Britain Strengthens Falklands Defense

[camberiu]

My favorite is still the good old Mirage III. It used to be the backbone of the Brazilian air force before it was retired and replaced by the Mirage 2000. The Argentine air force still uses the Mirage III to this day, although they might all be grounded due to lack of maintenance. The Swiss air force made this beautiful video showing the old Mirage IIIs being pushed to the limit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3QynY5aLz0

 

[scotttswan]

Also, while it’s unclear if that’s really true or not, it seems that HMS Invincible got hit too (denied by the UK but a few months after those events, the HMS Invincible had a clearly repainted portion).

I've yet to see any photographic evidence where its clearly been repainted. The claim has gone from being sunk, to damaged.....
There's even conspiracy claims they built a new ship to replace it, and it was a different ship that sailed into Southampton.

Where are the injuries? There were journalists on board HMS Invincible too....

Here are some ships that were hit by exocets.

HMS Sheffield

Atlantic Conveyor

HMS Glamorgan

There are many photos of invincible in the falklands and in the uk and none of them show any damage, If it was hit, how did the sailors repair it back into perfect condition in the South Atlantic winter?

Its a bit like the "there was no moon landing".

http://en.wikipedia....cam's_razor

 

[esllou]

Interesting discussion regarding the exocets. It must be remembered that war isn't just two teams having one go, one pre-planned "turn" and then going home. A country's reaction will alter depending on the enemy's actions, a constant sequence of reappraisal and replanning.

The UK would not have just stood idly by as ship after ship was sunk. "Oh well, there go our 56 ships, let's go home lads." If the Argentines had had more damaging success with exocets, you would have had UK special forces on Argentine soil pronto. We had/have globally strong special forces resources. There are already "stories" about the SAS having been on the Argentine mainland during the '82 conflict, officially denied on both sides.

What else would the UK have done? I don't know - but we would not have passively sat by. You adapt, you are flexible, you have contingency plans. We may even have had to withdraw the navy to the African coast and bombed the living bejesus out of every naval/air force base in Argentina. It would have been a HUGE escalation, but I guess downing street would have justified that quite easily by pointing to the exocet sinkings. As has been said of the Belgrano sinking, by military personnel on BOTH sides, there are no half measures in a war. You don't win a war by pulling punches.

 

[camberiu]

What else would the UK have done? I don't know - but we would not have passively sat by. You adapt, you are flexible, you have contingency plans. We may even have had to withdraw the navy to the African coast and bombed the living bejesus out of every naval/air force base in Argentina. It would have been a HUGE escalation, but I guess downing street would have justified that quite easily by pointing to the exocet sinkings. As has been said of the Belgrano sinking, by military personnel on BOTH sides, there are no half measures in a war. You don't win a war by pulling punches.

That would have been a HUGE escalation of the conflict. Recent de-classified documents revealed that the Brazilian president at the time, General Joao Batista Figueiredo (a dictator), had warned Margaret Thatcher (via Reagan) that however the war played out, mainland Argentina was off limits. The UK could sink the entire Argentine armada and shoot down every Argentine plane out of the sky, but any attack on the mainland would be considered an act of war against Brazil and the country would step in full force if that happened. Was it a bluff? Nobody knows. But if the escalation happened and Brazil stepped into the war, the whole equation would have changed, even the unconditional US support would be at risk, as the US would not want most of South America to fall under the Soviet sphere of influence.

 

[French jurist]

Ejcot:

As I said, it's unclear, but it's interesting to try to understand the truth indeed.

Cons:
-As you said, many journalists were on HMS Invincible (if not most of them in fact)
-UK was transparent about the losses, why would the British be suddenly obscure about a hit?
-Likely, the junta needed to appear victorious, hence the false information (see the Russian link with a fake picture: http://www.russiadefence.net/t958-hms-invincible-and-the-malvinas-war-in-1982

Pros:
-Testimonials of 2 Argentinean pilots
-HMS Invincible did not appear in Port Stanley until 2 months after the end of the conflict
-A portion repainted on the right side (when HMS Invincible returner to Portsmouth on Sept. 17 1982)
(Note: for those last two points, I'm basing myself on second hand testimonials, still searching for pics to be honest)


Anyway, aside of the Malvinas/Falklands conflict, this regional war is kind of frightening if you consider the possibility at the time of a conflict with USSR (another rumor: if the US were using their satellites to provide intelligence to UK, some say that USSR was also doing so with Argentina... Strange association indeed, I don't believe it). And I put France in the same bag, even with Exocets (which later sunk USS Stark).

Morality: hopefully the "free world" at that time could count on the US.

If things had turned berzerk for UK, then a land invasion or a nuke?

 

[camberiu]

the same bag, even with Exocets (which later sunk USS Stark).

It DAMAGED the USS Stark. It was not sunk. The US Navy has some kick ass damage control doctrine.

 

[camberiu]

Morality: hopefully the "free world" at that time could count on the US.

If things had turned berzerk for UK, then a land invasion or a nuke?

A NUKE would for sure had brought Brazil and probably all of South America into the war. There would have been mass outrage even in Chile It would not have been pretty. It would have been a diplomatic cluster fuck of unprecedented scale.

 

[French jurist]

On a side note, the leaders at that time (I didn't like any but found qualities to all of them) were of another class compared to now.
Reagan, Thatcher, Mitterrand....

 

[French jurist]

It DAMAGED the USS Stark. It was not sunk. The US Navy has some kick ass damage control doctrine.

Indeed

 

[camberiu]

On a side note, the leaders at that time (I didn't like any but found qualities to all of them) were of another class compared to now.
Reagan, Thatcher, Mitterrand....

I don't know if they were "better" or if the bi-polar world at the time forced them to be a lot more restrained and thoughtful. Remember that even the Falkland conflict was in some ways playing with armageddom.