VnomadIts all very well saying the Falklands should be independent or have shared sovereignty, but that doesnt answer to how the Falklanders themselves feel. They clearly state they want to be part of Britain, nothing else, so forcing something else on them simply takes away their right to decide on their own.
True. But isn’t that a lot similar to the position of republicans in the UK as well as Australia, Canada etc. According to them, even though they are in a minority, the fact that they’re subservient to the Crown, to an unelected individual in a hereditary position, is a violation of their individual rights.
The answer to that would be that it is a relatively small loss, given the fact that the crown isn’t despotic, they are a part of a vibrant democracy and their human rights are more or less intact.
It doesnt answer whether Argentina would even allow it. They seem intent on their flag flying over Stanley. Ive never seen any mention of what would happen to the Islanders, as the government always insists they dont get to choose what happens (implying they have no right to be there) but fail to say what the consequence of an Argentine takeover would be for them? They let them become Argentine, with all the rights that entails, but are deprived of their most important right and lose any power they really have. How can that be justified?
Quoting from Buitreaux’s post on page 2 –
The addition of territory of the Falklands to the Republic will require, as when the province of Buenos Aires was incorporated into to the confederacy after the battle of Pavon, special constitutional arrangements for the new territory. This was assumed in 1994 the Constitution of Argentina in their first transitional provision when, on a par to claim sovereignty, specifies the commitment to respect “the lifestyle of its inhabitants”. This implies, of course, a province that can have two official languages
Going into practical details, a national ad hoc arrangements could be made to enable the islanders to have dual citizenship, transmitted by ius sanguinis, to the children of british citizens resident in the islands. Nobody is calling the falklanders to change their citizenship to argentines. Continuing: there will be a dual currency system, not at all unknown in argentine territory. The falklanders could choose to keep the british pound as a currency, and offcourse continue driving on the left side of the road just to name an issue. On the other hand, within the symbolism, and like any other province of Argentina, the Falklands could have its own flag, chosen by their authorities. The provincial flag of the Falklands, which could very well be, the one currently in use.
By joining the argentine nation the Falklanders could have, with our system, nothing less than three senators and five representatives in congress, for a local population of just over three thousand. This ecuated to massive political influence. Today, the population of the islands is not represented in the distant british parliament.
Any agreement will consider to give to the new province the rights to maintain its powers in relevance to civil law. The civil code scheme of “common” set out in Article 75, paragraph 12 of the constitution is not a defining figure of the federalist system, and the american model has handled remarkably successfully coexistence of an atraumatic patchwork of legal systems.
Like all provinces of Argentina, the Falklands would have the original dominion over the natural resources within its territory and its government could make interprovincial and international treaties, with knowledge of the Congress (Article 124 of the Constitution). It would be entitled to have its own educational system and local police. Entitled to have its own free trading zone (under the system of national law 24,431) and could be ascribed a special customs area or allow a system to promote their potential industrial power, because if the Falklands will be in part our islands we are interested they can develop.
All this is still negotiable. Its certainly not terrible enough to justify all the war chatter that’s been going on.
VnomadIt was able to warn the strike package that an fixed enemy radar site had been repaired and was operational. The coordinates were known, and any decent RWR would have been able to pick them up. It’s however probable that the sensor fusion present on EFT was able to manage that information way quicker.
No one makes assumptions in wartime. If a disabled radar site was determined to be active again, it was only because emissions were traced back there. Perhaps not with a very high degree of accuracy, but done so nonetheless.
It has been said that the capability has been integrated. Nobody said it was operational.
Huh? You just repeated my argument back to me. The Reccelite isn’t operational but as you put it ‘the capability has been integrated’.
The capability wasn’t listed because it does not exist. The fact is Rafales, SEMs and Mirages-2000D were able to operate above Libya from day 1 to the last day without dedicated SEAD/DEAD aircraft, thanks to the protection offered by SPECTRA. As such it has demonstrated a true SIGNIT capability.
Ahh… so a capability can only exist if its been demonstrated in wartime. I suppose F-22 doesn’t have the ability to operate in the dangerous environment posed by first rate Libyan air defences, either.
RecceLite is been integrated on EFT and as such isn’t operational yet. RecceLite is a low-cost tactical reconnaissance system derivative from the Litening Pod.
To sum up.. the Reccelite cannot perform the role it was designed for viz. IMINT. And seeing as its the only pod operational with it, the RAF has no IMINT capability outside of its UAV fleet.
While that chart is from a Magazine which name we don’t have, and as such we cannot check the date or the author, it correctly state that EFT doesn’t currently have IMINT or ELINT systems. Nor does it have anti-ship weapons, or SEAD/DEAD capabilities which Rafale currently enjoy.
Anti-ship weapons no. Everything else is your own personal spin on things.
VnomadQuestion: Talk of cooperation with the French Navy and USN aside, has the RN/RAF conclusively decided that the QE will not operate fixed wing AEW&C and/or MAR aircraft?
VnomadYou raise valid points regarding the contradiction between the chagos Islands and falklands and as to why 1 groups rights are more important than the others. I suspect it comes to rights ignored in the past vs rights not yet ignored. The continued ignoring of the chagos Islands is perhaps a consequence of the airbase human rights allways coming second to miltary necessaty.
I wasn’t really demanding explanations to unfair situations in the world. They were merely to illustrate my point – there are certain realities in the world. Realities that don’t go down too well with idealists but are realities nonetheless. The world is not a fair place and sometimes compromises need to be made for the greater good.
Given not just Britain’s legacy but its recent history, it stands quite firmly in the realist camp and not among idealists like say.. Norway, Sweden and arguably even Germany. Which is why assertions of being on receiving end of unfairness or bullying aren’t likely to resonate. Its why a close ally like the US who also has a similar world view, has refrained from publicly backing Britain’s position. A compromise on the Falklands will not be out of character for the UK, so it shouldn’t be dismissed offhand which, unlike you, many have done.
VnomadRegarding recent history up until the back end of March 1982, Britian have a compelling case to claim the the Falklands as their own. As has already been mentioned so many times.
So, the Agries invaded the Falklands in April 1982, a full on invasion, APCs, aircraft, a large number of troops, the lot. Compared to a rather small British Garrison of Royal Marines, which given their numbers, weren’t much of a threat, least of all to Argentina.
Argentina, very ‘aggressively’, invaded another country’s property which triggered the war in the first place, they started it then Britian ended it and took back what was rightfully theirs and the Argies were sent back home with their tails inbetween their legs, in short words.
Until 1983, Argentina was ruled by a military junta. A junta that that committed large scale human rights violations. A junta that was responsible for the ‘disappearance’ of upwards of 10,000 people. An unelected military dictatorship that the paragons of virtue in the west should rightfully have had no truck with. A junta that was backed by Britain, right until it invaded the Falklands.
At that point, the fact that Britain was backing a regime that was victimizing the Argentinian people became irrelevant and an entire nation was blamed instead.
They lost. Or to put it more specifically, ‘surrendered’ to the Brits. So their top brass couldn’t have wanted the Islands that much, could they? They were in the wrong!
The Islanders on the Falklands, self-determination, want to remain British, not Argie. And even more so after the events of 1982, Britian have every right to do as they wish regardless of the Argie’s mindless rants.
Britain certainly has every right to do as it wishes. And if it comes around to the conclusion that the Falklands interests are best served by an isolated existence in the South Atlantic and that a military deployment at the end of an 8000 mile logistical train should be sustained indefinitely, so be it.
Hopefully, the South Americans will not remain united and hopefully the military balance in the region will remain unchanged with the rise of everyone including Brazil.
VnomadBritain as many if not all countries has skeletons in its closets. Morality cannot be applied retrospectivly but if the government has decided now is the time to act thus and defend individual rights to the death (no pun) then so be it, and surely this must be a good thing.
But is that resolve to fight the death really warranted here. After all Argentina isn’t looking to expel the islanders or take away their individual rights or right to self governance.
When I use the world morality – I’m referring to whether it is applicable rather than absent. Take Iran for example. Why do British sanctions apply to it today? Even if they are pursuing a nuclear weapons program, there still aiming for a right that Britain today enjoys.
I’ll be blunt. Why does Britain have nuclear capability today when others don’t. Why does it have a veto power in the UN today? Why can it afford to flout or exceed a UN mandate, be it with regard to Iraq or Libya?
It does so, because it CAN. Because even though its a shadow of former self, its still a fairly powerful country. Because (like most countries) national interests come first. Right upto the point where the South Americans unite, at which point a rapid retreat to moral high ground is sounded.
Past decisions such as the Chagos may also have im sad to say an element of Racism, the population was not white and therefore in some quarters its rights and opinions did not count, an attitude that (unfortunatly) pervaded in goverment probably into the 60s.
An attitude largely confined now fortunatly to a small portion of idiots of all race creed and colour.
Sure lets forget about 1960s then –
2000 – A British High Court ruled that the eviction was illegal and the natives had a right to return. The British govt responded by overruling it with the use of the ‘royal prerogative’. After being overturned twice again in high courts, it was finally upheld by the House of Lords.
2010 – The Chagos Islanders decide to take the case to the European Court of Human Rights, the British government declares the islands a marine reserve and closed to human habitation. Except of course for the 5000 people on the base at Diego Garcia. A base responsible for four major jet fuel spills, introducing extremely invasive alien species to the local environment, low grade nuclear radiation leaks and disruption to marine life by sonar operations.
From Wikileaks –
Friday, 15 May 2009, 07:00
C O N F I D E N T I A L LONDON 001156
NOFORN
SIPDIS
EO 12958 DECL: 05/13/2029
TAGS MARR, MOPS, SENV, UK, IO”>IO”>IO, MP, EFIS, EWWT, PGOV, PREL
SUBJECT: HMG FLOATS PROPOSAL FOR MARINE RESERVE COVERING
THE CHAGOS ARCHIPELAGO (BRITISH INDIAN OCEAN TERRITORY)
REF: 08 LONDON 2667 (NOTAL)
Classified By: Political Counselor Richard Mills for reasons 1.4 b and d
7. (C/NF) Roberts acknowledged that “we need to find a way to get through the various Chagossian lobbies.” He admitted that HMG is “under pressure” from the Chagossians and their advocates to permit resettlement of the “outer islands” of the BIOT. He noted, without providing details, that “there are proposals (for a marine park) that could provide the Chagossians warden jobs” within the BIOT. However, Roberts stated that, according to the HGM,s current thinking on a reserve, there would be “no human footprints” or “Man Fridays” on the BIOT’s uninhabited islands. He asserted that establishing a marine park would, in effect, put paid to resettlement claims of the archipelago’s former residents. Responding to Polcouns’ observation that the advocates of Chagossian resettlement continue to vigorously press their case, Roberts opined that the UK’s “environmental lobby is far more powerful than the Chagossians’ advocates.” (Note: One group of Chagossian litigants is appealing to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) the decision of Britain’s highest court to deny “resettlement rights” to the islands’ former inhabitants. See below at paragraph 13 and reftel. End Note.)
Je Ne Regrette Rien
——————-
8. (C/NF) Roberts observed that BIOT has “served its role very well,” advancing shared U.S.-UK strategic security objectives for the past several decades. The BIOT “has had a great role in assuring the security of the UK and U.S. — much more than anyone foresaw” in the 1960s, Roberts emphasized. “We do not regret the removal of the population,” since removal was necessary for the BIOT to fulfill its strategic purpose, he said. Removal of the population is the reason that the BIOT’s uninhabited islands and the surrounding waters are in “pristine” condition. Roberts added that Diego Garcia’s excellent condition reflects the responsible stewardship of the U.S. and UK forces using it.
^^^ This cable is dated May 2009.
A fear that the the Falklands could be the next Chagos probably only toughens the islanders stance.
If Buitreaux’s post on page 2 is accurate, there is simply no comparing the Falklanders’ lives in a hypothetical dual citizenship with the blow Britain dealt to the native of the Chagos Islands.
I disagree I think many people see the Falklands as a colony occupied by the UK, whereas its a self governing entity which looks to britain for protection an “independant” falklands would not make one iota of difference. Explaining that we can only act on behalf and not for the islands may well dispell other countries concern.
That assumes that the countries in the region are misinformed or ignorant. They are neither. They’ve merely to decided to follow the beaten path of pragmatism (a path beaten out by the UK and others) and back their neighbor in a dispute with an outsider, a former colonial power.
If anything, Britain should have made as much of an effort towards bringing the residents of the Falklands to the negotiating table.
VnomadTo do ELINT , you need something a little bit better than a RWR , you need a whole system capable to do a proper EM mapping and you want the system to tell the other aircraft ‘s systems what ‘s going on and to tell them to act accordingly .
Seeing as most of this is a function of the software employed, you know the EF doesn’t do this, how?
This is called EMCON (EMission CONtrol) and is only used so far (AFAIK) by the F-22 and the Rafale . It is a part of the low obvservable concept by the way .
DASS does NOT do that .
Dedicated ELINT aircraft have around for decades. Seeing as ‘EMCON (EMission CONtrol)’ is a relatively modern concept (one that I was given to understand the EF employs as well), were they not true ELINT aircraft?
I said that Spectra had twice the range of DASS (the numbers are from both official sites and should be well known by now) but Spectra also cover twice the bandwidth range of DASS (80MHz-40GHz for Spectra , 100MHz-18GHz for DASS) . If one wants to go into technical “details” (!) like instantaneous measurements of multiple frequencies simultaneously , one will learn that Spectra is also way ahead by around 40% .
One, how reliable in your own opinion (nevermind everyone else’s) are sources describing the DASS’ frequencies.
Two, how is the range of the system independent of the power of the emitter?
Three, in your opinion have the recent upgrades to the DASS left the equation unchanged?
Now , if we start talking about jamming techniques and how those are generated to evade , fool or hide from the adverse emiter(s) , Spectra could teach a couple of nice things to DASS
Both companies have been sharing classified information with you?
I say again , DASS is very good self-defense system designed to warn the fighter as a safe distance from the threat(s) and to protect it at close range , the towed decoys being the “incarnation” of DASS as the last EM active line of defense (shaffs being the last passive defense) .
I’m fairly certain criticism goes down a lot better than condescension. Unless that’s what you were going for. :shakes head:
VnomadDASS managed to tell pilots that there was a SAM site active in the vicinity, and even gave a bearing. WOW.
Cause that’s all this quote says. Anything you’d guess from that would just be speculation.
Nic
The wow factor is immaterial. The point is the box next to the ELINT function on the chart needs a tick in it.
VnomadHey, does that mean that Argentina should give up the piece of Tierra del Fuego? I mean it’s closer to Chile after all.
But that would also mean that the Falklands would then be closer to Chile.
Now you’re nitpicking.
VnomadThe argument I’ve been trying to make so far, which has either been misinterpreted or misunderstood is this –
The UK has been satisfied with opting for convenient choices over idealistic ones for decades if not centuries, including but far from limited to the depopulation of the Chagos Islands. It is a part of a club of countries that enjoy sole rights a few things today, like nuclear weapons and a veto in the UNSC. And its indicated a willingness to use force to ensure that those rights remain an exclusive preserve of this select group of countries. Rights that were granted for no other reason than the fact that it was a powerful country.
This isn’t a criticism of Britain, its just an illustration of the fact that it is no stranger to realpolitik. And it would not be uncharacteristic of the country to opt for a pragmatic solution to the dispute rather than chase after moral high ground.
This is also why Mr Cameron’s dispatch of diplomatic delegations to South American capitals to ‘explain its position’ is probably a wasted effort, because there is no misunderstanding involved, on their part.
VnomadSo what is the basis for Argentina claiming it?
Because it is close by? That’s a pretty weak claim, to put mildly.
I’ll repeat the answer I gave j_jza80 – “Closer than the UK, but yes. Granted. So neither country has any real justifiable claim to the islands (at least no more than the US has to the moon). Which is why I propose using it as a bargaining chip, which the UK can grant to Argentina in return for concessions during negotiations – as long as well… negotiations take place.”
VnomadNo, what was said in articles about the typhoon was that DASS allowed it to detect SAM sites that had been repaired in order to enable to strike them later. It wasn’t said whether the Typhoons did said strikes, and it is very likely that they were performed by Tornados or Rafales.
There was never any mention of a Typhoon striking a SAM site.
Nic
It doesn’t say that the SAM sites were struck later. Regardless, the point is DASS was employed, and employed in an ELINT role.
VnomadYou seem to be forgetting historical precedent.
If you discover it, claim it, and populate it… it’s yours.
But they’re not populated. A few flag bearers aside there is no permanent population on the islands let alone a native one.
VnomadThe problem with your proposals re South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands is multi-faceted.
1) Argentina has even less claim on them than it does on the Falklands.
2) They are nearly 900 miles further East, or more than 1,300 miles away from the closest point on the Argentine coast (this is the distance from London to Minsk). Port Stanley is 450 miles from the closest point in Argentina, equivalent to the distance between London and Berne. The proximity to Argentina is exaggerated, in other words.
With regard to 1 & 2, I’m proposing that Britain use it as a bargaining chip i.e. to be bartered not conceded. Given its (mostly non-existent) history, I doubt if the UK would hold the islands with the same determination to protect as it does the Falklands.
3) Their possession would give Argentina increased rights to Antarctica and mineral and fishing rights in their territorial waters. It would effectively reward Argentina for its aggression and hostility.
I doubt if anybody has any real right to territory on Antarctica (the UK isn’t even in the same hemisphere). With regard to mineral and fishing rights, unlike disputes in the South China Sea, Persian Gulf, North Sea or the Mediterranean, these islands are quite literally in the middle of nowhere. It has limited tangible value disjunct from South America.
Vnomad@Vnomad: DASS currently doens’t do ELINT,
In Libya, it was apparently able to target SAM sites for destruction by tracing their emissions. That’s enough for it to be declared capable of performing ELINT operations.
and while Reccelite is operational on Tornados, it isn’t on the EFT yet.
The Topsight/Gerfaut isn’t operational on the Rafale, yet most French posters here insistent that the capability is very much available.
MICA is the BVR weapon of the Rafale and is given at ~100km max range on the AdA website. While it might not be as capable at that distance as the new AMRAM’s variants, it’ll still be the BVR weapon of choice of the Rafale until METEOR is available. Its agility and dual seeker head makes it “comparable” with other BVR weapons including the AMRAM even if it doesn’t share its max range. Otherwise following your reasoning one should not compare AMRAM with Russian BVR missiles which usually have far longer ranges.
I wasn’t attempting to compare anything. My point was that the chart posted was incorrect – if a capability existed, it should have been reflected on it, regardless of how well it compared with the equivalent system on the Rafale.
EDIT: PS: RecceLite is a tactical reconnaissance system, while the RecoNG is a strategic reconnaissance system as well as tactical…
Please elaborate.
AFAIK the original comparison goes – the chart posted made no clarifications about the strategic and tactical purposes of the system.
Sign In
