Argentinian blockade of the falklands

[Alonso Quijano]

I think that UK should not worry about the Argentine forces, we can not say they are just very good armed, any military action by the Argentines would be a joke ...
I really serious for the UK is the current political situation in Latin American countries are becoming more united.
an armed conflict against Argentina can bring serious consequences in most of Latin America that may seriously harm British business in South America.
Also remember that Brazil is an emerging power that can be supceptible to an attack on Argentina.
and no longer talking about Chavez and his Bolivarian countries, this man always feels like war and gets into conflicts in which not even its responsibilities ...
these countries are large oil reserves and its international influence is very strong, so that even the U.S. would dare to turn against them for fear of an energy crisis in Brazil and Venezuela.

I think it is a delicate issue and that Britain must act cautiously even if Argentina can not do much militarily.

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/files/images/2008/08/chavez_lula_kirchner.jpg

 

[TIN MAN]

I can assure you that the UK will not be worrying about trade links with South America if Argentina posed a military threat and acted upon it.
The UK does most of its trade within the Euro-Zone and with the US. Although no market is unimportant, trade is a secondary issue should conflict occur.

I think it is an error to believe that other South American nations would physically support Argentina if they started a conflict, what would they gain? Apart from brotherhood, I would suggest not a lot.

Brazil would first ask, "What`s in it for us?" They trade with the UK and have a thriving aircraft industry, the UK has bought Embraer aircraft from Brasil, in an alternate dimension with Brasil supporting Argentina, we would just shop elsewhere
On balance, it would be a dangerous gambit to side with Argentina militarily against the UK, as it would create a wider conflict. What would the reaction of the US be?

 

[TIN MAN]

Basically, everyone knew there was a possibility of huge Oil reserves off the Falkland Islands and Argentina wants it cut. The UK is saying "You have no chance".

 

[Alonso Quijano]

but the U.S. if they have many interests in Latin America and much of its oil comes from Brazil and Venezuela and a very low price.
UK would have to act all alone, probably without the approval of the U.S. and could spark dangerous in South America to UK

UK surely act with prudence and without armed conflict but getting what they want, surely negotiations with Argentina the sale of gas and oil.
win two ...

 

[swerve]

but the U.S. if they have many interests in Latin America and much of its oil comes from Brazil and Venezuela and a very low price.

The USA gets no oil from Brazil. Brazil does not yet produce enough oil for its own needs.

Venezuelan oil is cheap because it is low quality. It is expensive to process, & most refineries can not handle it. The USA has more refineries equipped for it than other countries, & Venezuela is close, so it buys most (70%) of Venezuelas oil exports - but that is less than 10% of US oil imports.

 

[chris]

Spending so much to improve the capabilities of the British armed forces would be stupid in those dire economic times we live in. Since Argentina says that there is a doubt on who owns those islands and the economic rights around them, we then must consider them a grey zone. No need for UN or international courts to get involved. It is an issue between your two countries. Try biliteral talks with them.

I'm truly sorry for this off topic trolling but I'm Greek. I've heard all of the above so many times about our problems with Turkey and the aegean, I just have to give them back at least once. I will not bother you again and I hope this matter resolves peacefully.

 

[Thiel]

Spending so much to improve the capabilities of the British armed forces would be stupid in those dire economic times we live in. Since Argentina says that there is a doubt on who owns those islands and the economic rights around them, we then must consider them a grey zone. No need for UN or international courts to get involved. It is an issue between your two countries. Try biliteral talks with them.

I'm truly sorry for this off topic trolling but I'm Greek. I've heard all of the above so many times about our problems with Turkey and the aegean, I just have to give them back at least once. I will not bother you again and I hope this matter resolves peacefully.

Oh it will. If Argentina keeps this up, the RN will deploys a couple of ships to the area, making it a moot point.
South Sea trails for the Darings maybe? Sadly, shows of force is how international politics works when it comes to these kind of things. That's why Denmark has the Sirius patrol running around in the furthest reaches of Greenland, despite the fact that no one lives there.

 

[StevoJH]

Spending so much to improve the capabilities of the British armed forces would be stupid in those dire economic times we live in. Since Argentina says that there is a doubt on who owns those islands and the economic rights around them, we then must consider them a grey zone. No need for UN or international courts to get involved. It is an issue between your two countries. Try biliteral talks with them.

I'm truly sorry for this off topic trolling but I'm Greek. I've heard all of the above so many times about our problems with Turkey and the aegean, I just have to give them back at least once. I will not bother you again and I hope this matter resolves peacefully.

Nothing grey about it. The people living there want to be british and the place has been under continuous british occupation for the last 170+ years.

Between the Falklands Defense Force and the Resident British Army Company there are a minimum of two company groups on the Island, possibly more if you add in Engineers and RAF Regt.

I've heard people saying that the UK has at least one battalion constantly on the Alert as a rapid reaction force, and by air they can be on the ground within 24 hours. The RAF has 4 Typhoons in the Islands on alert, and the the Tornado's *might* still be flyable if they werent returned to the UK. They also have SAR, Tanker and Air Defense units (Rapier) present on the Islands. Along with that MPA is designed to accept massive reinforcement, and bringing 1435 flight up to squadron size (with the squadron providing the personnel for the flight) and sending down a GR.4 squadron with Storm Shadow should not take too long.

As it is, I wouldn't bet on the Argentines against even the four typhoons already there unless they made visible improvements to their airforce (returning mothballed airframes to service, increasing training etc). And visible improvements would lead to increases in British forces.

On the Naval Front, well, look at the ships the Argentines have and particularly their weaponry, while remembering their networking is probably of the same era as their weapons.

A squadron of Storm Shadow equiped Tornadoes could decimate the entine Argentine military within days. And they don't have any way to prevent it.

 

[riksavage]

Nothing grey about it. The people living there want to be british and the place has been under continuous british occupation for the last 170+ years.

Between the Falklands Defense Force and the Resident British Army Company there are a minimum of two company groups on the Island, possibly more if you add in Engineers and RAF Regt.

I've heard people saying that the UK has at least one battalion constantly on the Alert as a rapid reaction force, and by air they can be on the ground within 24 hours. The RAF has 4 Typhoons in the Islands on alert, and the the Tornado's *might* still be flyable if they werent returned to the UK. They also have SAR, Tanker and Air Defense units (Rapier) present on the Islands. Along with that MPA is designed to accept massive reinforcement, and bringing 1435 flight up to squadron size (with the squadron providing the personnel for the flight) and sending down a GR.4 squadron with Storm Shadow should not take too long.

As it is, I wouldn't bet on the Argentines against even the four typhoons already there unless they made visible improvements to their airforce (returning mothballed airframes to service, increasing training etc). And visible improvements would lead to increases in British forces.

On the Naval Front, well, look at the ships the Argentines have and particularly their weaponry, while remembering their networking is probably of the same era as their weapons.

A squadron of Storm Shadow equiped Tornadoes could decimate the entine Argentine military within days. And they don't have any way to prevent it.

A single Daring Class, 1 x SSN and a T23 plus appropropriate RFA support working in conjunction with Falklands based GR4 / Typhoon (say three of each) would provide excellent coverage. The PAAMS system is designed to control and vector in air assets. Stick the Daring / T23 / RFA off West Falklands to provide an early warning screen for CAP. Storm Shadow and SSN launched Cruise Missiles would decimate any Argentine attack at the outer limits of the exclusion zone. This is all fantasy though, because the sabre rattling is driven by oil, the Argentines do not have the military will or means to take back the Islands, and if oil is found the US would benefit as much as the UK, so highly likely the US would see it in her interest to ensure the reserves are controlled by a stable and reliable friend.

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

Basically, everyone knew there was a possibility of huge Oil reserves off the Falkland Islands and Argentina wants it cut. The UK is saying "You have no chance".

Actually the UK is saying "you had your chance but spat in our faces when we made you an offer, so why should we give you more generous terms now?"

 

[TIN MAN]

Actually the UK is saying "you had your chance but spat in our faces when we made you an offer, so why should we give you more generous terms now?"

Well this is correct, and ALONSO, the UK WILL act responsibly, and we have been doing so for 28 years. UK forces have not provoked or rattled any sabres towards Argentina and we have a minimal though effective military presence on the Islands. On the other hand you could say our very presence is a provocation, in eyes Argentinian at least.

Argentina will just have to live with it, as the situation isn`t going to change in the foreseeable future regards any "Argentising" of the Falklands.

You do have a point about US backing though, would Obama support the UK? I would lean towards a "YES" if Argentina started any hostilities but I cannot be certain. Politicians and the government in the UK sense a weird kind of "Cooling off" in UK-US relations with the Obama administration, maybe "Cooling- off" is too strong a term, but it certainly isn`t the kind of Blair/Bush Thatcher/Reagan relationship of the past.

SteveOh, 16 Air Assault Brigade, are available as the Rapid Reaction Force to reinforce the islands and they have ALL the equipment and man power attached to them to be a force to be reckoned with within 24 hours if required, and they would just be the first echelon

 

[AndrewMI]

Argentina's claim to the Falklands is twofold:

1 - It is geographically, the closest mainland country to the Falklands - 300 Miles Away.
2 - The Falklands ,may, be on the South American continental "shelf".

These are two very weak arguments in law, although on the face of it (I.e. without thinking) are persuasive.

The UK asserts its sovereignty for the following reasons,

The Falklands have formed part of the UK from a time before Argentina even existed.
The people living there are British, and consider themselves to be British, for as long as this remains the case they will be defended.


There are other reasons, the strategic usefulness of the islands for a start, in particular Oil.

Essentially the scenario is that the islands have been British, in essence, since time immemorial. Whilst the Argentines may offer arguments as to why the islands should not be British, they can offer no compelling argument as to why they should be Argentine. In absence of this, the status quo will remain.

Britain has no reason to give up the islands, indeed has compelling reasons to retain them.
Argentina has no compelling reason as to why they should be Argentine (as opposed to Chilean, Uruguayan etc etc) and has no means of unilaterally changing the status quo.

 

[windscorpion]

Falklands’ war tested modernized Super Etendard in Argentine Navy’s agenda — MercoPress

If the Argentines can wait to 2015 they could have improved aircraft.

 

[MrQuintus]

If they wait until 2015 we should have HMS QE2 and at least a few F-35s

 

[swerve]

Argentina's claim to the Falklands is twofold:

1 - It is geographically, the closest mainland country to the Falklands - 300 Miles Away.
2 - The Falklands ,may, be on the South American continental "shelf".

These are two very weak arguments in law, although on the face of it (I.e. without thinking) are persuasive.

The UK asserts its sovereignty for the following reasons,

The Falklands have formed part of the UK from a time before Argentina even existed.
The people living there are British, and consider themselves to be British, for as long as this remains the case they will be defended..

I'm afraid this is inaccurate.

Argentinas main claim is historical, with geographical proximity being a minor factor. The islands were claimed by Spain from the early 17th century (& possibly earlier, if the islands sighted & claimed, but not accurately located, from Spanish ships in the early 16th century were the Falklands), & governed by Spain from the 1760s. The first settlement, & hence effective claim, was French (BTW, the Spanish name is a Spanish version of the French name - Les Malouines, from St. Malo) - and subsequently ceded to Spain, & the Spanish claim recognised by France. The Spanish withdrew their garrison when wars elsewhere needed the troops, & governed the islands from Buenos Aires (with regular official visits to oversee the itinerant whalers & sealers there) until Argentinas war of independence.

Argentina has claimed since becoming independent that it inherited the islands from Spain at independence. It attempted to enforce its claim from about 1819 until forcibly ejected by the UK in the 1830s.

The first British attempt to settle the islands was a couple of years after the French settlement - 1766, IIRC. After a few years squabbling with the French & then Spanish, the settlement was abandoned in the early 1770s. There was no further British attempt to occupy the islands until 1834, i.e. 18 years after Argentinean independence. It is therefore wrong to say that the islands were part of the UK, or even a British possession, before Argentina existed. BTW, they never have been part of the UK. They're in a different category, & always have been.

Spain holds that Britain recognised the Spanish claim in the Treaty of Utrecht (1713). The United Kingdom disagrees with that interpretation of the treaty.

The main (IMO only) strength of the British claim is based on 176 years of uninterrupted possession, 169 years of settlement, & the wishes of the inhabitants. That's a pretty solid basis, & I believe perfectly adequate. There is no need to embellish it, & IMO making false claims about 'part of the UK', 'settled for 300 years' (not you, I know, but I've seen it) undermine, rather than strengthen, our claim.

BTW, there's one little legal oddity. The first purchase of land in the Falklands was made by the precursor of the Falklands Islands Company from a man called Louis Vernet, who was then (1840) visiting London. Vernet owned the land because it had been granted to him in the 1820s by the United Provinces (now Argentina). The British government recognised the validity of that land sale, which implies that it accepted the validity of the Argentinean land grant. Oops!

 

[jaffo4011]

Falklands’ war tested modernized Super Etendard in Argentine Navy’s agenda — MercoPress

If the Argentines can wait to 2015 they could have improved aircraft.

these would be inadequate against sea harrier frs2's,never mind tornado f3's and i frankly wouldnt even bother taking off against typhoons and the daring class which will be fully operational by then.......its a fifty year old aircraft,modernised or not.

 

[windscorpion]

Well its just an example of where their air power is, basically the same as it was in 1982 just a lot older and some updates. Their recent army changes with emphasis on special forces and rapid reaction is probably more interesting re: Falklands though if they were going to attack it'd probably be, as they apparently said in WW2 if some bad old novels were correct, an "Ascension Day trip".

 

[StevoJH]

Well its just an example of where their air power is, basically the same as it was in 1982 just a lot older and some updates. Their recent army changes with emphasis on special forces and rapid reaction is probably more interesting re: Falklands though if they were going to attack it'd probably be, as they apparently said in WW2 if some bad old novels were correct, an "Ascension Day trip".

Their airfroces are less capable now then they were in 1982, just because their aircraft have only slightly improved capability however they are present in much lower numbers.

 

[Alonso Quijano]

Argentina's claim to the Falklands is twofold:

1 - It is geographically, the closest mainland country to the Falklands - 300 Miles Away.
2 - The Falklands ,may, be on the South American continental "shelf".

These are two very weak arguments in law, although on the face of it (I.e. without thinking) are persuasive.

The UK asserts its sovereignty for the following reasons,

The Falklands have formed part of the UK from a time before Argentina even existed.
The people living there are British, and consider themselves to be British, for as long as this remains the case they will be defended.


There are other reasons, the strategic usefulness of the islands for a start, in particular Oil.

Essentially the scenario is that the islands have been British, in essence, since time immemorial. Whilst the Argentines may offer arguments as to why the islands should not be British, they can offer no compelling argument as to why they should be Argentine. In absence of this, the status quo will remain.

Britain has no reason to give up the islands, indeed has compelling reasons to retain them.
Argentina has no compelling reason as to why they should be Argentine (as opposed to Chilean, Uruguayan etc etc) and has no means of unilaterally changing the status quo.

This argument is a bit too poor for these islands before British were Spanish.

The Falklands were discovered in 1520 by Esteban Gomez, crew of the ship San Antonio, one of the ships of Magellan's expedition. as the demarcation of lands of the papal bulls, the islands belonged to Spain.

In 1765 a British expedition reached the islands and called the Falkland Islands. In 1770, British occupation forces were evicted by Spain, which claimed the sovereignty of the islands through diplomatic channels. When you created the Viceroyalty of the Rio de la Plata, the Falklands were placed under the governorship of Buenos Aires. From 1774 to 1810, Spain successive governors appointed for the archipelago.

In 1776, when it created the viceroyalty of Río de la Plata, the Falkland Islands were included in the territory of the governorship of Buenos Aires. After 1810, the islands remained under that jurisdiction. In 1820, the frigate Argentina Heroin was sent to Falklands to take final possession of the islands. In 1825 there was a significant fact: Britain recognized the independence of Argentina and did not claim the islands. In 1828, the government of Buenos Aires awarded to Luis Vernet, in concession, the Port loneliness to build a colony. This led to one hundred and Indian gauchos on the pampas, working in animal husbandry.

In 1829 Vernet was appointed governor of the Malvinas. And that same year Britain claimed their right to sovereignty over the islands, awarded its discovery.
In 1833 the nation took the Falklands under their control, expelling the native authorities. Since then, Argentina has never ceased to claim sovereignty over the archipelago.

in any case the economic situation in Argentina is no wonder that the inhabitants of the Malvinas want to remain British ...

 

[brian00]

It doesnt really matter who got there first and who has a more legitimate claim over the islands, The British Occupy them and arent gonna give them up unless defeated militarily, in this age of limited oil reserves they are just too important, also they offer a claim on antartica, UN resolutions are unimportant

Personally i think that we shoud reinforce our defences on the island, perhaps some more aircraft and definitely some ssn's patroling the waters,

I also think that if the argentinians were to try to retake the islands, attacks against targets on their mainland should not be ruled out