How could Argies have performed better in 1982?

How could Argies have performed better in 1982?

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    More C-130s, KC-130s and some P-3s.

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Not try to conquer the island

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >thread about the bong carrier being stuck at port
    >"WE WON THE FALKLANDS RULE THE WAVES, ARGIES, YANKS, KRAUTS AND FROGS SEETH"

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Post malvinas

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >"I bet an argie is behind this post"
        Yes, the inbreeding schizoid gene showing, as in a garden gnome.

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    They simply couldn't have. You'd need to change the parameters so much that the the armed forces of each respective country would no longer resemble them.
    British armed forces were decades ahead technologically and superior numerically, and they still are. Not to mention that if it did somehow look like the Brits would lose, France and The USA would have helped as a matter of self-interest, as they each have overseas territories and setting the precedent that somebody can snatch your lands just because it's close to them is not good for America or France either.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >decades
      The Mirage IIIs and Skyhawks were old, but we're the Daggers with Python-2s decades behind the original series Sea Harriers?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      France, maybe, but nobody would fuck with the US because the US actually has the ability to project power.

      the UK did, but just barely. The brits were pretty vulnerable in their approach.

      Honestly if i was the UK, I'd have gotten rid of the exclusion zone around the islands and just declared all argentine assets fair game the world over.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Have better quality inspection. They were getting hit with so many bombs that didn't explode that almost as many sailors died from kinetic impact. A UK Admiral admitted that six more working fuses and the Argies would've won.

      >British were so advanced
      The British navy was already crippled by decolonisation, a faltering economy and the general decline as a superpower by then.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >The British navy was already crippled by decolonisation, a faltering economy and the general decline as a superpower by then.
        And they were still technologically superior to Argentina, and they still are today.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >using Argentina as a yardstick for your military prowess
          Do bongs really?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      They could have. Just like Egypt got away with snatching the Suez canal.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Put regular troops on the island and not conscripts who gave up very shortly into the fight.

    Send all out air assaults from their carry and land based fighters to attack the Royal Navy (I remember a documentary saying the Argentine carrier supposedly had located or knew position of the Royal Navy carrier but couldn't launch due to weather, but I have found nothing else confirming this)

    Beyond that not much else. The Argentine A4s are cool as fuck though.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah they couldn't launch a sortie because their Skyhawks needed a larger headwind to get off the deck and into the air. It's the whole reason the carrier force and the Belgrano force had to abort and try to return home ultimately leading it to get suck without having accomplished anything.
      Ironically a few years earlier the Brits offered to sell the Argies Harriers which would have been able to take off in that weather.
      Kind of a huge oversight to have carrier planes that can't even take off unless the weather gives you it's full cooperation. They at least could have tried extending the size of the deck or something.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        The Colossus/Majestic class were popular because they were tiny and cheap. They didn't have much capability for large rebuilds since they were so lightly built.
        If you wanted anything better you'd just buy one of the spare Centaurs, but they were too crew intensive for most smaller navies.
        The Argentinians lacked enough modern escort ships and helicopters to protect them from subs anyway.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        This was the era of many second rate navies needing to give up their ww2-vintage carriers as carrier fighters were getting too heavy and powerful for them, along with just getting old and without any newer surplus carriers to replace them. Yes harriers would have helped but the skyhawk was popular becuase it could operate, mostly, from these older carriers.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      there were regular troops on the island. the 'poor conscripts' meme is largely overstated. When some of Argentina's best-trained regular troops such as a Marine battalion at Mount Tumbledown were in action they were similarly beaten by inferior numbers of Brits. Although the British did have armour support at Tumbledown

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >did have armour support
        And naval gunfire support.

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Not let a team of SAS blow up a dozen aircraft on the airfield in mainland Argentina and then escape to Chile. Not invaded in the first place.

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    sink enough RN surface combatants and watch public opinion in the UK turn sour

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      By the end of the war the RN was down to three out of eight AD destroyers, it was pretty close.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        IIRC the Argies were doing WWII era torpedo runs but couldn't get down the knowhow to build a wooden shell around them until the Brits caught on and reformed their evasive maneuvers.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          There were no air launched torpedos. Argies were doing low-level bomb strikes which often failed because they were flying so low the bomb fuses didn’t arm in time

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            That's not what I read
            >https://wwiiafterwwii.wordpress.com/2017/08/28/mk13-torpedo-during-the-falklands-war/

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              While Pucura was capable of carrying a torpedo it didn't attack RN/RFA shipping during the war. It was used in the ground attack role with cannons and rockets.
              The Argentines used Skyhawks and Daggers armed with bombs and Super Es with missiles against ships.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I see, now rereading. Would've made a great story, though.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah, HMS Conquer did sink the ARA Belgrano with a WW2 era Mk.VIII** torpedo. They were seen as more reliable than the new ones, see: that Yes Primeminister episode.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >nearly made it to use
              >nearly
              First fuckin paragraph buddy

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >If we sink the battleships at Pearl Harbor the Americans will give up
      >If we bomb London the British population will give up!
      Sinking RN ships only works if you both take the islands fully and make retaking them difficult and costly so the war appears already over.

      People didn't want to (materially) support Ukraine when they thought Kiev would fall in 72 hours. Now that Ukraine is holding strong and might retake everything, support is very high.

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    as an argie,
    Not declaring war on the otan,
    Not having illegitimate claims,
    And not improvising the whole thing at 2 am totally drunk.
    As a last one , maybe if they prepared the whole show with capable people instead of the 3 suckers that wouldnt try to coup you when you told them it would fare better,

    No chance to win that one, too many wrongs from planning to execution. amateurish as fuck against fucking nato on the 80s

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      callate cipayo vendepatria

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    By getting the French to not cuck out to that cunt Thatcher. More Exocets, more sunk ships, more butthurt brits.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      this
      the brits would have won by the end but they could have suffered catastrophic casualties
      in general, the argies should have invested in more antiship missiles and AA. dead brits are good brits

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Lmao get real, do you really think the French had kill codes to exocets

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Yes.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            When did the brits get them? HMS Glamorgan was hit by an Exocet on the second last day of the war.
            Missiles don't work that way either.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10788731/France-DID-lie-Britain-Exocet-missile-kill-switch-Falklands-War.html

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Daily mail as source
                Bruh, by your own sources if they didn't give them the codes old thatcher was going to nuke Argentina.
                Get better sources imbecile before contributing next time imbecile.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                If you weren't such a fucking retard you would have read the article and found the source the dailymail used. Read it again.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                BA was easier to nuke than put one bomb on the Falklands.
                Pulling nukes back of all of the ships heading down south was a PITA.

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    by being british.

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    By not picking a fight they couldn't win. It was over from the moment no major power decided to intervene on their behalf, all else is cabana cope.

    So many Falklands threads of late. Somebody must really want to rub it in.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >So many Falklands threads of late. Somebody must really want to rub it in.
      Vatniks usually believe in a conspiracy theory that British elites have been behind all of Russia's misfortunes, that the Brits must be punished for that, and that wiping out the British would fix their woes. This is a recent obsession of theirs because it was the last time a nation bloodied the UK's nose, even if they had no chance of winning.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >conspiracy theory
        Like Russians starting threads about a war the UK won to 'rub it in'?
        People start threads about the Falklands because it's interesting (location, tech, forces, etc), relatively small scale so it's understandable, and there's a lot of information out there in English about it.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >British elites have been behind all of Russia's misfortunes
        Projection I suppose, their funding of eco-wankery for decades prevented us from fracking or building out our nuclear capacity, leading to the current catastrophic energy crisis. Unlike the vatniks we should put most of the blame on ourselves, but they certainly played their part.

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Just a few small things going right, like correct bomb fuses, and the war becomes much costlier for the British. Perhaps enough to sway public opinion? It seems like both sides had that fine tightrope to walk of making the people agree the war was "worth it." and in the end, Argentina fell off first. A blind rush with the Argentine Navy into the battle could have been decisive for either.

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Am I retarded for being in love with the Pucará? I’m severely disappointed that their history consists of fail bids and getting skull fucked by SAS

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      All post war turbo prop attackers are cool, like the Grumman Mohawk.

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >TFW the Falklands was done with not even a quater of the Navy fleet and a parachute regiment attached

    All these what ifs are dumb af, Britain had a military 330,000 strong in 1980 and used 10,000 to retake the Falklands. There was zero scenario that they could lose against Argentina.
    >Inb4 but can't land without navy
    Chile wouldn't have taken much persuasion to let the UK use it as a staging ground to attack Argentina

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >not even a quater of the Navy fleet
      What ships weren't used? Two of the modern frigates and three of the modern destroyers?
      All commissioned carriers, all amphibs, and more than all tankers.
      What's left some old Leander and minehunters?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Alot more.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >old Leander class frigates, minehunters.
          And I guess the diesel subs.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You wouldn't feel confident being able to ruin the Argie navy with that? Too easy

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >Argie navy
              After the Belgrano was sunk the navy had no effect on the war.
              The problem is that outside of the T42/T22s and to a lesser extent the Counties and maybe the Seawolf Leanders, those ships are useless against the Argentine Airforce.

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Stayed at home. Seriously.

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    By not invading.

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >1980s
    >greatest seafaring empire the world has ever seen
    do britboys ever get their head out of their ass or are they just this delusional?

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    More submarines.

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    You lost all credibility with point 6. Heavy equipment especially tanks, have 0 place on the Falklands terrain. See picrel a Scimitar bogged down weighing only 7.5 tons, they were relegated to being stationary pillboxes.
    Also the meme of conscripts not being as good needs to die seriously, military trained soldiers In fortified defensive elevated positions out numbering the attackers 3:1 is as big an advantage anyone would have.

  20. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    They fucked up by putting their best troops near the chilean border instead of the islands.

  21. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    by simply not attacking, GB was considering giving up the Falklands until they were attacked

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Thatcher was making signals to all and sundry that the Falklands were not important to the UK and then the tiff happend which got her re-elected.
      Coincidence?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        why do you think the brits are currently trying to provoke putin into attacking some of their assets? A war with victory would secure the current governments place, as well as allowing them to conscript people who don't agree with their views.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        i don't believe thatcher ever did, no. but previous governments hadn't cared. no one actually thought the british would fight back because of this.

        it's hard to understand sometimes how much work thatcher actually had to do against the accepted political norms to get anything done. and her own party got rid of her in the end because of it. her legacy has had to eat shit for enacting reforms no one else was prepared to, and no one else reversed either because they were so necessary.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Oh yes she did. She also made the UK stop producing things and become a service industry based country.
          She fucked the place up well and true.
          You just had to be there.

  22. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >Trident I

    *Excuse me, Polaris

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      [...]

      In 1982 it would be Polaris.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Yeah, I forgot that work on the Trident II started in 1981, but the actual missiles didn't completely replace Polaris for another decade.

        Still, doesn't change the fact the United Kingdom had a fully functioning nuclear deterrent and Argentina did not, which put them at an existential disadvantage.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Came with its own groovy howl

          ?t=57

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Do they have a nuclear capable bomber anymore?

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Why would they? IIRC it's all on SSN's

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Why did you delete your post that I replied too here

          https://i.imgur.com/cDOkM4Q.jpg

          [...]
          I suggest you read up on the use of the FV101 and 107 in the Falklands and you will see how little a role the played only coming into action on the last day around Stanley providing fire support when the war was basically over and the entire island had been cleared mostly by marines and paras on foot.
          Even if Argentina had lots of AT (which they did) destroying 4 scorpions and 4 scimitars would have zero effect on the outcome.

          The biggest thing the FV series did in the Falklands was its kettle to provide everyone around with a brew and pushing landing craft back into the water to get them back to ships faster.

          Argentina also had 10 AML-90 Panhard armoured vehicles which from your posts I'm guessing you didn't know, these were destroyed by artillery and the rest captured.
          36x 105mm OTO Melera guns
          2x 155mm L33 guns
          18x 35mm GDF 002 twin barrel cannons
          3x Oerlikon 20mm cannons
          8x 30 mm Hispano Suiza guns
          15x RH202 twin 20mm cannons
          12x Hispano HS-831 30 mm cannons
          10x Model 1968 105mm recoiless gun
          8x M67 recoiless rifle
          + lots of 60,80,120mm mortars
          + lots of M2 .50s
          100s of AT mines (one struck a scimitar)

          Any of the above would lay waste to a scorpion or scimitar to quote you saying "The Argies had so little in the way of anti-tank capability" is complete nonsense and shows a lack of knowledge on the subject.

  23. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    I suggest you read up on the use of the FV101 and 107 in the Falklands and you will see how little a role the played only coming into action on the last day around Stanley providing fire support when the war was basically over and the entire island had been cleared mostly by marines and paras on foot.
    Even if Argentina had lots of AT (which they did) destroying 4 scorpions and 4 scimitars would have zero effect on the outcome.

    The biggest thing the FV series did in the Falklands was its kettle to provide everyone around with a brew and pushing landing craft back into the water to get them back to ships faster.

    Argentina also had 10 AML-90 Panhard armoured vehicles which from your posts I'm guessing you didn't know, these were destroyed by artillery and the rest captured.
    36x 105mm OTO Melera guns
    2x 155mm L33 guns
    18x 35mm GDF 002 twin barrel cannons
    3x Oerlikon 20mm cannons
    8x 30 mm Hispano Suiza guns
    15x RH202 twin 20mm cannons
    12x Hispano HS-831 30 mm cannons
    10x Model 1968 105mm recoiless gun
    8x M67 recoiless rifle
    + lots of 60,80,120mm mortars
    + lots of M2 .50s
    100s of AT mines (one struck a scimitar)

    Any of the above would lay waste to a scorpion or scimitar to quote you saying "The Argies had so little in the way of anti-tank capability" is complete nonsense and shows a lack of knowledge on the subject.

  24. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    not invade uk
    spend money on improving argentina instead

  25. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    They didn't have enough manpower and their supply line was extremely long. Falklands is a good example of taking territory vs holding territory. They needed at least double what they put on the island if they wanted to hold it. Even then the Argentine military wasn't exactly a good quality one so they still probably would of been routed.

  26. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    if one argie sub got one good hit on the task force on the way it would have been ogre
    same if the exocet got in the air and the invincible ate it
    implying that the bongoids were considerably more competent in this war than the argies is peak anglo tbh, one side just had more assets and got lucky

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >if one argie sub got one good hit on the task force on the way it would have been ogre

      It never even got close, the captain hid out of the way and fired off torpedos so he didn't get the firing squad. He couldn't even identify the ships he claimed he saw, this is so basic you would know how to do this before even getting close to becoming a captain.

  27. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    By being white

  28. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >So by "crippled" you actually mean no longer a superpower? Sure. Still a Tier 2 power good enough to fuck Argies so hard they haven't recovered in 4 decades.
    Second and third worlders love to imagine that we are in a state of immense psychological anguish about our downgrade from superpower to global power, (which took place well over a century ago) when the truth is that almost nobody, and absolutely nobody of consequence, is actually fussed about the whole thing.
    They can only see nations as ascendant or on the brink of social collapse, because those are the only modes they know.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      That's really interesting- as a young American I kind of take American military hegemony for granted, and I hadn't really considered what a British, French, etc. person might think of their military position on the global stage. I think it's interesting to note that GB proved that, attrited as their forces were, they could still project power globally when it really mattered. I can see how a 2nd tier might be very cofortable with their position. The only exception I could think off the top of my head would be maybe if I was French I would care a little more about being able to defend French Guiana, since pretty much the entire ESA hinges on that spaceport and northern South America can get a little frisky with their "foreign policy." It doesn't seem to be claimed by anyone with any level of earnestness, though.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        For britain it was a pretty comfy position to be in. By the time they were transitioning to a global power, the up and coming superpower was a fellow anglo country that had broadly similar ideals and geopolitical interests, and their two navies were actively fighting side by side with each other to secure freedom of the seas. France's bitterness mostly stems from their lack of a similar "franco-sphere" if you will, and the traumatic experience of the occupation of their homeland and colonies during the war that they never really recovered from.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        The USA is basically the richest 400lb gorilla on the block, any military discussion involving them tends to run along the lines of a talk with Richie Rich - it's not so much "can we have XYZ", and more like "should we have XYZ" and "when shall we have XYZ"

        Discussing the bong, frog and kraut militaries is more interesting (to me) because they are much more representative of a not-superpower military, and have to make real budgeting decisions what to get and what to skimp

        A real budgeting decision is "what shall we compromise on in order to get this other thing"

  29. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >More missiles, with triple-checked fuses
    >More ASW capability to protect their carrier and desstroyers
    >A nuclear deterrent to secure negotiations and prevent Brazil or Chile from staging British forces

  30. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >The Falklands is the only war that comes near to resembling a mid-Cold War all-arms battle, such as it is, and it has been extensively covered in military literature and analyses. That's why it's so interesting.

    Well, there is the Gulf War, although that took place in a desert.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >desert
      >cold war
      Are you retarded?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      True, though that also was mainly a ground war. The air and sea interaction only really comes into view in the Falklands War.

      >desert
      >cold war
      Are you retarded?

      >ya cheeky wanka

  31. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Honestly, it's amazing what the British accomplished with the Falklands. Joking aside apart from the US I can't think of any country capable of doing that independently. Logistics truly are king.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      GOTCHA

      The UK didn't do it independently, they had logistical help specifically along with missile donations and other stuff from the US, tankers used for refueling were especially important, the French and the Soviets could've done the same.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Bought AIM9L from US, given them early because they were suddenly at war
        Britain already had AIM9G, all its AA kills were from behind argie jets so the AIM9L was an irrelevant factor that made no difference.
        >Buys fuel from US, piped into a British Base the US was using at the time
        None of the above was free, the tankers put the fuel onto the island so two of your points are the same.
        France could certainly not do that neither could the Soviets, thanks for the laugh though.

  32. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    For a French place it got hot for a bit.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Please, PLEASE tell me that the TINY orange bar isnt Argentinas only claim that made it go to war with the UK.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >

        Yeah they couldn't launch a sortie because their Skyhawks needed a larger headwind to get off the deck and into the air. It's the whole reason the carrier force and the Belgrano force had to abort and try to return home ultimately leading it to get suck without having accomplished anything.


        Ironically a few years earlier the Brits offered to sell the Argies Harriers which would have been able to take off in that weather.
        Kind of a huge oversight to have carrier planes that can't even take off unless the weather gives you it's full cooperation. They at least could have tried extending the size of the deck or something.
        > This was the era of many second rate navies needing to give up their ww2-vintage carriers as carrier fighters were getting too heavy and powerful for them, along with just getting old and without any newer surplus carriers to replace them. Yes harriers would have helped but the skyhawk was popular becuase it could operate, mostly, from these older carriers.
        >>>
        >Anonymous 08/29/22(Mon)06:04:57 No.54945884▶

        By the end of the war the RN was down to three out of eight AD destroyers, it was pretty close.


        >

        https://i.imgur.com/joN7JVc.jpg

        How could Argies have performed better in 1982? (OP)
        > sink enough RN surface combatants and watch public opinion in the UK turn sour
        >>>
        >Anonymous 08/29/22(Mon)06:05:36 No.54945887▶
        >

        https://i.imgur.com/0U4I2Lb.jpg

        there were regular troops on the island. the 'poor conscripts' meme is largely overstated. When some of Argentina's best-trained regular troops such as a Marine battalion at Mount Tumbledown were in action they were similarly beaten by inferior numbers of Brits. Although the British did have armour support at Tumbledown
        > >did have armour support
        > And naval gunfire support.
        >>>
        >Anonymous 08/29/22(Mon)06:08:49 No.54945904▶
        That is the bit.
        A Place that has the Mayor ride in a london taxi is not very Spanish.
        Spain called first dibs on Argentina if anyone is playing that game.dsgsh

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Spain called first dibs on Argentina if anyone is playing that game.dsgsh

          Look at the chart.

          https://i.imgur.com/mFlkXaR.png

          For a French place it got hot for a bit.

          FRANCE called first Dibs, so if 'First Dibs' counted it'd be French. The UK held it before Spain did, so if the Argentine claim is based upon the Spanish, UK still wins.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            It's infinetely more complex that just first dibs. French ceded willingly to Spain, which got into a dispute with the UK, they later signed a treaty but the wording used was extremely vague and open to interpretation so it didnt resolve anything. It's extremely muddy and it's completely pointless to try and delve into the legal history of the dispute. Ultimately Argentina claims it because the UK expelled their people from there in 1833, and the British argument is that regardless of what happened there back then, the currently people get to vote and they voted stay with the UK and ultimately that's all that matters.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        They claim the Spanish part of it too since Spain handed over all argentinian lands
        The brits literally left for 40 years and then held onto it for 150 years. It's now 190 years.
        Argies fuck off.

        afaik Argentina was expecting by whole time an assault on capital not an island

        Being worried about nuclear strikes was absolutely the right thing to do, though arguably the PM wouldn't have had the balls to kill millions for an island so you could maybe argue otherwise

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Thatcher WOULD have done it if it came to it anon. You're talking about the woman who put pretty much the entirety of northern England out of work for the sake of her ideology.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I somewhat doubt it, Thatcher was a relatively ruthless prime minister sure, but she does not have the authority to order nuclear strikes alone unless the UK or an ally is attacked in such force, as much as we like to joke about it.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >but she does not have the authority to order nuclear strikes alone unless the UK

              Wut? The PM most definitely posseses the authority to order a nuclear strike and can do so unilaterally. That is precisely why the UK keeps its own nuclear stockpile despite the cost instead of ditching them and just hosting American nukes.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Governments don't leave this shit to just one person that changes every 4-8 years you stupid fucking moron. There are layers of security involved.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Yes, they do.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >There are layers of security involved.

                "authentication" and "authority" are not the same thing anon. Yes, there are procedures to determine that the person sending the order for a nuclear strike is actually who they say they are, but once the authentication is made then there is no-one else who can countermand the order to launch. The UK has an SSBN out on patrol at all times whose sole job is to stay hidden until ordered to launch.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah, but what hes trying to say is that the military would (hopefully) reject a nuclear strike order deemed to be blatantly arbitrary.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                We were discussing this in the context of Thatcher and the Falklands War. Launching a bunch of nukes at some random for shits and giggles" is arbitrary. Launching them at Argentina for their invasion of British territory during a formally declared state of war is not.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I dont entirely disagree. In an alternate timeline where Argentina sinks a lot of ships thered be thousands of casualties maybe even as many as 20k. In that scenario a nuclear strike wouldnt be considered arbitrary but that would depend on the target. I doubt they'd condone nuking the a city of 5+ million people. Maybe a smaller military base with 2-3k soldiers far from any civilian centers.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Nukes would have been out of the question short of the Soviets showing up in Argentina and giving them nukes to use. If the force to retake the islands had been smashed England's entire military and their reserves would start getting called up and we'd have seen an armada reminiscent of something from the age of sail start making its way down to the South Atlantic, and the Americans would have joined in as well if Thatcher had asked Reagan for help.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                The international rage that would come from nuking civilians after ww2 would not be good.
                The soviets and the americans would condemn it. Like a Suez crisis 2.0. Latin american countries would also lose trust in NATO wich would make them closer to the soviets, wich would make americans even more angry.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Upset Soviets
                >Upset Argentina
                >Upset Latin America
                Oh no, not Latin America

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Being worried about nuclear strikes was absolutely the right thing to do, though arguably the PM wouldn't have had the balls to kill millions for an island so you could maybe argue otherwise

          I meant real onland invasion

  33. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Don't buy faulty American bombs, buy new shiny Soviet. SRSLY, if you look on the number of hits - Brits were raped. Only a lot of bombs simply didn't explode.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      If they only knew how to the weapons they had then they would had to have more on their own side die.
      Don't pick on the bigger boys when you're surrounded.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Learn to use what you have in your arsenal.
      UK had a Flag 😉

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Because the Argentines were fusing them wrong. Then some british journalist released that info and immediately two ships were sunk, one of them with half the Welsh Guards on board. It was too little, too late though.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        The Welsh Guards sitting in that place waiting to be hurt is an entirely other fcuk up fot amother time.

  34. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >Anon, Thatcher forced the pinkos to face economic realities. To this day they seethe and cope but still admit most of her policies turned out right. She's probably the most popular PM on both sides of the fence this side of WW2. Maybe there were a couple of services that ought not to have been privatised, but by and large, she was right - the public sector can only fuck things up, they can never get anything done
    Problem there isn't even necessarily that they shouldn't have been privatised, it's that you can only sell them once and then your costs are up forever paying the private companies to make it. Right now we can't even bring down our own prices using the North Sea oil and gas because Thatcher sold it all off. She sold off aerospace and rolls royce and so many others and used that money to pay for government services for her terms in office. We can't ever replicate this policy because we can't sell it all off again so Thatcherism is done, and 12 years of tory shit without being able to sell everything off to boost it has been a total shitpike. Practically all that's left is the NHS.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >you can only sell them once and then your costs are up forever
      in such a case, either
      1) the true costs of those services are higher and only being revealed then, or
      2) those companies are being inefficiently propped up and should be allowed to die, or
      3) someone's playing silly buggers and fiddling the books, but this doesn't often happen in OECD economies

      the problem is most people refuse to accept the premise of point 1, blindly and instinctively jump to 2, and then accuse all and sundry of 3 ("the billionaires! they're taking all our money!")

      As an accountant who is solidly pro-capitalist, I am generally in favour of privatisation in many (not all) cases, because govt services tend to squirrel away their costs in other line items. This is not something a PLC can get away with - it's either net profitable or it's not. Period. Books cannot be cooked to the point of violating the laws of physics.

      It is no coincidence that the economy is in the shits; it's simply a reflection of the truth of Govt overspending and trade underperfomance.

      >Right now we can't even bring down our own prices using the North Sea oil and gas because Thatcher sold it all off
      >and used that money to pay for government services for her terms in office
      Precisely. There's the answer right there: the Govt cannot afford to spend what it has been spending.

      >12 years of tory shit without being able to sell everything off to boost it has been a total shitpike
      The answer is simple: reduce Govt spending. Start with the social welfare bill, and pensions. But Labour will never agree to that. Somehow, magically giving away free money (universal income) is going to solve all these problems.

      If someone came to you whining about his growing credit card bill, and insisting that the answer is to spend more on his idiot kids, you'd tell him he was a retard.

      Yet when the same problem plays out at country-level, it's *checks labour.org* a green revolution to tackle poverty and inequality

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Can you tell me what government’s role is, if not the wellbeing of its citizens?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Is this a laff?
          Government's primary goal is the same as nearly all organisations: self-perpetuation.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          What a gov't can afford, sure.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          To ensure the free market is truly free, to promote the rule of law and freedom of speech, to defend the nation from military and security threats, and not to dig its ass into a generational debt hole

          a lot of "advanced" countries have forgotten that

          Nukes would have been out of the question short of the Soviets showing up in Argentina and giving them nukes to use. If the force to retake the islands had been smashed England's entire military and their reserves would start getting called up and we'd have seen an armada reminiscent of something from the age of sail start making its way down to the South Atlantic, and the Americans would have joined in as well if Thatcher had asked Reagan for help.

          >If the force to retake the islands had been smashed
          what armada could be summoned up?
          the task force went with practically all the RN's might

          although from an Army perspective it was a sideshow behind the BAOR and Irish Troubles, and the RAF hardly even got stuck in lmao, the RN was fully committed more or less.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Only 30 of the 100 ships were actual Royal navy ships you retard, the rest were merchant repurposed.
            They had responsibilities in the gulf thanks to NATO and couldn't pull all its navy

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Go take a look at what ships weren't already committed, knobhead
              Nearly every single destroyer and most of the frigates save a few of the Leanders, and how many of those were in deep maintenance?
              It was an all-hands effort from day one for the Navy

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >nation states
        >muh credit card bill analogy

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >the public sector can only fuck things up, they can never get anything done
      Idiotic nonsense.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >you can only sell them once
      You can tax them forever and hire good lawyers to make sure of it on the contract. Simple as.

  35. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Is an Argentinian election soon.
    Just asking.

  36. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Basically this. I still remember that one documentary where they got a hold of some of the Argentinian Marines from the original seizure force for interviews, and one of them talked about how they realized pretty quickly that they *were not* going to get the support of the locals like they'd been told they were, but in the end it didn't even matter since the entire unit got yoinked immediately afterward to pointlessly go play border guard against Chile after they were done taking the place.

  37. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    afaik Argentina was expecting by whole time an assault on capital not an island

  38. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I dont think theres a realistic scenario where Argentina wins. Even if you went back in time and made their bombs and missiles 10x more accurate and make them sink a lot more ships, the UK would probably just withdraw to ascension island, put together a new and larger task force (probably with commonwealth ships like Canada, Australia etc) and then give it another try. By then Argentina would be out of spare parts, missiles etc suffering from a blockade and so on and more or less spent militarily. They wouldn't be able to do much damage. But I imagine that such an scenario would still be considered a victory by most argentineans.

  39. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Not challenge a country that has been known for hundreds of years as the king of sea power to a war anywhere near an ocean. They needed to pull a gnomish conspiracy move and have their people start buying up land and moving there and slowly subverting the power of the UK until they have the votes to leave and join Argentina.

  40. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >People unironically believe Buenos Aires could had been nuked
    What the fuck is wrong with this board? Are you fucking retards?

  41. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    If the UK could use nukes against Argentina why can't Russia use them against Ukraine?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      No need to nuke BA and piss off every wide-jawed Germanic Argie males about killing all Brits. Pull a True Lies (ok the movie was not yet out) and give a light and sound show not even Rammstein could ever pull.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Because Argentina were the aggressors

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Nuclear weapons are not conventional weapons retarded autist, you can't just use it with out consequences. You think Reagan would have approve? Do you even comprehend the long time consequences for NATO and South America? Even the pajets and pakis know better not to use nukes.

  42. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Harrier is a really cool plane. Sucks as a dogfighter but it has that speed and sweet vtol of exploding jet-tubes rather than a dorky fan.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >sucks as dog fighter
      >0 shot down in air to air combat
      >31-0 against Mirage Daggers F4s
      >also kills 30 more on the ground
      You are right, but at the same time so wrong.

  43. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    There is only one answer:

    SEND BETTER TROOPS

    Argies on the iselands were mainly downtrodden conscripts with a handful of pro's who formed the backbone of the force. The best Argentinian units were held in reserve along the Chilean border as there was some sort of beef going on there.

    Had they had better men on the island they could have held on long enough for the Brits to have to withdraw their fleet due to fuel/weather problems.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      You are retarded and this has been covered before.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Its the basic truth anon. Victory was possible but the Argies fucked it up.

        They left their best units - 6th and 8th Mountain Infantry Brigades and the winter-specialist 11th Brigade - in Argentina.

        They instead generally sent conscripts who had undergone crash courses.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Conscripts with 14months military experience are more than capable of digging a hole and defending said hole (British infantry training is 26 weeks and the Royal Marines is 9 months), especially with a 3 to 1 numerical advantage, time to set up positions prior to an invasion and supported with heavy weaponry. And then there's the fact the British Paras and Marines had to march 40 miles on miles to the engagement area carrying 45kg of kit, so the advantage to the Argentinians is only increased. Let's not pretend these are poor farmers grabbed from a field and given a gun...
          Clearly you haven't a clue, maybe look into the Finnish conscripts that just btfo'd the US?
          https://www-iltalehti-fi.translate.goog/kotimaa/a/65e5530a-2149-41bd-b509-54760c892dfb?_x_tr_sl=fi&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >held on long enough for the Brits to have to withdraw their fleet due to fuel/weather
      Not happening, because SSNs, bitchezzz

      >If we sink the battleships at Pearl Harbor the Americans will give up
      >If we bomb London the British population will give up!
      Sinking RN ships only works if you both take the islands fully and make retaking them difficult and costly so the war appears already over.

      People didn't want to (materially) support Ukraine when they thought Kiev would fall in 72 hours. Now that Ukraine is holding strong and might retake everything, support is very high.

      Sinking just one of the capital ships would have been a major blow logistically and depending on the status of the amphibious landing and which actually was lost and with how many of what troops, might actually just kill the war there and then. Losing Conveyor as it is was a hard blow that led indirectly to many deaths including Bluff Cove. Losing a carrier or Fearless would have been terminal.

      Its the basic truth anon. Victory was possible but the Argies fucked it up.

      They left their best units - 6th and 8th Mountain Infantry Brigades and the winter-specialist 11th Brigade - in Argentina.

      They instead generally sent conscripts who had undergone crash courses.

      >Victory was possible
      Doubtfully, unless the Air Force accomplished something like the above.

Your email address will not be published.