I would like to know which Tu-95 features are included.

The pilot?

A lot of the problems on the board stems from a quirk of the human ego.

The quirk goes like this…If one widget is proclaimed to be good, all others must be bad. If the “good widget” is made elsewhere, then that implies my country and its population (which did not make the “good” widget) must be “losers”.

That, of course, ignores the existence of equally valid but different design solutions to solve the same problem whether it be keeping one’s country safe from aerial attack or putting bombs on target.

Superb post.

The gross lack of !!

Not the lack of it but the political will to spend any on defence.

I don’t see why this is a story or why the US are or seem offended by it. I’ve got pictures of RAF Nimrods flying within a few hundred feet of Soviet ships in the North Sea during the last Cold War (sic). We are not at war with Russia and these are international waters.

US defence officials said they did not consider the Russian bomber flight a threat or concern.

Ah. There you go. Its not really a story is it?

Hello Matt you make some good ponts there and some good questions that I am not qualified to answer but for the target list. This question is quite well answered in some of the preceeding posts with most of the targets being bases in the south of the country. I think it is likely that mainland targets would be struck by the British, attempts were made in 1982 with (allegedely) special forces but they failed. This time I think that Tom would be used against C&C/aviation/naval targets in Patagonia. I also think that if a British reinforcement is successful they would launch an air offensive against military targets on the mainland using PGMs or conducting counter air operations with the aim of engaging the FAA over their own territory rather than ours.

Interestingly and I suprise myself that we didn’t think about this earlier, with regard to any potential British threat to BA. The effect that Vulcan bombers had in 1982 was to draw the FAA interceptor force away from the theatre of operations. The RN SSNs also kept the Argentine fleet in port but they did not give up the islands until the British ground troops were surrounding Stanley and the Argentine forces were completely cut off from their supply bases. I think this helps to illustrates the folly of withdrawing the British garrison, a lot of people think that the war in 1982 was a cake walk. Some think that the Argentine troops gave up easily and this is quite frankly BS. The war was very hard fought and their feeling for the islands rightly or wrongly are very strong. I disagree with the sentiment, I don’t think that the Falklands rightly belong to Argentina any more than I believe Chile does or the Faroe Islands belong to the UK because they are closer to us than they are to Denmark but the sentiment remains and as long as it does we have to show our intent with boots on the ground. It was a perception of weakness and lack of British interest that led to the war in 1982 and that would lead us to another Falklands war in 20xx.

Depends on the warning time you get. There is always a hunter killer SSN within a few days sailing of the Falklands. Satalite technology is far more advanced and extensive than in 1982, we’d notice the build up weeks or even months before it set sail.

In 1982 only a handful of Royal Marines fought hard because it was bad form not to; but in the face of the force they took on, with no chance of reinforcement, they had no option but to call it a day before they started dying, it would have been pointless.

Today you have the part time Falkland Islands Defence Force. Small but well equipped, well trained and understandably very well motivated. Added to them are something like 1000+ full time ground troops with access to artillery, light armour, a good communications net/surveilance net and air support. With a similar force used by Argentina in 1982 this would be a very different prospect for any invader 400 miles from home ground, no forgone conclusion this time but a sure fire bet that it is going to be very costly. And all this assuming that the British did not get wind of the invasion in time to at least get an SSN or two in to start the maritime interdiction.

I really do think that with a garrison in place war can be averted. Without it, whatever the threat to the Argentine military machine from standoff weapons. The Falklands are not an insubstantial lump of barren rock, that has already been noted, they are about the size of Connecticut with huge potential. If Argentina think for one second they can take and hold the islands they’d do it in a heartbeat. The garrison should stay.

I wholeheartedely agree with Swerve on this. Argentina will be far less likely to try another invasion if they know they will have to fight hard for them. In 1982 there were very few civilian deaths on the islands, a few allegations about ill treatment but the only deaths were accidental and by British artillery fire. So if they are going all out make sure your people remain unharmed what gives you the right to attack their civilians? And if you do attack their civilian population what do you think they will do to the civilian population of the Falklands after they have conducted their unopposed invasion? I realy don’t think you have thought this out.

In the long term Argentina may try another invasion but this remains unlikely so long as there is a robust garrison, including a small tactical airforce. In the very long term the Falkland Islanders and the government in Buenos Aires may bury the hatchet and come to some mutually amicable agreement but their sovereignty will need to be sponsored until that time. Another possibility is that in the face of rising oil prices the UK may decide to roll the dice and go all out for oil exploration. If this gamble pays off it will do so in a big way and stationing a garrison that can properly defend the islands there now ould be regarded as a small price to pay.

Swerve has explained the folly of your argument beautifully and Argentine members will have every right to be offended that you value the life of a citizen of Argentina so cheaply. Think about it.