North Korea News

[ssu]

Ah, well, shows how little you know, because Operation Black Buck wasn't targeting the Argentine troops, Black Buck raids were an attempt to render Stanley airfield out of action, so that's nothing like an Arclight Strike, Finnish Pogues be up in here trying to pretend that the Vulcan bombers came in to pound the Argies, Khe Sanh style, when in fact the British went out of their way to avoid bombing the Argies at all, because the British were hoping to resolve the conflict without having to fight, as it took the RN six weeks to get into position to do so.

The Americans of course, don't play like that, you get your chance to capitulate, when they issue their ultimatum, if you don't take the chance when they offer it, then it's punishment time, and since the Argies were sitting right there out in the open, with sufficient separation from the civilian population down the road in Stanley, they would be sitting ducks for an Arclight Strike, and thus rendered into Argie Burgers soon after.

I'm fully aware of what the objectives were. If you look at the chart that I gave, it says "Stanley airport". But go on with strawman arguments.

The idea of pounding into submission and surrender with a single flight of B-52's is simply an exaggeration.

Besides, basically all wars have shown that the idea of pounding the enemy into submission with only air power isn't the way how things are achieved. You at least have to have the threat of a ground force and the other side might accept that it withdraws.

The idea that just a bombing campaign would have made the Argies surrender is rather peculiar theorizing. Some threat could have made this way to go the Argentinians to withdraw, but surrender actually came only after some land combat.

When did an infantry guy come to be such an air power enthusiast?

[Smitty-48]

It's one pass; by the Americans, it's not one pass by any old country, the context all along has been; the Americans, once the Argentine chain of command realized that the Americans were going to in fact use significant force to back up their ultimatum, they would of course concede that any further resistance was pointless, they couldn't win, they would know that they couldn't win, and they would know that the Americans could and likely would; escalate hostilities to the Argentine mainland as necessary, and once the Argentine troops on the Island had got a taste of the Arclight, they would be desperately searching for someone to surrender to.


Americans v. Argentines, and the Argentines decide to go all Hanoi Hannah; defying the superpower to the point of bringing the hammer down on Buenos Aires, over the Falklands? No. Not a chance, not even a remote one, one pass by the B-52's would be all the Americans needed to make their point, in a way that the British never could have, and probably wouldn't have even if they could have.

[ssu]

It's one pass; by the Americans, it's not one pass by any old country, the context all along has been; the Americans, once the Argentine chain of command realized that the Americans were going to in fact use significant force to back up their ultimatum, they would of course concede that any further resistance was pointless, they couldn't win, they would know that they couldn't win, and they would know that the Americans could and likely would; escalate hostilities to the Argentine mainland as necessary, and once the Argentine troops on the Island had got a taste of the Arclight, they would be desperately searching for someone to surrender to.

That significant force isn't just a squadron of B-52s. The biggest force to make Argentina to think twice about trying to hold islands in the middle of the South Atlantic and away from mainland Argentina is The US Navy. That's the deterrent.


You know, the Falklands war is likely the only conflict of our time where rules of war were followed by both sides. Hence it's far more likely that Argentina, in the face of a war against a Superpower, would have simply withdrawn it's forces. And very likely this would have been given to them... assuming Falklands would be British, not American soil. The traditional "withdraw with you flag up". Likely Argentina wouldn't have losed face as everybody could understand the hopelessness of the situation. (Let's just remember how it actually went: the US dragged it's feet about the issue and was worried about it's relations with Latin America, before it sided with it's ally.)

The real reason for Argentina to go forward with the gamble was the weak state of the Royal Navy... or that it simply had focused on the Russian submarine threat. Looking at the next line of British Aircraft carriers, the lesson from the Falklands hasn't been forgotten. I would agree with one British Royal Navy commander that if the Royal Navy would still have had a flat top carrier with F-4 Phantoms, that would have been enough of a deterrence to stop the Argentinian Junta.

[Smitty-48]

When did an infantry guy come to be such an air power enthusiast?

I was an airpower enthusiast before I joined the infantry, but I am actually agnostic about the application of any particular spectrum of military force, it all depends on the situation, there are scenario's where airpower is not effective, in terms of strategic airpower, there are many misapplications, such as the attempt to prevent Vietnamese nationalist reunification by strategic bombing , but there are also scenarios where it would be effective, such as forcing the capitulation of the Argentines on the Falkland Islands without actually having to sail all the way down there and conduct an amphibious landing, now that, is a job for the B-52.

The scenario is not meant to be realistic, it's not a historical discussion of the Falkland Islands War, the point is, where lesser powers would have to deploy their navies for power projection, the Americans don't actually have to, they have so much global reach with airpower, the Navy is not even needed to conduct most operations, for power projection, the Americans don't actually bother with the Navy, there are no American naval battles, the Americans haven't had a naval battle, since 1945.

[ssu]

Americans v. Argentines, and the Argentines decide to go all Hanoi Hannah; defying the superpower to the point of bringing the hammer down on Buenos Aires, over the Falklands? No. Not a chance, not even a remote one, one pass by the B-52's would be all the Americans needed to make their point, in a way that the British never could have, and probably wouldn't have even if they could have.

Note that there would be a price to pay for America to bomb Buenos Aires. Would have been quite counterproductive as Argentina wasn't committed to the war at all costs. Bombing Buenos Aires might only get Argentina to go desperately to the Russians for help.

Similarly, that the British had their nuclear deterrent didn't matter. Anybody could understand that the British simply couldn't use nukes in this kind of case. Hence no deterrent.

Heck, even the British called it publicly off and stated that they wouldn't be attacking mainland Argentina. And especially not civilian targets. As I said, that war was a rare one as both sides did follow the international conventions. I haven't read anything about one or the other side doing warcrimes during the Falkland war.

What you are correct is that Argentina surely didn't have a mentality of "fight to the last man". After the sinking of General Belgrano, the Argentinian Navy withdrew. (Interestingly btw, the Argentinian navy did try to launch an air attack with it's carrier on the British fleet, but weather conditions (too calm) prevented it from doing that.)

[Smitty-48]

It's not really a discussion about the Falkland Islands War, ssu, you miss the point completely, as ND would say; kill ur self.

[ssu]

When did an infantry guy come to be such an air power enthusiast?

I was an airpower enthusiast before I joined the infantry, but I am actually agnostic about the application of any particular spectrum of military force, it all depends on the situation, there are scenario's where airpower is not effective, in terms of strategic airpower, there are many misapplications, such as the attempt to prevent Vietnamese nationalist reunification by strategic bombing , but there are also scenarios where it would be effective, such as forcing the capitulation of the Argentines on the Falkland Islands without actually having to sail all the way down there and conduct an amphibious landing, now that, is a job for the B-52.

The scenario is not meant to be realistic, it's not a historical discussion of the Falkland Islands War, the point is, where lesser powers would have to deploy their navies for power projection, the Americans don't actually have to, they have so much global reach with airpower, the Navy is not even needed to conduct most operations, for power projection, the Americans don't actually bother with the Navy, there are no American naval battles, the Americans haven't had a naval battle, since 1945.

Ok, I get your point.

Especially when the objectives are more limited to the other side, when the war isn't seen as an existential necessity, then air power can do the job... of 19th Century Gun Boat diplomacy. Many times that US Air Power is as untouchable as the 19th Century armoured warship was during it's time.

[Smitty-48]

Well the original point was that the Americans now have so many bases worldwide, they don't even need the gunboats anymore, as there's always a base for the B-52's within range, the gunboats are now superflous, and the only reason they ever use the gunboats, is really because the gunboats are an entrenched interest with a lobby in congress.

Moreover, the Air Force is the big stick, it's a much bigger stick than the Navy, the Navy is an extremely inefficient alternative to the B-52 for the purposes of power projection ashore, which doesn't deliver anywhere near the same punch, while requiring exponentially more resources to sustain.

The aircraft carrier is a sea base, which is massively more expensive and complex than a land base, but which doesn't deliver the same weight of firepower that even one squadron of B-52's could, and if you have a land base nearby, which the Americans now have everywhere, the aircraft carrier is then rendered a big expensive waste of time and money, by default.

So while a lesser power like the British may require an aircraft carrier strike group to project power 8,000 miles to some remote Falkland Islands like target, the Americans actually don't anymore, and haven't for a long time, the Air Force can hit anything the Navy can hit, and everything the Navy can't hit as well, and the Air Force hits much harder, to wit, you don't need aircraft carriers anymore, once you have achieved Prompt Global Strike, won't be long actually, before the Air Force is striking targets from space.

In the not too distant future, the Air Force will be able to hit any target anywhere on earth, with precision guided smart munitions, from orbit, at which point, while the Americans still might need a Coast Guard of some sort, to be a maritime armed constabulary, they wouldn't actually need a Navy, at all.

[BjornP]

Afaik, isn't the main reason China's opposed to a one-Korea policy, the presence of US troops in S.Korea? If the US, S.Korea and China came to an understanding of mutual non-aggression, border agreements and maybe some coal at a discount for China and the US troops leaving the Korean peninsula, I expect China might change their tune.

No, they're opposed to having a US ally on their border. It's a sensible policy, but nothing to go WW3 over...

Same deal either way, they don't want to give the US an "easy" access into mainland China. And "WW3"? You think going to war with North Korea would be...World War 3?

[SuburbanFarmer]

Afaik, isn't the main reason China's opposed to a one-Korea policy, the presence of US troops in S.Korea? If the US, S.Korea and China came to an understanding of mutual non-aggression, border agreements and maybe some coal at a discount for China and the US troops leaving the Korean peninsula, I expect China might change their tune.

No, they're opposed to having a US ally on their border. It's a sensible policy, but nothing to go WW3 over...

Same deal either way, they don't want to give the US an "easy" access into mainland China. And "WW3"? You think going to war with North Korea would be...World War 3?

It depends entirely on the reaction from China and Russia. The scary part here, is that we don't know where they actually stand on the issue. China is massing troops on their border with NK, but is that to invade, or to defend?

What's Ivan do here? They're not exactly remote from the situation..