windscorpion
New Member
As for Chavez with the price of oil as it currently is and likely will remain for some time he isn't going to be anyone's generous friend for awhile.
Fighting a Second Falklands War
- Thread starter Izzy1
- Start date
- Status
Ur not fully understanding. Eastern EU can provide small arms knockoff but it is wholly another thing to upgard MIG-29 to SMT standard with increase MTOW and 1000km combat radius. Add to that 200 to 300 KM range weopns. Similar is case wit Su-24.
Antiradition/Antiship missiles so u have strike fighter and aircombat fighter that nearly equal EF when full situational awarness and protection is provided by S-400 battery. For EF to fully exploit its performance and range it has to fly higher and there it comes under S-400 system. I am not going into Venzuelan Flanker force. U can simply airdrop troops through helis flying low.
Burma/Banlgadesh/Sudan/African/Srilanka can operate operate MIG-29s. I dont see any reason Argentinian cant do it when it has full support to create conflict. They can provide newer magnetic mines to creat sea denial strategy.
It is bothi n latin socialist and Russian interest to create conflict there. UK will have only one options left either abondoan Falkland or spending billions by constant patrolling and defending it.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb5659/is_/ai_n23816844
RUSSIA WILL HELP ARGENTINA GET FALKLANDS BACK
http://saxontimes.blogspot.com/2008/12/russia-wants-falkland-islands-oil.html
Russia wants Falkland Islands Oil
Yet again, how is an S400 battery going to have any effect on British aircraft between 500 & 700 km away? Where is this denial? And how long would a single land-based missile battery survive, if, by some miracle, it did pose a threat to British aircraft?
As for mines and sea denial: have you looked at a map? This is not the Persian Gulf: the Falklands are in open ocean. How many million mines would you have to lay? How much would that cost? How long would your minelayers survive, operating in British-patrolled waters, where the only other vessels are fishing boats, which would be eager (for their own safety) to report your presence?
Airdropping troops from low-flying helicopters- at that range? How many helicopters do you have, & how many would survive? How would you supply the troops?
LOOK AT A MAP!
As for mines and sea denial: have you looked at a map? This is not the Persian Gulf: the Falklands are in open ocean. How many million mines would you have to lay? How much would that cost? How long would your minelayers survive, operating in British-patrolled waters, where the only other vessels are fishing boats, which would be eager (for their own safety) to report your presence?
Airdropping troops from low-flying helicopters- at that range? How many helicopters do you have, & how many would survive? How would you supply the troops?
LOOK AT A MAP!
Last edited:
citizen578
New Member
I agree with everything written since my last comment (minus Roberto's assertations).
My initial point seems to coincide with the general concensus:- avoiding a 'second Falklands war' relies on a) resolute vigilance and commitment by the UK, and b) maintaining the general balance of power.
It is highly unlikely that Argentina will come close to rivalling the UK's economic, political, or military power for a very long time, so the onus is very much on the British Government... never again to leave the door unlocked.
Whilst it might be slightly concerning that HMS Northumberland has been re-tasked to anti-piracy duties, there is still a significant military presence in the South Atlantic, and the balance of power is not significantly altered.
What would be concerning, is if the Government were to allow the lack of a sufficiently well-armed FF/DD in the region to become the norm. When the Type-45s are commissioned, it will certainly be interesting to see them on APT(S).
http://www.eldiariodelfindelmundo.com/ver.php?modulo=ver_noticia&id=19092
Rough translation:
11/11/2008
Warships in the Falkland Islands
Argentina calls for the withdrawal of British frigate.
Fuegian Members questioned the presence of the British frigate in the Falkland Islands and request that the National Congress repudiates the fact. They also criticized the violation of agreements and treaties and repudiated the advance of an illegitimate constitution.
[which is bollocks - there are no treaties/agreements restricting British movements on the high seas]
They proposed a project through which the National Congress repudiates the presence and permanence of the British war frigate HMS Iron Duke in the Falkland Islands. Members of ARI SI-block of Tierra del Fuego, Leonardo Gorbacz Nélida Belous questioned the process of militarization that has been sustained or increasing for some years by the British in the Falklands.
[again, untrue - the British presence has been steadily reducing]
It also recalled that the Iron Duke "is not a simple craft, but a military machine with great capacity to act in multiple roles anywhere in the world. You can carry boats and light combat helicopters, is armed with missiles, cannons, machine guns , depth-charges and antisubmarine warfare torpedoes, adding a complex radar system for air surveillance and surface. "
Deputy Belous believes that "the UK has violated practically all agreements and treaties, moved unilaterally in economic and trade areas such as mineral and hydrocarbon exploration, expanded their fishing grounds and did not give notice to the Argentine government for its military maneuvers, demonstrating a policy of intimidation before the Argentine claims and protecting the colonial enclave. "
Moreover, the deputies submitted a draft fuegian consensus by the presidents of various blocks of the Lower House in protest at Britain's decision to adopt a new Constitution for the Falkland Islands, which vote at the special meeting on Thursday.
"The British are not only endorsing an illegitimate Constitution but also with specific weaponry. Fuegian As repudiate these actions which violate the international order and our sovereign rights," said Gorbacz.
On the point of the T45s, France complains that being sited in Portsmouth is an invasion of French 'privacy' (I'm reliably informed it is possible to spot light aircraft and even flocks of birds across northern France from the ops room of a 45 sat in Pompey!) One can only imagine the fuss that will be made when we put one on station in the South Atlantic.
S-400??? eat your heart out....
Whilst it only takes a fairly basic understanding of the British commitment in the FI region to spot the blatant flaws (..or perhaps lies), the constant stream of politics which follows even the seemingly routine acticities effectively 'keeps the war alive' in Argentina - exactly what Arg politicians want.
Until Argentina rearms, which it has been trying unsuccessfully to do since the mid 90s, we will not see a significant strategic shift in the South Atlantic. That does not mean that the economic terrorism and 'hit-and-run' tactics of Argentina will not be a constant thorn in the side.
As ever, we wait for the next Argentine political paradigm. History tells us that we never have to wait more than a couple of decades.
My initial point seems to coincide with the general concensus:- avoiding a 'second Falklands war' relies on a) resolute vigilance and commitment by the UK, and b) maintaining the general balance of power.
It is highly unlikely that Argentina will come close to rivalling the UK's economic, political, or military power for a very long time, so the onus is very much on the British Government... never again to leave the door unlocked.
Whilst it might be slightly concerning that HMS Northumberland has been re-tasked to anti-piracy duties, there is still a significant military presence in the South Atlantic, and the balance of power is not significantly altered.
What would be concerning, is if the Government were to allow the lack of a sufficiently well-armed FF/DD in the region to become the norm. When the Type-45s are commissioned, it will certainly be interesting to see them on APT(S).
http://www.eldiariodelfindelmundo.com/ver.php?modulo=ver_noticia&id=19092
Rough translation:
11/11/2008
Warships in the Falkland Islands
Argentina calls for the withdrawal of British frigate.
Fuegian Members questioned the presence of the British frigate in the Falkland Islands and request that the National Congress repudiates the fact. They also criticized the violation of agreements and treaties and repudiated the advance of an illegitimate constitution.
[which is bollocks - there are no treaties/agreements restricting British movements on the high seas]
They proposed a project through which the National Congress repudiates the presence and permanence of the British war frigate HMS Iron Duke in the Falkland Islands. Members of ARI SI-block of Tierra del Fuego, Leonardo Gorbacz Nélida Belous questioned the process of militarization that has been sustained or increasing for some years by the British in the Falklands.
[again, untrue - the British presence has been steadily reducing]
It also recalled that the Iron Duke "is not a simple craft, but a military machine with great capacity to act in multiple roles anywhere in the world. You can carry boats and light combat helicopters, is armed with missiles, cannons, machine guns , depth-charges and antisubmarine warfare torpedoes, adding a complex radar system for air surveillance and surface. "
Deputy Belous believes that "the UK has violated practically all agreements and treaties, moved unilaterally in economic and trade areas such as mineral and hydrocarbon exploration, expanded their fishing grounds and did not give notice to the Argentine government for its military maneuvers, demonstrating a policy of intimidation before the Argentine claims and protecting the colonial enclave. "
Moreover, the deputies submitted a draft fuegian consensus by the presidents of various blocks of the Lower House in protest at Britain's decision to adopt a new Constitution for the Falkland Islands, which vote at the special meeting on Thursday.
"The British are not only endorsing an illegitimate Constitution but also with specific weaponry. Fuegian As repudiate these actions which violate the international order and our sovereign rights," said Gorbacz.
On the point of the T45s, France complains that being sited in Portsmouth is an invasion of French 'privacy' (I'm reliably informed it is possible to spot light aircraft and even flocks of birds across northern France from the ops room of a 45 sat in Pompey!) One can only imagine the fuss that will be made when we put one on station in the South Atlantic.
S-400??? eat your heart out....
Whilst it only takes a fairly basic understanding of the British commitment in the FI region to spot the blatant flaws (..or perhaps lies), the constant stream of politics which follows even the seemingly routine acticities effectively 'keeps the war alive' in Argentina - exactly what Arg politicians want.
Until Argentina rearms, which it has been trying unsuccessfully to do since the mid 90s, we will not see a significant strategic shift in the South Atlantic. That does not mean that the economic terrorism and 'hit-and-run' tactics of Argentina will not be a constant thorn in the side.
As ever, we wait for the next Argentine political paradigm. History tells us that we never have to wait more than a couple of decades.
I disagree strongly.
Not only do you have to purchase the equipment, but you have to purchase the entire support and maintenance structure. Then you also have to train an entire new generation of operators and maintenance personell, as well as accustoming your commanders at all levels to utilise the new capabilities to maximum effectiveness. Each of these issues requires a significant period of time and a great deal of expense to deal with.
When your (theoretical) opponent is a thoroughly modern and well trained power, it is not just a case of having some fighters parked at an airbase and a new submarine tied up to the docks.
I can think of no rational or probable scenario in which the Argentinians would be able to - as they did in 1982 - invade in the face of minimal resistance and then present Britain with a fait accompli. Instead, the probable scenariop is that an attempted Argentinian invasion will face very similar problems to that faced by the British in '82, that of attacking in the face of a prepared enemy present in some strength and supported by air power.
In this case the air power is likely to be of a superior technological capacity and skill level. This is before we examine the capacity of the Royal Navy to intercept , and chew large hunks out of, any potential invasion force. How easy is it going to be for the Argentinians to acquire the technical ability and competence to counter even one half of the RN's submarine force?
In the end, how many casualties is Argentina prepared to take in order to acquire the Falklands?
Are they prepared to mount an invasion in the absence of naval and air superiority?
There is an assumption here - and in another thread - that because the NATO treaty does not require member support of Britain in a future Falklands conflict, that no support would actually be forthcoming. I suggest that the active involvement of other South-American nations in an attempted Falklands invasion would alter the political reaction quite considerably. It would, of course, depend upon the admimnistrations of the day,,, but an armed conflict initiated in defiance of the UN is unlikely to result in all of Britain's allies remaining completely neutral.
Even if NATO allies do not provide active combat support, intelligence and logistics support is not to be lightly disregarded, nor are economic measures against the belligerents.
No one consideration in itself is likely to determine the occurence or outcome of a second Falklands conflict, but each of them adds to the cost faced by belligerents, and these are not to be ignored.
Peter
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
There seems to be a few fundamental obstacles which seem to be being ignored in the post above. I am certain Russia would be delighted to sell to Argentina the whole range of weaponry Argentina would need to equip its military sufficiently to re-take the Falklands from the UK... As has been alluded to before though... Who is going to pay for the weapons, and/or where is the money going to come from? IIRC Argentina's economy has been in fiscal trouble for the past couple of years, prior to the start of the current world economic/credit crisis which would not help matters. This effectively means that Argentina could not afford to re-equip its military. With the price per barrel of oil as low as it has gotten (IIRC $46/barrel currently...) that is have a negative impact on the Russian and Venzuelan economies, of which petroleum exports played a very important role. Again, IIRC the 2009 budget estimates for the two countries were based on oil selling at between $75-100/barrel, with the price having gone significantly below that, as well as other changes in economic activity, Russia and/or Venezuela are also not in a position to fund the re-constitution of the Argentinian military, assuming that either country had been inclined to do so...
Also, as I had mentioned before, and as other posters have commented before and since I did... There is more to having a capable military than just possession of the equipment, particularly if the equipment is of significantly different origin than has been used in the past. The logistical train which is or can be used to support equipment of Western origin is a bit different from that of Eastern/Russian origin, as is the best methods of operation. Essentially Argentina would need to train all its personnel on the new equipment until they were proficient to a useful degree, at a minimum. These personnel covers the pilots/crew for aircraft, the maintenance and ground support crews, the crews for ships and submarines... etc.
All of this could of course be done, but again it would require money (again, who is going to fund this?) and also require time. By way of example, estimates have forecast that the Royal New Zealand Air Force could re-constitute its now disbanded Air Combat Force and return it to a similarly well-trained level after five years of training and ops, at an estimated cost of $200 million per year, not including any acquistion costs for equipment... This would be for a roughly 24 aircraft force and the estimate was made ~2-3 years ago in terms of pricing...
Also, again all this activity would be easily noticed by various intelligence agencies, which would allow the UK plenty of time to act.
As for the suggestion that an S-400 based in mainland Argentina and/or on Tierra del Feugo could have an effect on the battlespace over the Falkland Islands... I would like you to provide proof of why it would have any impact at all, as the information I have been able to get both on the S-400, and on ground-based air defence radars in general indicate that it would be irrelevant.
At present, here is some of the general information I have collected that would effect a GBAD radar system, as well as some of that which is or would be specific to the S-400 system. Starting with the data specific to the S-400 system, it seems to currently have an engagement ranges of up to 200km, not 400km, it appears that a proposed future system might have a maximum range of 400km. This means that it could only cover out to maximum range, roughly half the distance between Argentina and the closest parts of the westernmost Falkland Islands... Secondly AFAIK, Russia has not sold the S-400 system to anyone else and the item is not currently available for export. This in turn means that Argentina would not be able to get one. Lastly, the S-400 is a GBAD system, or Ground-based Air Defence system, not an AEW system. Again AFAIK, the S-400 does not support datalink and target queueing systems which would allow the S-400 to detect a target and then hand the target engagement off to a fighter aircraft, or provide guidance to a ship-launched SAM.
Getting to general information on GBAD systems, the radars used are AFAIK microwave-based, vs. some RF-based OTH (Over the Horizon) radars. While a GBAD radar is able to get track data to provide targeting information on something it has detected, its ability to detect objects is limited to LOS (Line of Sight) which means intervening terrain features (hills, mountains, tall or large buildings, etc) will block the radar's ability to detect objects approaching from some vectors at varying ranges and altitudes... Given the great ranges involved (between 400km-700km) the curvature of the earth also becomes a blocking terrain feature. Assuming a GBAD radar had sufficient signal output and return (which I strongly doubt the S-400 does...), if the radar station is based at or near sea level, it would only be able to detect targets at 95,000 ft and above. Anything below that the radar would not be able to get a LOS to because the curvature of the earth would be in the way.
If you have any information or links which would indicate I am wrong in any or all of the above, please provide it. Otherwise, kindly cease and desist with the assertion that an S-400 system would make a significant difference, because the facts just do not seem to support it.
Lastly (for now at least...) Here is something that no one seems to have suggested yet...
In the Falklands Conflict in 1982, the UK fought the war on a very restricted basis. Apart from within a 200 n mile exclusion zone around the Falklands, and action on South Georgia, the UK did not fight Argentina aside from sinking the Argentinian cruiser General Belgrano. In essence, the UK fought Argentina with gloves on. Given the capabilities which the UK has now, I would imagine that if it came down to it, the UK would 'take the gloves off' as the saying goes, and put gauntlets on instead. Just how well would Argentina function, if the UK began launching retaliatory strikes upon mainland Argentina? The UK would certainly have the ability to fire sub-launched cruise missiles at strategic targets and infrastructure within Argentina. How quickly would Argentina seek peace if the UK decided to hit the Casa Rosada with a half dozen Tomahawk cruise missiles? Or if the UK decided to effect the primary power stations for Buenas Aires?
So far, it seems some posters have advocated that it is possible for Argentina to succeed as outlined. In order for that to be true though, the UK capabilities and interests would need to remain static, as well as possessing a very restricted ROE vs. Argentina. This IMO is unrealistic given the timeframe Argentina would require to build up and train the appropriate forces, as well as the international powers which would need to become involved in order for this to succeed.
-Cheers
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
Adding to the thorough and typically excellent commentary from Tod and Cooch I just wanted to draw everyones attention to a point that has been made previously and obviously missed by some posters. Weapons systems do not equal capability in the battle-space, in real terms platforms are enablers and alone they do not constitute real world effects.
I'll use a transport company as an analogy, even if you equip your company with the biggest and most efficient trucks and forklifts and build the biggest warehouse, the company will still be heading down the road to insolvency if you cant balance the books, keep a handle on costs, train your people and implement strategic and tactical plans i.e. basic commercial practice. The same goes for any organization, including the military.
There is no point aquireing equipment if your people do not have the technical mastery to use it effectively, and if your organization lacks the tactical ability to achieve the goals the equipment purchase was intended to enable. In simple terms even with any feasible Russian arms sale to Argentina the UK will bring significant overmatch to the theater, simply through organizational superiority. A single widget, even something with as much mythology as the S-400.
I'll use a transport company as an analogy, even if you equip your company with the biggest and most efficient trucks and forklifts and build the biggest warehouse, the company will still be heading down the road to insolvency if you cant balance the books, keep a handle on costs, train your people and implement strategic and tactical plans i.e. basic commercial practice. The same goes for any organization, including the military.
There is no point aquireing equipment if your people do not have the technical mastery to use it effectively, and if your organization lacks the tactical ability to achieve the goals the equipment purchase was intended to enable. In simple terms even with any feasible Russian arms sale to Argentina the UK will bring significant overmatch to the theater, simply through organizational superiority. A single widget, even something with as much mythology as the S-400.
To be fair to Roberto, it is possible that he has in mind an Argentinian defence of the Falklands against a British attempt to retake the islands, as happened in '82. In that case, he would have a mountain or two on which to site his GBAD systems. His problem still remains the lack of a plausible scenario in which the Argentinians might capture the Falklands in the first place.
In practice, the British have the ability to make use of the Falklands as "an unsinkable aircraft carrier", and I suggest that they probably have counter-measures that will significantly degrade any radar capacity that relies on being based on the Argentine coast. Submarine-launched cruise missiles crossed my own mind.
Tod and OB have expanded on what I mentioned briefly. The need for training of personell, and the time-frame involved. I further point out that it is not sufficient to gain merely an average level of competence on the part of your operators. All other things being equal, an average operator will generally be defeated by a very good operator, and when that is carried over into integrated battle-management and teamwork, the difference is exacerbated. While some will no doubt contradict me in specific areas, the British are amongst those who hold to the doctrine that excellence amongst their relatively small volunteer military is the counter to the relative advantage in numbers held by their traditional (Cold-War) opponents. As such, we would expect British personell to be more-than-average competent, and matching that level of competence comes at a high cost. You cannot do it merely by conducting sand-table exercises. It requires air-time, sea-time, and time on exercise against skilled opponents over many different scenarios. This is costly in terms of money and machinery, especially if - as Roberto proposes - the Argentians arm themselves with weaponry that is not always built WRT maximised reliability under active service conditions. (Pardon me, but that is the impressions that one gets of some eastern European technology). High quality opponents, capable of acting as the Red Team while using British doctrine for the sake of exercises are also likely to be hard to find in that part of the world.
There is also the question of experience.
There is an old saying to the effect that , beyond a certain level, the only real test that you can apply to an officer is to give him men, send him into battle, and see how many he brings back. I suggest that British military forces have, due to the number and extend of military operations conducted over the last decade, had considerably greater opportunity to mature and assess their senior leadership under actual battle conditions, than have the Argentinians. This is not an absolute, but it is certainly a consideration.
All this said, it is dangerous to assume that any opponent will either be stupid, or not have some surprises of their own. However this applies to both the British and the Argentinians..... and we can only rationally make our argument on the basis of what we know, and on the basis of reasonable supposition. Not upon fictions for which we have neither evidence, nor precedent.
Both of these latter incline me to think that the British have a decided advantage in this scenario.
Peter
In practice, the British have the ability to make use of the Falklands as "an unsinkable aircraft carrier", and I suggest that they probably have counter-measures that will significantly degrade any radar capacity that relies on being based on the Argentine coast. Submarine-launched cruise missiles crossed my own mind.
Tod and OB have expanded on what I mentioned briefly. The need for training of personell, and the time-frame involved. I further point out that it is not sufficient to gain merely an average level of competence on the part of your operators. All other things being equal, an average operator will generally be defeated by a very good operator, and when that is carried over into integrated battle-management and teamwork, the difference is exacerbated. While some will no doubt contradict me in specific areas, the British are amongst those who hold to the doctrine that excellence amongst their relatively small volunteer military is the counter to the relative advantage in numbers held by their traditional (Cold-War) opponents. As such, we would expect British personell to be more-than-average competent, and matching that level of competence comes at a high cost. You cannot do it merely by conducting sand-table exercises. It requires air-time, sea-time, and time on exercise against skilled opponents over many different scenarios. This is costly in terms of money and machinery, especially if - as Roberto proposes - the Argentians arm themselves with weaponry that is not always built WRT maximised reliability under active service conditions. (Pardon me, but that is the impressions that one gets of some eastern European technology). High quality opponents, capable of acting as the Red Team while using British doctrine for the sake of exercises are also likely to be hard to find in that part of the world.
There is also the question of experience.
There is an old saying to the effect that , beyond a certain level, the only real test that you can apply to an officer is to give him men, send him into battle, and see how many he brings back. I suggest that British military forces have, due to the number and extend of military operations conducted over the last decade, had considerably greater opportunity to mature and assess their senior leadership under actual battle conditions, than have the Argentinians. This is not an absolute, but it is certainly a consideration.
All this said, it is dangerous to assume that any opponent will either be stupid, or not have some surprises of their own. However this applies to both the British and the Argentinians..... and we can only rationally make our argument on the basis of what we know, and on the basis of reasonable supposition. Not upon fictions for which we have neither evidence, nor precedent.
Both of these latter incline me to think that the British have a decided advantage in this scenario.
Peter
Admin. Off topic text deleted. Post Reported by Member for Trolling
http://www.articlearchives.com/environment-natural-resources/ecology-environmental/1555147-1.html
In mid-2006, Kirchner announced the creation of a top-level parliamentary group dedicated to winning back the disputed islands. His wife Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, inaugurated as president on Dec. 10 (see NotiSur, 2007-11-02), reiterated Argentina's claims to the islands, calling Argentina's demands "irrevocable and unwavering."
"There is a situation of colonial deceit here, denounced before the United Nations, and it is time to return to fulfilling the mandate of those United Nations, of which we are all a part," Fernandez said during her first speech after taking office
Admin. Off topic text deleted. Post Reported by Member for Trolling
Last edited by a moderator:
Don't you get fed up with posting drivel?? You continue to ignore the fact that any rebuilding of Argentinas military requires money, retraining of their entire Armed Forces and the replacement of their logistical base if they go for all Russian equipment. And again one S-400 battery (which Russia won't export) is not going to change the course of any war.
And in any case, Britain would begin a military build up on the islands as Argentina rebuilding its military to retake ths islands would be noticed.
I don't know how you came to the conclusion about the UN-with Britains power of veto it doesn't matter if the rest of the world disagrees because they can veto the resolution.
Closed pending Mod discussion
Grand Danois
Entertainer
roberto,
This is the last warning. No. more trolling or flame baiting. Next time it's a permanent ban.
/GD
This is the last warning. No. more trolling or flame baiting. Next time it's a permanent ban.
/GD
Thread reopened.
In the same speech that he repeated Argentina's claim to the falklands Islands, Nestor Kirchner ALSO stated that the 1982 military invasion of those islands by Argentina was "cowardly" and "a crime". Kirchner very clearly distinguished the territorial claim from illegitimate military attempts to acquire the islands.If Kirchner condemns military action , the Roberto has no legitimate basis for arguing that his intention is to pursue that claim by military means.
Returning to theorising about a most improbable scenario.
Pardon me?
Exactly what do we think that the Falkland Islands are?
They ARE the Bristish "land Base".
In the event of an Argentinian invasion attempt, they are 400km closer to the combat zone that is the Argentinian mainland. The Argentinians will face at least the same level of difficulty in mounting raids on the Falklands, as the British would on targets on the Argentinian mainland.
Possibly greater, unless the Argentinians can acquire a method of keeping submarine-launched cruise-missiles out of their air-bases and other vital military installations.
Peter
There isn't going to be a retaking of the Falklands by the Brit's, because they won't lose them in the first place! The Islands today are totally different to what they were in 82 - population, economy and infrastructure wise and from a strategic perspective. The UK sees them as a staging post for any future scramble for Arctic resources and as a key fixed asset in the Southern Hemisphere.
In 1982 the UK's entire focus was on countering the Soviet Block and containing the Troubles in NI. Today the UK Government / Military has been forced to focus on a much broader spectrum of unpredictable scenarios, hence the dramatic increase in intelligence and surveillance assets, amphib capabilities and ability to mount non-nuclear deep-strike missions.
Even if Argentina aligned itself with a blustering fruitloop like Chavez to try and retake the Islands, don't you think the US will not step-in and back the UK? In 82 the US Defence Secretary was all for supporting the UK from day one, it was only the anti-British Buffoon Kirkpatrick who put pay to that, lording Argentina as a vital anti-Soviet ally in South America. After the unequivocal military support the UK has given to the US In both Iraq and A-Stan, don't you think the US will not return the favour?
In 1982 the UK's entire focus was on countering the Soviet Block and containing the Troubles in NI. Today the UK Government / Military has been forced to focus on a much broader spectrum of unpredictable scenarios, hence the dramatic increase in intelligence and surveillance assets, amphib capabilities and ability to mount non-nuclear deep-strike missions.
Even if Argentina aligned itself with a blustering fruitloop like Chavez to try and retake the Islands, don't you think the US will not step-in and back the UK? In 82 the US Defence Secretary was all for supporting the UK from day one, it was only the anti-British Buffoon Kirkpatrick who put pay to that, lording Argentina as a vital anti-Soviet ally in South America. After the unequivocal military support the UK has given to the US In both Iraq and A-Stan, don't you think the US will not return the favour?
It would be quite simple for the Argentineans to win in the Falklands and do so cheaply and without having to fight the inevitable British counter attack.
Firstly they capture the islands with a surprise attack. Secondly they deploy a specially constructed and highly trained military police unit of about 500. They are equipped with a range of non-lethal weapons and supported by CIMIC, PYSOPS, medical and supporting units. This special MP unit simply starts rounding up the Falkland Islanders and transporting them to the airport where they are flown out of the islands. There are only 3,000 civilians there so it should take much longer than a week or two with special attention to making sure no one is hurt. The population can then be transferred to Brazil or some third party for repatriation to the UK. Careful attention can be given to compensating them for whatever assets they had to leave behind in the Falklands.
With no population of British subjects resident on the islands it would be extremely difficult for the British Government to muster the will to liberate simple rock, grass, peat, sheep and natural resources – no matter how valuable. The Argentineans can quickly inject their own domestic population into the Malvinas.
Firstly they capture the islands with a surprise attack. Secondly they deploy a specially constructed and highly trained military police unit of about 500. They are equipped with a range of non-lethal weapons and supported by CIMIC, PYSOPS, medical and supporting units. This special MP unit simply starts rounding up the Falkland Islanders and transporting them to the airport where they are flown out of the islands. There are only 3,000 civilians there so it should take much longer than a week or two with special attention to making sure no one is hurt. The population can then be transferred to Brazil or some third party for repatriation to the UK. Careful attention can be given to compensating them for whatever assets they had to leave behind in the Falklands.
With no population of British subjects resident on the islands it would be extremely difficult for the British Government to muster the will to liberate simple rock, grass, peat, sheep and natural resources – no matter how valuable. The Argentineans can quickly inject their own domestic population into the Malvinas.
Sorry to rain on your parade mate, but when did the Argentine military acquire 'cloaking technology' - you have clearly been watching too many Star Trek movies! 
nfloorl: Pray tell how do they plan to mount a 'surprise attack' and arrive without being detected by the resident surveillance apparatus or the extensive intelligence monitoring capabilities available to the UK at the strategic level? You also assume the elite Argentine forces will simply overwhelm the resident infantry company of professional soldiers supported by pre-positioned military hardware and backed up by the Islands own volunteer force. Plus they have only 24-hours from leaving the mainland before the UK resident reforger battalion will start arriving thanks to C17 strategic lift.
You also appear to forget the resident population fully supports the garrison, so any attempt to infiltrate a fifth column will fail miserably. I'm sorry to ruin your fantasy but a group of 'scrap-dealers' arriving to clear-up an old whaling station (South Georgia) aint going to work this time - once bitten, twice shy as the saying goes.
I highly recommend you take-up one of the many bird-watching holidays to the island and look around Mount Pleasant and then solicit the opinion of the local population before you write anymore fictional posts Lord Haw Haw.
nfloorl: Pray tell how do they plan to mount a 'surprise attack' and arrive without being detected by the resident surveillance apparatus or the extensive intelligence monitoring capabilities available to the UK at the strategic level? You also assume the elite Argentine forces will simply overwhelm the resident infantry company of professional soldiers supported by pre-positioned military hardware and backed up by the Islands own volunteer force. Plus they have only 24-hours from leaving the mainland before the UK resident reforger battalion will start arriving thanks to C17 strategic lift.You also appear to forget the resident population fully supports the garrison, so any attempt to infiltrate a fifth column will fail miserably. I'm sorry to ruin your fantasy but a group of 'scrap-dealers' arriving to clear-up an old whaling station (South Georgia) aint going to work this time - once bitten, twice shy as the saying goes.
I highly recommend you take-up one of the many bird-watching holidays to the island and look around Mount Pleasant and then solicit the opinion of the local population before you write anymore fictional posts Lord Haw Haw.
Given the discussion already posted on this thread, just how do you propose that they do this?
You've presented no evidence that the Argentines are capable of mounting a succesful attack.
You've presented no evidence that they can do so cheaply ..... and you need to include the cost of acquiring the military capability to do so, in your calculations.
You've provided no evidence that they can achieve surprise....
All you've said is that the "inevitable counter-attack" is not, in fact, inevitable.
I'm willing to be convinced, but you need to present some credible evidence.
Don't forget, in your analysis of the British will to fight, the effect of an Argentinian attack while preaching peaceful resolution - which is one of the preconditions for a "surprise" in the face of British readiness to reinforce their garrison at short notice. The Argentinians miscalculated the British attitude the first time around. Trying the same gambit again would be a rather large gamble that has the potential to get expensive very, very quickly if you miscalculate.
Waiting............. Peter
Mod edit: Text deleted.Sorry to rain on your parade mate, but when did the Argentine military acquire 'cloaking technology' - you have clearly been watching too many Star Trek movies!
You also appear to forget the resident population fully supports the garrison, so any attempt to infiltrate a fifth column will fail miserably. I'm sorry to ruin your fantasy but a group of 'scrap-dealers' arriving to clear-up an old whaling station (South Georgia) aint going to work this time - once bitten, twice shy as the saying goes.
I highly recommend you take-up one of the many bird-watching holidays to the island and look around Mount Pleasant and then solicit the opinion of the local population before you write anymore fictional posts Lord Haw Haw.
I intentionally did not go into any detail about how Argentina would launch a 'surprise' attack because it had nothing to do with the focus of my post. Now you are crediting me with all sorts of ridiculous opinions and motivations.
Now if you would like to discuss something rationally do everyone the favour of displaying a certain about of intellectual flexibility and address my post for what it actually says - how Argentina could avoid having to fight off another Operation Corporate by ethnically cleansing the Falklands of its residents.
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes you are right and nor will I because it has nothing to do with my contribution to what I thought was a reasonable discussion rather than what its turned out to be. Mod edit: Text deleted.
I don't care about how Argentina would launch a surprise attack, it has nothing to do with my contribution. Considering the small scale of the British presence in the Falklands it wouldn't need to be a massive affair anyway. However my whole point is how Argentina could avoid having to fight to hold onto the islands.
Mod edit: Text deleted. if there is anyone out there willing to have a reasonable discussion about this for the sake of discussion (its all fantasy anyway) then please contribute.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status