It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Argentine Threat Over Falkland Islands Oil Operations
page: 5share:
Hi, first time writing in the forum, I just read the post but never post, but this threat is about the place where I live, Argentina. (so, sorry for
my English).
Regarding to this threat:
1. Spect a diplomatic reaction if Great Britain tries to extrac oil, It´s like we send some argies to SeaLand and they try to extrac oil nearby, GB will blow up the platform because they have an army but Argentina don´t, so we send a diplomatic message.
2. As another memeber of the forum saids, don´t spect a retaliation, we don´t have an army as already said. You have to thanks our goverment for that.
3. There are two more islands in dispute, "South Orkney Islands" and "South Shetland Islands" those to were claimed by Chile too and the South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands are part of the claim. I think, -correct me if I´m wrong-, this thing goes beyond the oil, because the antartica has more oil (Conspiracy Mode ON) and GB wants to have a pice of antartica and needs territories near the Antartica to claim a bigger part of it. (The Antartic´s rights is for "scientific exploration" not for oil extraction, by now, just wait).
4. Another member said something about the elections, yes that´s true the elections are near, two year more, so spect more "Diplomatic claims" in the coming years. Argentina lost the island by the force and our goverment try re-gain the territory by the diplomacy way. (Check point 2)
The Brit goverment wants a portion of the antartica, we already know who can claim those portions of iced soil, you need to be near of it or the first in put a flag on it (Norway - Carl Anton Larsen) so GB is not on the equation, at least, I repet, if you have a near terriorty and those are the "Falklands".
My opinion.
(Sorry for my weird-english, again)
Regards
Regarding to this threat:
1. Spect a diplomatic reaction if Great Britain tries to extrac oil, It´s like we send some argies to SeaLand and they try to extrac oil nearby, GB will blow up the platform because they have an army but Argentina don´t, so we send a diplomatic message.
2. As another memeber of the forum saids, don´t spect a retaliation, we don´t have an army as already said. You have to thanks our goverment for that.
3. There are two more islands in dispute, "South Orkney Islands" and "South Shetland Islands" those to were claimed by Chile too and the South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands are part of the claim. I think, -correct me if I´m wrong-, this thing goes beyond the oil, because the antartica has more oil (Conspiracy Mode ON) and GB wants to have a pice of antartica and needs territories near the Antartica to claim a bigger part of it. (The Antartic´s rights is for "scientific exploration" not for oil extraction, by now, just wait).
4. Another member said something about the elections, yes that´s true the elections are near, two year more, so spect more "Diplomatic claims" in the coming years. Argentina lost the island by the force and our goverment try re-gain the territory by the diplomacy way. (Check point 2)
The Brit goverment wants a portion of the antartica, we already know who can claim those portions of iced soil, you need to be near of it or the first in put a flag on it (Norway - Carl Anton Larsen) so GB is not on the equation, at least, I repet, if you have a near terriorty and those are the "Falklands".
My opinion.
(Sorry for my weird-english, again)
Regards
edit on 3-12-2013 by adionesis because: (no reason given)
edit on 3-12-2013 by adionesis because: (no reason given)
reply to post by adionesis
Welcome - no need to apologise for your English, it's a damn sight better than my Spanish.
It's always good and refreshing to get an Argentinian's perspective on this subject.
I think we all know there will not be another military confrontation over sovereignty of The Falklands, and that is a good thing for both the British and Argentinian people.
Far too many, from both nations, died in the last conflict - it's always the people who suffer whilst politicians play their games of power and intrigue from behind their desks and the comfort of their offices.
The UK will never surrender sovereignty when the Islanders themselves want to remain a part of the UK.
Any political party or politician doing so would be committing political suicide, especially in light of the almost unanimous vote by the Islanders to remain as a British Overseas Territory.
The Right To Self-Determination is an integral part of the United Nations Charter.
By treating the result of the recent referendum with total disregard and disdain Kirchner is in danger of almost completely alienating herself, and by extension Argentina, on the international stage.
The United Kingdom had no legal or moral obligation to offer Argentina any share in the development and profit from the disputed oil fields.
The fact that it did so can only be viewed as a conciliatory offer - that it was probably motivated by practicalities is really irrelevant.
In addition to the extraction of the oil profit would have been increased by the presence of an oil refinery on mainland Argentina.
The extraction, operation, upkeep and exportation of this oil would have provided many jobs for the Argentinian people and would have been a massive boost to it's economy.
The development of a South Atlantic oil industry would also have forged closer links between the UK, Argentina and the Falkland Islanders themselves.
Who knows where and how that relationship would then develop?
Why did Kirchner decline such an opportunity that had such obvious benefits for Argentina in favour of her continued antagonising and provocation in the UN and anywhere else she deems fit?
As you correctly point out, Antarctica is the ultimate target - mineral rich and completely undeveloped.
To have a claim on Antarctica, purely for scientific reasons at present but we all know that once resources become scarce that could very well change, a nation must have a land mass directly adjacent Antarctica itself.
Due to the curvature of the earth Argentina currently hasn't got this - The Falklands provide it.
The UK being wily, experienced players of international diplomacy separated The Falkland Islands and South Georgia in 1985 into two distinct areas.
In the highly unlikely event that the UK loses sovereignty of The Falkland Islands it still has a claim to a part of Antarctica due to it's 'posession' of South Georgia and The South Sandwich Islands. (Argentina's claims to these is even more tenuous than it's claim to The Falklands).
Kirchner is using classic deflection tactics by trying to switch attention away from the economic situation in Argentina. Allied to this is her desire to promote herself and her reputation on the international stage. She is putting her own self-interest before the well being and best interests of the Argentinian people - it borders on the criminal.
I genuinely feel nothing but sympathy for the Argentinian people who again are suffering most.
Hi, first time writing in the forum, I just read the post but never post, but this threat is about the place where I live, Argentina. (so, sorry for my English).
Welcome - no need to apologise for your English, it's a damn sight better than my Spanish.
It's always good and refreshing to get an Argentinian's perspective on this subject.
I think we all know there will not be another military confrontation over sovereignty of The Falklands, and that is a good thing for both the British and Argentinian people.
Far too many, from both nations, died in the last conflict - it's always the people who suffer whilst politicians play their games of power and intrigue from behind their desks and the comfort of their offices.
The UK will never surrender sovereignty when the Islanders themselves want to remain a part of the UK.
Any political party or politician doing so would be committing political suicide, especially in light of the almost unanimous vote by the Islanders to remain as a British Overseas Territory.
The Right To Self-Determination is an integral part of the United Nations Charter.
By treating the result of the recent referendum with total disregard and disdain Kirchner is in danger of almost completely alienating herself, and by extension Argentina, on the international stage.
The United Kingdom had no legal or moral obligation to offer Argentina any share in the development and profit from the disputed oil fields.
The fact that it did so can only be viewed as a conciliatory offer - that it was probably motivated by practicalities is really irrelevant.
In addition to the extraction of the oil profit would have been increased by the presence of an oil refinery on mainland Argentina.
The extraction, operation, upkeep and exportation of this oil would have provided many jobs for the Argentinian people and would have been a massive boost to it's economy.
The development of a South Atlantic oil industry would also have forged closer links between the UK, Argentina and the Falkland Islanders themselves.
Who knows where and how that relationship would then develop?
Why did Kirchner decline such an opportunity that had such obvious benefits for Argentina in favour of her continued antagonising and provocation in the UN and anywhere else she deems fit?
As you correctly point out, Antarctica is the ultimate target - mineral rich and completely undeveloped.
To have a claim on Antarctica, purely for scientific reasons at present but we all know that once resources become scarce that could very well change, a nation must have a land mass directly adjacent Antarctica itself.
Due to the curvature of the earth Argentina currently hasn't got this - The Falklands provide it.
The UK being wily, experienced players of international diplomacy separated The Falkland Islands and South Georgia in 1985 into two distinct areas.
In the highly unlikely event that the UK loses sovereignty of The Falkland Islands it still has a claim to a part of Antarctica due to it's 'posession' of South Georgia and The South Sandwich Islands. (Argentina's claims to these is even more tenuous than it's claim to The Falklands).
Kirchner is using classic deflection tactics by trying to switch attention away from the economic situation in Argentina. Allied to this is her desire to promote herself and her reputation on the international stage. She is putting her own self-interest before the well being and best interests of the Argentinian people - it borders on the criminal.
I genuinely feel nothing but sympathy for the Argentinian people who again are suffering most.
laytheovers
i find very amusing the reference to the so called UK Trident missiles and the like when in fact even publicly your own Parliament in 2006 debated whether you had the capability of an independent nuclear deterrent.. ie would be able to use the Tridents in a scenario where the US would oppose such action.
www.publications.parliament.uk...
now if you can think of any scenario where it would be acceptable from the US for the red coats lobbing nukes in the western hemisphere .. oh well.. yeah maybe if aliens invaded or something similar.
i guess it will take you a couple of more centuries to really comprehend what happened to the empire
I believe the Trident idea has been firmly put to bed.
This is nothing to do with empires, this is about self determination. The Falkland Islander voted overwhelmingly to remain a British Overseas Territory. Bullying by the Argentine government isn't going to change the islanders mind.
spartacus699
seems like they always make the biggest deals out of the smallest places.
I think the Brits say "making mountains out of molehills" as regards nukes, its a pity the Brits did not sink all the Argies navy while at anchor in the naval base, that would have been a constant reminder not to mess with the British, a small tactical nuke on the sea bed would have sufficed to sink everything afloat. Just my thoughts.
reply to post by pikestaff
pretty sure nukes are banned by treaty in the south atlantic region so no chance of a nuke unless someone based in the region decides to play global thermonuclear warfare
pretty sure nukes are banned by treaty in the south atlantic region so no chance of a nuke unless someone based in the region decides to play global thermonuclear warfare
Maxatoria
reply to post by pikestaff
pretty sure nukes are banned by treaty in the south atlantic region so no chance of a nuke unless someone based in the region decides to play global thermonuclear warfare
This is significant news. Have u a link of sorts by any chance.
need to know, how this treaty came about.
Maxatoria
reply to post by pikestaff
pretty sure nukes are banned by treaty in the south atlantic region so no chance of a nuke unless someone based in the region decides to play global thermonuclear warfare
I believe that it's also against the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to use nuclear weapons against a country that doesn't possess them.
reply to post by Gary29
.....or the seabed.
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
There is only the remotest chance of a conventional military confrontation occurring between the UK and Argentina so I'd say there's even less a chance that some sort of nuclear attack will occur......in the foreseeable future.
.....or the seabed.
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
There is only the remotest chance of a conventional military confrontation occurring between the UK and Argentina so I'd say there's even less a chance that some sort of nuclear attack will occur......in the foreseeable future.
reply to post by Angelic Resurrection
ah found it Treaty of Tlatelolco
Under the treaty, the states parties agree to prohibit and prevent the "testing, use, manufacture, production or acquisition by any means whatsoever of any nuclear weapons" and the "receipt, storage, installation, deployment and any form of possession of any nuclear weapons."
There are two additional protocols to the treaty: Protocol I binds those overseas countries with territories in the region (the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and the Netherlands) to the terms of the treaty. Protocol II requires the world's declared nuclear weapons states to refrain from undermining in any way the nuclear-free status of the region; it has been signed and ratified by the USA, the UK, France, China, and Russia.
The treaty also provides for a comprehensive control and verification mechanism, overseen by the Agency for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean (OPANAL), based in Mexico City.
ah found it Treaty of Tlatelolco
Under the treaty, the states parties agree to prohibit and prevent the "testing, use, manufacture, production or acquisition by any means whatsoever of any nuclear weapons" and the "receipt, storage, installation, deployment and any form of possession of any nuclear weapons."
There are two additional protocols to the treaty: Protocol I binds those overseas countries with territories in the region (the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and the Netherlands) to the terms of the treaty. Protocol II requires the world's declared nuclear weapons states to refrain from undermining in any way the nuclear-free status of the region; it has been signed and ratified by the USA, the UK, France, China, and Russia.
The treaty also provides for a comprehensive control and verification mechanism, overseen by the Agency for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean (OPANAL), based in Mexico City.
Freeborn
reply to post by adionesis
Hi, first time writing in the forum, I just read the post but never post, but this threat is about the place where I live, Argentina. (so, sorry for my English).
Welcome - no need to apologise for your English, it's a damn sight better than my Spanish.
It's always good and refreshing to get an Argentinian's perspective on this subject.
Hi again!, yes I´m totally agree with your point of view and I have to say, WE thru the first rock by invade the Falklands by the force in 1982 wich is WRONG. The military goverment, AGAIN try to deflects the economical problems by making a non-sense war with the un-necesary loss of live in both side. I´m really proud of our soldier as you should be proud of yours british soldiers, Respect for both.
About our actuall goverment, well each country has the goverment what deservers.
The Kirchner´s goverment take the Argentina out of the economic default in 2001 but 5 years later the first corrupcy case was exposed by the media, apart from steal all the money given by REPSOL (Spanish OIL company). I don´t want to go deep in the actuall goverment, because they are nuts. I hope some day have a president like Uruguay (Jose Mujica) a real revolutionary in many ways.
Regards
Gary29
The Falklands have been British since before Argentina existed. It is for the Falkland Islanders to decide if they want to remain British.
Actually, the first country in declare own territory the islands was France in 1724 (Louis Antoine de Bougainville). The Falklands were discovered by the spaniards in 1520 and then in 1560 John Davis, both explorers never set a colony, just the frenchs but in 1724.
GB takes the island in 1833 helped by US, 23 years later of the Argentinian independence (1810)
But if today the Islanders want to remain British, It´s ok for me, If I were in the Argentininan goverment I try a way more effective than diplomacy or war, economy is the key for me, GB is too far, Argentina is too close, and came up to my mind a question, how much it´s cost a product in the Falklands compare to the UK?
Argentina already have a lot of oil in mainland and BTW
"We don´t have weapons of mass destruction. I repeat, We don´t have weapons of mass destruction"
Regards
adionesis
Actually, the first country in declare own territory the islands was France in 1724 (Louis Antoine de Bougainville). The Falklands were discovered by the spaniards in 1520 and then in 1560 John Davis, both explorers never set a colony, just the frenchs but in 1724.
GB takes the island in 1833 helped by US, 23 years later of the Argentinian independence (1810)
You're kind of taking a revisionist angle there and missing out several decades worth of history and, it seems, changing some facts to suit your argument. The French settled their colony on East Falkland in 1764 and the British settled West Falkland in 1766. France relinquished "rights" to the Spanish in 1767 and the Spanish captured the British settlement in 1770 - which was then handed back when threats of War followed.
The British colony was abandoned in 1774 (with the Spanish doing the same in 1811) but the British left a plaque in place to assert their claims to the island, having never relinquished them, so our claim DOES pre date the founding of Argentina.
What you also fail to mention is that, at the time, Argentina only occupied the River Plate area and it's nearest border with the Falklands was over 1000 Km away. It's only after the Argentine colonists (I highlight the word to point out the blatant hypocrisy) massacred their way south through Native lands did they actually get "close" to the Falklands.
adionesis
But if today the Islanders want to remain British, It´s ok for me, If I were in the Argentininan goverment I try a way more effective than diplomacy or war, economy is the key for me, GB is too far, Argentina is too close, and came up to my mind a question, how much it´s cost a product in the Falklands compare to the UK?
I am glad you see it that way. As for the cost of "products", as I understand it, it isn't too much more than in the UK, with the military presence being enough to justify the large scale import of "products".
There is certainly a premium, but not prohibitive, for example a bottle of "mid range" Wine is around £10 - in the UK you're looking at around £5-8 for a half-decent bottle. Cigarettes are slightly dearer than the UK, but we have high prices anyway,
Food stuffs, such as fruit and veg, carry a small premium but again, not a great deal more than the mainland - Apples cost around £1.50-£2 a kilo, but meats care actually quite a bit cheaper it seems at around £4 for a Kg of Chicken breast, when that can cost £5-6 in the UK.
Anyhoo, I could go on, but the point is they obviously find life quite amenable down there and being part of the UK is what they want.
edit on 5/12/13 by stumason because: (no reason given)
reply to post by Maxatoria
I think any discussion relating to us using Nukes on Argentina is ridiculous. We strictly have a "deterrent", not an offensive nuclear force. Any Vanguard Commander worth his commission would refuse such an order unless we were struck first and the PM that suggested it should be arrested by his Generals for War Crimes.
As for the quip someone made about us not being able to launch any without US "approval", such bollocks.
While the US does control the maintenance of the missiles themselves, simply owing to us buying into their "pool" of Tridents which the USN uses as well, they have no operational control over them.
The actual loading of the weapons onto the missiles is controlled by the UK, as is their use with the US completely unable to interfere with that process - specifically because if the US command structure was compromised in a Nuclear War, the UK could still respond in kind without having to wait on someone in Washington finding the whoever is left in charge after a first strike.
In fact, UK submarine commanders require no authorisation to launch their payloads, unlike the US who require specific codes to be used before they can be deployed.
I think any discussion relating to us using Nukes on Argentina is ridiculous. We strictly have a "deterrent", not an offensive nuclear force. Any Vanguard Commander worth his commission would refuse such an order unless we were struck first and the PM that suggested it should be arrested by his Generals for War Crimes.
As for the quip someone made about us not being able to launch any without US "approval", such bollocks.
While the US does control the maintenance of the missiles themselves, simply owing to us buying into their "pool" of Tridents which the USN uses as well, they have no operational control over them.
The actual loading of the weapons onto the missiles is controlled by the UK, as is their use with the US completely unable to interfere with that process - specifically because if the US command structure was compromised in a Nuclear War, the UK could still respond in kind without having to wait on someone in Washington finding the whoever is left in charge after a first strike.
In fact, UK submarine commanders require no authorisation to launch their payloads, unlike the US who require specific codes to be used before they can be deployed.
reply to post by stumason
so your argument is that despite the fact that this particular hardware was designed by US, its maintained by US, its crucially dependent on technologies the US controls exclusively (hello GPS hello...), you, the UK maintain a full control over its use because you control the loading.. hahaha ok mate.. fair enough, makes perfect sense..
just so in case you have a chance to respond in kind in case the command structure was compromised in US in the event of a thermonuclear war... as if your first priority in such an incident would be to retaliate... not to find some hole to crawl into.. ok mate its bollocks.. but dont tell me tell your parliament they are the ones that held this debate if you bothered having a look at the link i quoted.
by the way obviously in every other parliament of a nuclear power they have sat there plenty of times and seriously debated if they can or not control their "own" nuclear weapons.. the Russians, the Chinese, the French, the Indians they all have this debate at least once a month.. NOT !!
so your argument is that despite the fact that this particular hardware was designed by US, its maintained by US, its crucially dependent on technologies the US controls exclusively (hello GPS hello...), you, the UK maintain a full control over its use because you control the loading.. hahaha ok mate.. fair enough, makes perfect sense..
just so in case you have a chance to respond in kind in case the command structure was compromised in US in the event of a thermonuclear war... as if your first priority in such an incident would be to retaliate... not to find some hole to crawl into.. ok mate its bollocks.. but dont tell me tell your parliament they are the ones that held this debate if you bothered having a look at the link i quoted.
by the way obviously in every other parliament of a nuclear power they have sat there plenty of times and seriously debated if they can or not control their "own" nuclear weapons.. the Russians, the Chinese, the French, the Indians they all have this debate at least once a month.. NOT !!
laytheovers
so your argument is that despite the fact that this particular hardware was designed by US, its maintained by US, its crucially dependent on technologies the US controls exclusively (hello GPS hello...), you, the UK maintain a full control over its use because you control the loading.. hahaha ok mate.. fair enough, makes perfect sense..
Trident doesn't use GPS, you twonk - shows what you know! It's inertailly guided with a syustem that maps the stars... GPS, hehehehe...
It is, however, totally irrelevant about who owns, maintains or even polishes the missiles, once they are loaded into the Submarines in Virginia, the Yanks have no control. They don't have a special button to stop our launches and we don't have to ring up Obama for permission.
The onus is on you to prove your claim and you cannot, because it is simply not true.
laytheovers
just so in case you have a chance to respond in kind in case the command structure was compromised in US in the event of a thermonuclear war... as if your first priority in such an incident would be to retaliate... not to find some hole to crawl into.. ok mate its bollocks.. but dont tell me tell your parliament they are the ones that held this debate if you bothered having a look at the link i quoted.
As a member of NATO, if a member country is attacked we are obliged to respond. As for the Parliamentary debate, you're twisting it to fit your viewpoint. The debate you're clinging too wasn't over operational control, but rather whether we should build and maintain the missiles ourselves for complete independence of the system should the Yanks decide to not share their fireworks with us.
laytheovers
by the way obviously in every other parliament of a nuclear power they have sat there plenty of times and seriously debated if they can or not control their "own" nuclear weapons.. the Russians, the Chinese, the French, the Indians they all have this debate at least once a month.. NOT !!
They don't have this debate because none of them has such a relationship with another Nuclear power like we do. Right from the inception of Nuclear weapons, the UK and US have worked extremely closely - the US wouldn't even have them without the UK. It's worth noting that out of those 4 nuclear powers, only two operate SSBN's as the others don't even have the tech - the Chinese have only just got a fully fledged ICBM and even then, its still undergoing testing.
You probably don't know this, but back in the 50's and 60's, we were world leaders in Rocket tech, but our tree-loving, left-wing Labour Government of the time cancelled the project in favour of going for Polaris with the Yanks. It's not like we cannot do rockets and could do so again.
reply to post by stumason
"Trident doesn't use GPS, you twonk - shows what you know! It's inertailly guided with a syustem that maps the stars... "
so you understand the concept of Celestial Guidance more or less as i don't have to know where i am, i don't have to know where the missile is heading to, the missile will not need any feedback on its course as to correct its route as long as i just shoot the thing, i don't know towards Alpha Centauri or whatever, and then since its tracking the stars it will spin off a couple of times and eventually will find say Buenos Aires.. Trident camera is tracking ONE star mate, a single star.. google that if you want, its even in the Wikipedia.. good luck with finding Buenos Aires with your only reference point being Alpha Centauri.. unlike the two dimensional maps of the long gone British Empire its a three dimensional world we live into
and the vanguard itself, how would it navigate itself in a GPS/ESGN denied environment ? well you can always track the stars with the vanguard too like the trident i suppose.. surface, pull out the sextant.. sorted !
"once they are loaded into the Submarines in Virginia, the Yanks have no control."
the same submarines that run on windows 2000 yeah ? nope noone has any control over them whatsoever except Her Royal Majesty Herself.. google the articles on "windows for warships" too if you are interested somewhere around 2005.. that was fun too.
"As a member of NATO, if a member country is attacked we are obliged to respond"
obviously, those 50 odd Tridents the US gave you to parade would make a huge difference in the event of a fully blown out nuclear war.. with Russia and US possessing something around 7000 warheads right now who can afford to miss the 50 Tridents that navigate with the stars...all of them always stockpiled in Scotland by the way for completely irrelevant reasons..
"As for the Parliamentary debate, you're twisting it to fit your viewpoint"
i did not twist anything.. i said one simple thing.. look at what you are taking in your own House of Commons !
and since you talked about me clinging on one debate, here's a second one that took place one year after
www.publications.parliament.uk...
at this one it was said inside your own Parliament :
"The third reason why the UK should reconsider its approach to nuclear weapons is that they chain us into the role of US poodle. We acquire the weapons from the United States and we have to send them back to be repaired and serviced, so we can retain the weapons only if we are always on good terms with the US. That means that we do not have an independent foreign policy, as has been demonstrated so disastrously in Iraq. That has humiliated our country and helped to make the world more dangerous by dividing it more deeply and undermining international law."
Clare Short (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Ind Lab)
the role of the US poodle has being said !!! a poodle...whats for me to twist here ? these things are being said in your own Parliament!
"You probably don't know this, but back in the 50's and 60's, we were world leaders in Rocket tech, but our tree-loving, left-wing Labour Government of the time cancelled the project in favour of going for Polaris with the Yanks."
i knew that! i also know that (i still hate you) Maggie Thatcher ordered the Tridents
maybe you should look both sides of the political spectrum in the UK for reasons that you have been turned into US poodles ? tree-loving, left-wing Labour Government sounds a bit of over simplification to me..
"Trident doesn't use GPS, you twonk - shows what you know! It's inertailly guided with a syustem that maps the stars... "
so you understand the concept of Celestial Guidance more or less as i don't have to know where i am, i don't have to know where the missile is heading to, the missile will not need any feedback on its course as to correct its route as long as i just shoot the thing, i don't know towards Alpha Centauri or whatever, and then since its tracking the stars it will spin off a couple of times and eventually will find say Buenos Aires.. Trident camera is tracking ONE star mate, a single star.. google that if you want, its even in the Wikipedia.. good luck with finding Buenos Aires with your only reference point being Alpha Centauri.. unlike the two dimensional maps of the long gone British Empire its a three dimensional world we live into
and the vanguard itself, how would it navigate itself in a GPS/ESGN denied environment ? well you can always track the stars with the vanguard too like the trident i suppose.. surface, pull out the sextant.. sorted !
"once they are loaded into the Submarines in Virginia, the Yanks have no control."
the same submarines that run on windows 2000 yeah ? nope noone has any control over them whatsoever except Her Royal Majesty Herself.. google the articles on "windows for warships" too if you are interested somewhere around 2005.. that was fun too.
"As a member of NATO, if a member country is attacked we are obliged to respond"
obviously, those 50 odd Tridents the US gave you to parade would make a huge difference in the event of a fully blown out nuclear war.. with Russia and US possessing something around 7000 warheads right now who can afford to miss the 50 Tridents that navigate with the stars...all of them always stockpiled in Scotland by the way for completely irrelevant reasons..
"As for the Parliamentary debate, you're twisting it to fit your viewpoint"
i did not twist anything.. i said one simple thing.. look at what you are taking in your own House of Commons !
and since you talked about me clinging on one debate, here's a second one that took place one year after
www.publications.parliament.uk...
at this one it was said inside your own Parliament :
"The third reason why the UK should reconsider its approach to nuclear weapons is that they chain us into the role of US poodle. We acquire the weapons from the United States and we have to send them back to be repaired and serviced, so we can retain the weapons only if we are always on good terms with the US. That means that we do not have an independent foreign policy, as has been demonstrated so disastrously in Iraq. That has humiliated our country and helped to make the world more dangerous by dividing it more deeply and undermining international law."
Clare Short (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Ind Lab)
the role of the US poodle has being said !!! a poodle...whats for me to twist here ? these things are being said in your own Parliament!
"You probably don't know this, but back in the 50's and 60's, we were world leaders in Rocket tech, but our tree-loving, left-wing Labour Government of the time cancelled the project in favour of going for Polaris with the Yanks."
i knew that! i also know that (i still hate you) Maggie Thatcher ordered the Tridents
maybe you should look both sides of the political spectrum in the UK for reasons that you have been turned into US poodles ? tree-loving, left-wing Labour Government sounds a bit of over simplification to me..
God, that is a hard to read, wall of text.....
Anyhoo...
First of all, I am not sure why you think we would even use them - we wouldn't in a war with Argentina and I have stated that quite clearly earlier in the thread.
Secondly, the inertial guidance alone is quite good enough to get the missile on target - it's a Nuke, after all and doesn't require to be within a few square meters. As it happens, inertially guided missiles can expect to land within a hundred metres or so of the target.
Thirdly, you do waffle some without actually saying much. Why are you gabbling on about Alpha Centauri? There are a few more stars in the sky, you know....Quite a lot more as it happens..
Exactly - All Royal Navy Officers are taught basic navigation using tried and tested methods, so a sextant will suffice. Not to mention charts, sonar soundings, visual landmarks if close to shore etc etc... There was sailing before GPS and the Vanguards themselves were designed well before such systems.
You need to update you waffle, chap - First of all, the ships don't "run" on Windows, some of the workstations however have an OS based on Windows XP, but this depends on the supplier. BAe use the WIndows based software, whereas systems from Thales (who build sonar systems for the Astute for example) use a Linux based OS. I don't need to "google" this, I already know of it.
50 missiles, each with a minimum of 3 warheads (and some with more) can make a hell of a bad day for someone. How effective the response would be wasn't up for discussion though.
As for the Warheads, they aren't just "stockpiled" in Scotland - they are actually built and maintained about 10 minutes drive from where I am sat in Southern England. And the reasons for the placement of the Base at Faslane and RNAD Coulport,are not irrelevant - they are actually very strategic - again, showing your ignorance.
Again, the debate was about the production and maintenance of the missiles being tied to a foreign country, not about operational control.
Clare Short - a bit of an idiot if you ask me - is quite wrong to describe Trident as the "weapon". It is merely the delivery vehicle. The weapons themselves are entirely made and maintained within the UK @ AWE Aldermaston and AWE Burghfield.
Anyhoo, this is all going way off topic and I am not sure why you are keen to try and push home this non-point (and not very well, either)
EDIT: And you still have provided no proof that we are beholding to the US for the use of the missiles or our warheads, all you've done is tie yourself up in knots.
Anyhoo...
laytheovers
so you understand the concept of Celestial Guidance more or less as i don't have to know where i am, i don't have to know where the missile is heading to, the missile will not need any feedback on its course as to correct its route as long as i just shoot the thing, i don't know towards Alpha Centauri or whatever, and then since its tracking the stars it will spin off a couple of times and eventually will find say Buenos Aires.. Trident camera is tracking ONE star mate, a single star.. google that if you want, its even in the Wikipedia.. good luck with finding Buenos Aires with your only reference point being Alpha Centauri.. unlike the two dimensional maps of the long gone British Empire its a three dimensional world we live into
First of all, I am not sure why you think we would even use them - we wouldn't in a war with Argentina and I have stated that quite clearly earlier in the thread.
Secondly, the inertial guidance alone is quite good enough to get the missile on target - it's a Nuke, after all and doesn't require to be within a few square meters. As it happens, inertially guided missiles can expect to land within a hundred metres or so of the target.
Thirdly, you do waffle some without actually saying much. Why are you gabbling on about Alpha Centauri? There are a few more stars in the sky, you know....Quite a lot more as it happens..
laytheovers
and the vanguard itself, how would it navigate itself in a GPS/ESGN denied environment ? well you can always track the stars with the vanguard too like the trident i suppose.. surface, pull out the sextant.. sorted !
Exactly - All Royal Navy Officers are taught basic navigation using tried and tested methods, so a sextant will suffice. Not to mention charts, sonar soundings, visual landmarks if close to shore etc etc... There was sailing before GPS and the Vanguards themselves were designed well before such systems.
laytheovers
the same submarines that run on windows 2000 yeah ? nope noone has any control over them whatsoever except Her Royal Majesty Herself.. google the articles on "windows for warships" too if you are interested somewhere around 2005.. that was fun too.
You need to update you waffle, chap - First of all, the ships don't "run" on Windows, some of the workstations however have an OS based on Windows XP, but this depends on the supplier. BAe use the WIndows based software, whereas systems from Thales (who build sonar systems for the Astute for example) use a Linux based OS. I don't need to "google" this, I already know of it.
laytheovers
obviously, those 50 odd Tridents the US gave you to parade would make a huge difference in the event of a fully blown out nuclear war.. with Russia and US possessing something around 7000 warheads right now who can afford to miss the 50 Tridents that navigate with the stars...all of them always stockpiled in Scotland by the way for completely irrelevant reasons..
50 missiles, each with a minimum of 3 warheads (and some with more) can make a hell of a bad day for someone. How effective the response would be wasn't up for discussion though.
As for the Warheads, they aren't just "stockpiled" in Scotland - they are actually built and maintained about 10 minutes drive from where I am sat in Southern England. And the reasons for the placement of the Base at Faslane and RNAD Coulport,are not irrelevant - they are actually very strategic - again, showing your ignorance.
laytheovers
"As for the Parliamentary debate, you're twisting it to fit your viewpoint"
i did not twist anything.. i said one simple thing.. look at what you are taking in your own House of Commons !
and since you talked about me clinging on one debate, here's a second one that took place one year after
www.publications.parliament.uk...
Again, the debate was about the production and maintenance of the missiles being tied to a foreign country, not about operational control.
laytheovers
"The third reason why the UK should reconsider its approach to nuclear weapons is that they chain us into the role of US poodle. We acquire the weapons from the United States and we have to send them back to be repaired and serviced, so we can retain the weapons only if we are always on good terms with the US. That means that we do not have an independent foreign policy, as has been demonstrated so disastrously in Iraq. That has humiliated our country and helped to make the world more dangerous by dividing it more deeply and undermining international law."
Clare Short (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Ind Lab)
Clare Short - a bit of an idiot if you ask me - is quite wrong to describe Trident as the "weapon". It is merely the delivery vehicle. The weapons themselves are entirely made and maintained within the UK @ AWE Aldermaston and AWE Burghfield.
Anyhoo, this is all going way off topic and I am not sure why you are keen to try and push home this non-point (and not very well, either)
EDIT: And you still have provided no proof that we are beholding to the US for the use of the missiles or our warheads, all you've done is tie yourself up in knots.
edit on 6/12/13 by stumason because: (no reason given)
laytheovers
reply to post by stumason
so your argument is that despite the fact that this particular hardware was designed by US, its maintained by US, its crucially dependent on technologies the US controls exclusively (hello GPS hello...), you, the UK maintain a full control over its use because you control the loading.. hahaha ok mate.. fair enough, makes perfect sense..
just so in case you have a chance to respond in kind in case the command structure was compromised in US in the event of a thermonuclear war... as if your first priority in such an incident would be to retaliate... not to find some hole to crawl into.. ok mate its bollocks.. but dont tell me tell your parliament they are the ones that held this debate if you bothered having a look at the link i quoted.
by the way obviously in every other parliament of a nuclear power they have sat there plenty of times and seriously debated if they can or not control their "own" nuclear weapons.. the Russians, the Chinese, the French, the Indians they all have this debate at least once a month.. NOT !!
I take it that you are aware that the nuclear warheads are designed and manufactured in The UK?
Or does that not fit in with your argument?
en.wikipedia.org...
reply to post by alldaylong
Indeed, he seems to be hung up on the fact Parliament discussed "the weapons" when in reality they were just discussing the missiles.
Indeed, he seems to be hung up on the fact Parliament discussed "the weapons" when in reality they were just discussing the missiles.
I really should not have mentioned 'nuking' the argies navy, sorry, I hope in future to think before I type, as regards British rocket design, the
'blue streak' is still in use to-day, its the main stage of the Areiane rocket (spelling might not be correct) that is used by the European space
agency. the testing phase was better than the Atlas. (If I remember correctly).