    Total cost 1 billion or less a year.
     
  9. Colonel K

    Colonel K Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    9,770
    Likes Received:
    556
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Unfortunately, the entire Falklands revenue for 2009/10 was £42.4million. Expenditure was £5.4m more than that. We can't afford an extra billion to defend 3000 people.
     
  10. mynoon1999

    mynoon1999 Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2011
    Messages:
    168
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well the UK is spending 350 million on the Falklands defence, but in my view it's only about 12% of what the UK and Falklanders need to spend. 3.1 billion a year.

    Britain is wasting 12 billion a year of foreign aid, cut 2.75 billion out of that and we have enough money, keep doing that for 3 years, until we leave Afghanistan, then 8 billion and other military assets can come into use, so we could cut the price of fuel by 1.5p, and use 3.1 billion out of that 8 billion on the Falklands defence, the defence could be weaker when the UK has the 2 carrier, even if I think the UK needs 3.
     
  11. Albert Di Salvo

    Albert Di Salvo New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2011
    Messages:
    25,739
    Likes Received:
    684
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Britain will be stripped of these outposts because it can't defend them. Argentina will take the Falklands and the people there will become Argentine. If you can't defend something you lose it.
     
  12. mynoon1999

    mynoon1999 Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2011
    Messages:
    168
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The UK government can defend them, it just isn't trying to do so. Insted it's giving money away through foreign aid.
     
  13. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,494
    Likes Received:
    2,420
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No, he is talking about Antarctica.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Antarctic_Territory
     
  14. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,494
    Likes Received:
    2,420
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I said nothing about the Falklands and who controls them. I was talking about the effects of militarizing an area that has not had to worry about that in decades. Do you really want to kick off an "arms race" down there?

    Oh yea, some navy. Argentina has an entire 42 ships in it's navy. And as an interesting side note, are you aware that Argentina was the only South American country to participate in the 1991 Gulf War? And even though their largest ships are cruisers, they regularly participate in peace keeping missions around the world, as well as Joint Operations with European nations. So get off the Falklands already, that was 30 years ago, give it a rest.

    Chile has another large Navy that is obviously a threat to the UK. 71 ships, the largest are 4 frigates. The UK Navy is almost as large as that of these 2 nations combined, and considerably more modern.

    And if an arms race started, it would be more then just the UK and Argentina. Chile, Brazil, Ecuador, and just about every other South American nation would join in, and gladly. You appear to have no idea how little most in South America care for the UK. Peru, Venezuela, Ecuador, Brazil, even Spain, Libya and Israel all supported Argentina in the last conflict.

    And if the region was militarized, expect every nation on the West Coast of Africa to join in as well. Because a strong military presence there would be a direct threat to them as well.

    And voiding the Antarctic Treaty would also bring in a lot of heat from just about every other nation on the planet.
     
  15. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,494
    Likes Received:
    2,420
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Defend them against what?

    Dude, that war ended 30 years ago. And in case you did not know, that was was done at the command of the military junta as a "false flag" to try and stay in power. The junta is long gone and dead, and Argentina is a democracy again.

    Are you scared that Argentina (which does not have any amphibious ships at this time) is going to storm in agian, with it's 42 ship navy? Has Argentina been making funny faces and talking about invading again?

    I realized long ago that you are a Colonialist supporter, and believe that the UK should rule by might. But the Empire is gone, and is not comming back. It largely collapsed because it could not afford to keep it's military spread all over the world. And any attempt to do so now will only result in increased tensions, and risk starting more wars where there need be none.
     
  16. mynoon1999

    mynoon1999 Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2011
    Messages:
    168
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Argentina is said there would be another arms race when the UK changed the 4 Tornado's for Eurofighter, and there isn't an arms race. I mean what would be the point because Brazil's economy is the is one third the total of south American, with 40% of the population and 40% of the lands mass, it would win, so there is not point in Argentina or Chile starting a new arms race.

    Argentina maybe be a democratic, peace loving nation to most of the world, but to the UK and the Falklanders, they aren't peace loving at all, they are always saying are going to put in place a naval blockade of the Falklands, and they have already stopped ships from getting their from the UK, so they are starting to push the UK to far, putting a larger naval, air and land force in the south Atlantic will mean the UK could escourt shipping to and from the Falklands, and if Argentine will not stop pushing the UK will have enough to defend themselves if they push to hard.

    No Chile is on quite good terms with the UK, it lets out ship dock in it's ports for resupply, something Argentina and Brazil don't do. Also Chile backed the UK in the Falklands war as much as any other nations did.

    If the UK tells all the other south American nations the force is for defence, and to protect UK shipping from Argentina then they would have no reason to have a bigger military.
     
  17. mynoon1999

    mynoon1999 Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2011
    Messages:
    168
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No I am not scared of Argentina, I just don't what the Falklands economy to be wrecked by a blockade by Argentina, which may have to be broken by the UK, which at this time we couldn't do.

    How does wanting the EU to be a great military power, so we don't have to ask the US for everything make me a colonialist? How does wanting to defend all British poeple and territory make me a colonialist?

    Or do you think the force I would have in the Falklands it to attacking, with no amphibious ships and no carriers? The plan I have is based on what the UK has and will have in the next 8 years, it is for defending the British territories and shipping in the south Atlantic, not for attack many body.
     
  18. perdidochas

    perdidochas Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2008
    Messages:
    27,293
    Likes Received:
    4,346
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Nobody on the thread prior to your above post said anything about the Arctic.

    The South Atlantic does border the Antarctic Ocean (well, more properly speaking the Southern Ocean).
     
  19. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,494
    Likes Received:
    2,420
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Dude, those are politicians talking, and you should know how much that really matters. Iraq has been talking about wiping Israel and the US off the map for decades now, and what has that accomplished?

    And yes, I am aware of the "blockade". And dude, it is almost purely symbolic. It prohibits ships whoch travel between the Argentine Mainland from traveling to the Falklands. It is not stopping anybody else from going there.

    Big whoop-de-doo. I would think you would actually be happy for this, since it helps keep the Argentines away from the Islands.

    When you have an air base on an island, you do not need a carrier. Go back to our earlier discussions as to what carriers are used for and why. With an air base on the Falklands, you do not need a carrier. And how much shipping goes through that region of the Atlantic?

    I can tell you now, not much. Most of it travels through the equatorial region. Better weather, and major canals that cross continents.

    If you think popping a lot of troops and equipment would not increase tensions and cause other nations to build up their arms, you need to go back and do some research. Look up "Cold War", "Arms Race", and especially "World War I Naval Arms Race".
     
  20. mynoon1999

    mynoon1999 Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2011
    Messages:
    168
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The UK didn't think Argentina would attack the Falklands in a defence review just 1 and a half year befor they did, as a former first sea lord said you just don't know what's going to happen. Argentina is trying to stop the Falklanders from using their own resources like the oil and gas, to the fish, it is trying to kick them off the islands in economic terms. Do you not think taking ships just because they are British and searching them is wrong.

    I am saying the UK doesn't have any carriers, so needs great force on and around the Faklands, so they can't be taken. Not that the UK should have a carrier in the Falklands. The Panama canal is now to small for most large tankers to get through, meaning the volume of ship passing through the south Atlantic is rising. Who cares if tentions increase, with a larger military in the south Atlantic Argentina would never attack the Falklands, it would lose, right now there is a 50% it would win.
     

Share This Page