Chavez has said that if Argentina attacks the Falklands again and the UK trys to stop Argentina from taking the Falklands that Venezuela would go to war with Britain to help Argentina. He also said that Argentina would get that same backing from almost every other south American nation. If this did happen what would NATO do? Do these left wing nut jobs really have that much support in the rest of Latina America, to help Argentina attack the Falklands. Could Venezuela even help Argentina? My view is Chavez is a retard, and his military couldn't project any sort of power to any British territory outside of the Caribbean, in which case the EU and US would stop any action by Venezuela. The only nation I worry about is Brazil, them being the only nation in south America that can project power, and them blocking UK planes and ships from getting to the Falklands if attack, as they tryed to do in 1982.
Chavez is not a 'retard' but he is a blow hard. I wouldn't take any such talk seriously- I am sure Argentina doesn't.
Do you even know what they have? Have you bothered to look? First, let's look at their Navy. Which is actually called the Bolivarian National Armada of Venezuela. Composed of around 10,000 sailors, they have 6 1970's era Italian frigates (8 ship to ship missiles, 8 Sea Sparrow missiles for air defense). However, they also have 3 Kilo class Soviet submarines. And if they did intend on assisting Argentina, they have 4 Amphibious Warfare ships (WWII US Surplus). Their Amphibious organization is the 8,000 man strong Bolivarian Marine Infantry. 7 Infantry Brigades, armed with 105mm artillery, Brazilian made Amphibious vehicles, and surplus US Amphtracks, circa 1970's. The Bolivarian National Air Force is a strange amalgum of many aircraft. US made F-16s, Russian Su-30, Canadian CF-5s, and most recently the Chinese JL-8. For a total of 78 combat aircraft. The Army of Venezuela is a pretty sizeable force. 120,000 men, it is composed of 4 Infantry Divisions, and 2 Armored Divisions. Their heavy equipment are French AMX-30 MBTs, Soviet T-72 MBTs, and light tanks and APCs from the US, England, Soviet Union, and other nations. For artillery, it is predominantly US and Russian, with some French rockets mixed in. Their air defense is all conventional artillery, as well as Soviet MANPADS and possibly some Soviet SA-3 rockets. For Air Assault they have Mi-25 HIND and Mi-28 Havoc. On the surface, not a bad force at all for a small nation. And by itself, not much. But if this was combined with Argentine forces, it is definately something to worry about. Their equipment is older equipment, typically Cold War era. But it is of average quality, and of enough quantity that it should give any English assault force room for pause. Especially the Soviet helicopters. HIND and HAVOC choppers are nothing to laugh at.
Yes I did look, and they do have a rather good military for a smallish nation, but the can't project longer range jets and the Falklands or on the limit of what their frigates can do, so they may be able to get to the Falklands but couldn't say there for very long, and there subs can only last 45 days. Their airforce and army doesn't matter. Their ships and subs have different missiles and systems to Argentina, so they would have to keep going back to Venezuela, and resupplying their ships, so at short range even medium range Venezuela is a problem, but long range like the Falklands, not a problem. They couldn't attack Ascension because the US has a NASA base there, so them being in a war wouldn't make that much difference, apart from forcing the hand of NATO. Stop saying English when you mean British please. What are you talking about British assault force?
*shakes his head* I have said it before, will say it again. Logistics, logistics, logistics. Do you think that they can only resupply in Venezuela? Have you never heard of cargo transports? They have C-130s, KC-135 fuelers, B-707s, and B-737s. They could easily fly any replacements needed to BA and then on to where they are needed. And they would not have to fly directly there. They could fly overland until they reach Argentina, then a short hop to the MI. And their ships could easily operate out of BA, or anywhere else. And what does that mean, their subs can "only operate for 45 days"? That is enough to do a lot of damage to any fleet or supplies heading south.
Actually.. the Falklands discoveries are called the New North Sea discovery. Argentine production is already about 800,000 bpd. North Sea Production has dropped by nearly 45%. Selling out the Falkland Islanders. http://gulfnews.com/opinions/columnists/falkland-islanders-will-be-sold-out-sooner-or-later-1.976896
I don't like leftwinger newspapers. Just rubbish, the Falklands are worth over 350 million that the UK military spends on them, and the Falklands want to be British, and live in fear, than Argentine. The UK has aways wanted the Falklands, it has never changed.
Gulf News is hardly left winger... Qatar could hardly be more conservative. Why does the UK military spend 350 million on them? The Falkland Islanders were expecting a windfall.. now they are over run with foreign oilmen and may soon be in the middle of a war.
Would really be easy to fly military aircraft over Brazil that wouldn't be in the war or Bolivia? Argentina and Venezuela don't have the logistical abilty to defeat Britain, in a long range war, the only south American nation that does is Brazil. What happens if Venzuela needs more equipment from it's foreign suppliers, and the EU and US block it. Any way if we really get down to it, the UK would just nuck them both. They can only operate for 45 days then they would need to go back to port, plus there would be nothing for them to attack, as the UK wouldn't send a task force, but almost every sub it has, along with RFA ships with helicopters and Rapier missile system to resupply the Falklands, the Argentine airforce would be shot down in the first week, with the type 45 sitting a few miles offshore killing anything that has just attack mount Pleasant. And if Venezuela moved to soon the UK would know an attack was coming and move enough military assets to the region and get added military support from other NATO members, if Venezuela did attack the UK the EU and US would just the UK, it retarded as I said for Chavez to do this.
Peter Preston wrote the article he works for the Guardian, a leftwing news paper. Because we need to defend them from Argentina. What a 6 US people, 3 of which are former military people. There will be know war, because Argentina knows it will lose, and no amount of south American support or Chinese support will change that, the UK has the full support of the EU, Commonwealth and Turkey, and in a war the US would support the UK again. Argentina isn't stupid, they know this.
No. Many poeple in the Falklands, don't even want oil drilling, and the UK has been spending 300 million plus each year since 1982, this is no big change, and was normally have a sub and frigate or destoryer in the region, along with patrol boat and icebreaker. The Falklands government hopes money from oil will mean the UK no longer needs to spend huge amounts of money defending them. But we will.
What "long range war"? In case you have never looked at a map, the Falklands is right off the shore of Argentina. It is the UK that would be fighting the long range war, not them. And there would be friendly port facilities in Argentina. None for the UK. And are you serious? Bolivia would look the other way if that happened. Much like nations that looked the other way when Israel flew over their regions to attack the Iraqi Nuclear Plants. Or US aircraft flew over on their way to and from multiple situations over the decades. And it is not that hard at all. Do you even know what aircraft I have been talking about? The KC-135 fueler. Known in the civilian world as the Boeing 707. Then you have the C-40. Known in the civilian worls as the Boeing 737. And they are about to get 2 nice big Il-76. These are also used by civilian cargo and passenger airlines. They set the transponders saying they are a civilian flight, and then file a flight plan saying they are. And there is no way to tell otherwise. Then it gets equipment. Because the moment that the UK tried to blockade Argentina and Venezuela (not that it could in the first place), that would be an act of war. And there is not much more that would bring the rest of South America in on it's side then even attempting to blockade another South American nation. They would see it as another attempt at English Colonization. You really have no idea how much the UK is dispised in South America. *sentence break, you really need to learn how to make sentences and not massive run-ons* And once agian, what is your point of 45 days? They spend 3 days going out, do a 30 day patrol, and return. By that time, another sub is already on station to take it's place. Do you know anything about submarine logistics? If they want to stay out for more then 45 days, that is what they have Sub Tenders for. And what do you mean "nothing to attack", when you then follow it up with a statement about the UK sending ships? That makes absolutely no sense at all. "Well, there will be nothing for subs to attack, we are going to send all these ships, and, well..." You talk about one phase of the last battle, and totally ignore the most important phase. Don't forget a very important quote, and a proverb: Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. George Santayana Generals always prepare to fight the last war. You make a great many huge mistakes here, as is common for Armchair Generals. You already plan on fighting Falklands II. But you are forgetting that Argentina will have their own agenda. And trust me, they have learned from their mistakes. For one, their greatest successes have been in attacking the surface fleet with anti-ship missiles before it even got to the Falklands. And this is a tactic they will most assuredly use again. And expect the Type 45 to get most of those incomming attacks on another round of fighting. For the exact same reasons we have discussed many times in the past. They have no real long range missiles. The Argentine aircraft can attack it over and over again, with little fear of loss. And either they will eventually make the ship run low or out of missiles, or they might get a lucky shot and take it out. Expect them to be under attack from the air before they make the Equator. And be under more attacks after that. And that sure sounds nice, you will leave the Type 45 near Mount Pleasant. How nice, how delightfull in fact. For Argentina. You see, placing the Destroyer there will do almost no good at all. Naval Radar has a heck of a time picking up low level aircraft behind mountains. In fact, all radar have that problem. So that Destroyer (with it's depleted missiles) will be off-shore, to the East of the Falklands, where it can do no good at all. Argentine aircraft can attack the base at a range with it's own missiles and there is not a single thing that the Destroyer can do about it. Except it also gives the Argentines an even better target to strike against with their own anti-ship missiles again. A nice, stationary target. Now we have the flip yet again. Venezuela can send ships and aircraft to Argentina all day long, any time it wants to. It can also send it's subs out to patrol the Central Atlantic all day long. It is not the right of the UK to say they do not like it. And the moment that the UK attacks one of these vessels, or attempts to put up a blockade, then it is war. One that NATO may well sit out, just like they did the last time there was trouble in the Falklands. I do not like President Chavez. But he is free to do what he likes or support who he likes. I may not like it, but that is his right and the right of his nation. If he decides to just send equipment and supplies to Argentina, that is his right also. Do you think the UK is prepared to go to war with all of South America? Because that is what you are setting things up for now. Imagine this scenario. UK and Argentina start Falklands II. Now Hugo has a bunch of soviet MANPADS, spare parts, and artillery rounds that Argentina wants. So he loads them up on a Panamanian flagged ship to send them over there. What will they find? An illegal UK blockade? Will they be met and turned back while still out to sea? Will they be attacked on the way there? Each of those is cause for war. And would do nothing but raise the credability of Hugo Chavez in the eyes of the rest of South America. And possibly bring even more nations of the region into the conflict. You go on and on and on about oil. But you also forget that this has been a major issue for over a century. This conflict has been brewing for generations now, and the oil has nothing to do with it at all.
From the Uk's point-of-view, this is nothing to do with oil; its about the sovereignty of the people that live on the islands... just as it was 30yrs ago. Argentina on the other had, see a hint of black gold and.... well.... Anyway, Chavez IS a fool. Not to long ago, he said there was a possibility that the west had given him and Cristina Fernández de Kirchner cancer. It was to much of a coincidence for so many South American leaders to get it, he said....(ok, apparently it was an "off the cuff" remark, but he still said it.)
Based on what?? North Sea crude production is falling.. and suddenly the Falklands are crawling with British oilmen.
So Venezuela isn't 4,000-5,000 miles away from the Falklands? The UK has the Falklands and South Georgia. Bolivia may look the other way but would Brazil, with the EU backing Britain I down it for economic reason, aswell as political. 5 heavy transport planes, isn't enough to beat the UK, 2 of which they don't even have yet, Argentina has 10. The UK has 56, that's what I mean the UK would win in a long range war. Plus the UK has been doing operations like this for the past 20 years, when was the last time Venezuela did any long range flying. I never said the UK would blockade Argentina or Venezuela, I said the UK with support from the EU and US would stop them from getting more equipment from Russia, China and others. Could you please stop saying English when you mean British, it's insulting to the rest of the UK. And Argentina and Venezeula have just attack the Falklands going to war with the UK, so the UK would have every right to stop those nations getting more weapons from there allies. Also the EU would and US would help the UK blockade Venezeula. So does Chile, Guyana, Uruguay and Colombia all dispise the UK? I said the UK would send one heavily armed supply ship in, with protection from other UK subs, type 45 and eurofighters, not a whole fleet, which is what you think the UK would be stupid enough to do. The UK wouldn't have a fleet of ships for Argentina to attack, that's what I am saying, 2-3 ships that's it, 1 sub, 1 destroyer and 1 supply ship, all defending each other and being defended by the air base, being able to see the incoming aircraft from the radar station in the Falklands. So no I am not fighting the last war, I am making sure Argentina can't use it's main weapon. You are the one fighting the last war, the UK can see them coming, send up the eurofighters and attack the incoming jets, so Argentina would need to take the runway out, something it will find hard to do, with the UK having 3-4 layers of defence, from jets, forward radar station, missile defence and the type 45. I agree with you about this having nothing to do with oil. I said it has nothing to do with oil. I also agree Venezeula has a right to patrol where it wants, but so does the UK, it has the right to send as many ship, planes and troops to the Falklands and south Atlantic as it wants. Argentina is saying nations don't have that right.
Instead of assuming its NOT about oil.. Look at falling North Sea production and the fact that the Falklands are swarming with British oilmen????
Oh, please. The North Sea oil reserves are still ample. Its just cheaper to buy than produce. The UK's motives with regard to protecting the Falklands are the same as they were 30 years ago.... when we knew very little about oil off its shores.
There has been a new discovery in the North Sea.. but over the past couple of years production has fallen by 45%.. Just look up the facts.. before you lay out your convictions.
Rather than assuming everything is about oil, why not consider that its cheaper to buy oil than produce it in the North sea? Perhaps you should consider looking at the reserves in the North Sea? Perhaps you should consider the war 30 yrs ago and the UK's motives behind that? Perhaps you should consider that Argentina was happy to just licks its wounds regarding the islands, until they got a whiff of possible oil off its shores?
