Falklands War part 2?

[MotF Bane]

Please don't troll and derail this thread. Please stick to the issue of the Malvinas. Thanks.

This coming from one of the biggest trolls and derailers of any thread that has a tangential relation to the United Kingdom?

Also, Falklands, not Malvinas. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands

 

[CanOWorms]

Let's try to get back to the prior interesting discussion on the Malvinas.

It looks like the Argentinian president's speech did not indicate a severing of the last remaining air link between the Malvinas and the world. Rather, they are appealing to the United Nations.

Argentinian leader denounces 'militarization' of the South Atlantic

"I have instructed our chancellor to formally present before the U.N. Security Council and the U.N. General Assembly this militarization of the South Atlantic, which implies a great risk for international safety," she said during a speech in Buenos Aires.

The Argentinians should be applauded for their desire for bilateral talks. Hopefully the UK de-militarizes the South Atlantic and takes the responsible and mature step - agree to a bilateral discussion.

 

[dawheat]

Hmm, thanks for pointing this out. Though I don't think that would be enough to prevent an Argentinian takeover, so my point pretty much stands. The UK doesn't really have enough capability to project force beyond its mainland, IMO.

After doing a little more reading, I don't think there is any way for Argentina to take the Falklands by force. The UK forces would include the 4 Typhoons, the HMS Dauntless, a ground force, SAMs and likely a SSN if it came down to it.

The HMS Dauntless is one of the finest AA ships in existence - at least a match for our own Arleigh Burke class destroyers. If it patrols off the islands, there isn't really any way for Argentina to bring in forces by the air. Combined with limited air cover (which are far superior aircraft to anything Argentina has) and SAM assistance, they could inflict heavy casualties on any air assault and have a fair chance of surviving. Without these assets neutralized, bringing in troops by the air is impossible.

A SSN could easily make sure no troop ships (I think Argentina has 2?) can land on the Falklands.

There are 1200 British troops - more than enough to fight off any covert assault (which in itself is unlikely to make it to the islands).

So taking the islands by force is a pipe dream for Argentina. Since most of the supplies come in from a flight from the UK, this could just be a long, drawn out episode of two countries whipping it out.

Unlike the 80s where the UK had only a token force, there is no easy play for Argentina. Yes, if they somehow lost the islands, the UK would have little to no ability on their own to retake it. But their prudent preparations have actually left them in a decent spot.

 

[CanOWorms]

A former head of the UK army claimed that the UK would not be able to hold off an Argentinian invasion. I imagine he is quite knowledgeable on the UK's assets and capabilities.

 

[Puddle Jumper]

We'll have to agree to disagree here, but the issue is pretty pointless since I don't think that we're going to see an armed conflict between Argentina and the UK.

Do you disagree with the Eurofighter Typhoon being one of the most advanced combat aircraft in the world? Do you disagree with the museum pieces Argentina is flying being outclassed in every possible way?

 

[CallMeJoe]

After doing a little more reading, I don't think there is any way for Argentina to take the Falklands by force...

I guarantee that if the UK suspected there were even the most remote chance of Argentine seizure of the Falklands, one particular helicopter pilot would never have been posted there.

 

[dawheat]

A former head of the UK army claimed that the UK would not be able to hold off an Argentinian invasion. I imagine he is quite knowledgeable on the UK's assets and capabilities.

I believe that is incorrect. He claimed the UK could not RETAKE the islands if they were lost. He also disagreed with the official British position that a successful invasion was impossible.

This is a FAR cry from Argentina being able to pull it off. At minimum there would be severe loss of life involved.

And reading into his comments, I get the impression he is unhappy with the defense cuts and is trying to raise support to increase military spending. The British Defense Ministry and the commander on-site are highly confident in their ability to repulse any attack.

 

[CanOWorms]

I believe that is incorrect. He claimed the UK could not RETAKE the islands if they were lost. He also disagreed with the official British position that a successful invasion was impossible.

This is a FAR cry from Argentina being able to pull it off. At minimum there would be severe loss of life involved.

And reading into his comments, I get the impression he is unhappy with the defense cuts and is trying to raise support to increase military spending. The British Defense Ministry and the commander on-site are highly confident in their ability to repulse any attack.

You are correct. However, how long is the UK going to maintain an elevated presence in the region?

This sort of situation is likely to be repeated in regards to other British overseas colonies. Such is the result of colonialism.

 

[KMFJD]

You are correct. However, how long is the UK going to maintain an elevated presence in the region?

This sort of situation is likely to be repeated in regards to other British overseas colonies. Such is the result of colonialism.

As long as the people living there want to remain British, and the UN will back them up, along with the USA

 

[CanOWorms]

As long as the people living there want to remain British, and the UN will back them up, along with the USA

The USA is actually supporting the Argentinian position.

 

[CallMeJoe]

The USA is actually supporting the Argentinian position.

Such emphatic support for the Argentinians:

We recognize de facto United Kingdom administration of the islands but take no position regarding sovereignty.

 

[CanOWorms]

Such emphatic support for the Argentinians:

I've already posted the official State Department stance. Why did you cut out significant details?

This is a bilateral issue that needs to be worked out directly between the governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom. We encourage both parties to resolve their differences through dialogue in normal diplomatic channels.

We recognize de facto United Kingdom administration of the islands but take no position regarding sovereignty.

The USA's position is bilateral talks. That is what Argentina is seeking.

The position also shows no support for the UK, and in light of the shift in US position, disregard towards the UK.

 

[CanOWorms]

The Argentinian president seems like the rational party here. Politicians can learn a lot from her current stance.

Argentine president to UK PM: Give peace a chance

She accused British Prime Minister David Cameron of militarizing their nations' dispute over sovereignty of the South Atlantic archipelago, which Argentines say the British stole from them nearly 180 years ago.

Argentines are united in their desire to win back the islands they call the Malvinas through diplomacy and negotiation, she said, urging Cameron to "give peace a chance."

"We have suffered too much violence already to be attracted to military games and wars," Fernandez said in a nationally broadcast address. "No land should end up being a trophy of war."

Britain says it originally discovered and owned the islands a century before Argentina existed. The Spanish crown claimed them for years, and then an independent Argentina held them before Britain seized them in 1833, driving off the gauchos and bringing colonists down from Britain.

Seven generations of "kelpers" have made their homes on the remote, wind-swept islands ever since, growing to a population of 3,100 people determined to remain a British dependency.

London's tabloids and British leaders have spent weeks depicting Argentina as dangerous and belligerent 30 years after its 1976-83 dictatorship launched a brief war that killed 649 Argentines and 257 Britons. Britain routed the ill-prepared South Americans, humiliating the junta and hastening Argentina's return to democracy.

In the lead-up to Argentina's invasion on April 2, 1982, large crowds turned out in favor of the military, heeding calls to donate their family jewelry for the war effort. Fernandez said the junta and its media allies were to blame for drumming up this groundswell of support, and insisted that most Argentines never wanted war.

Fernandez decreed Tuesday night that a long-secret analysis of the junta's failures be made public in 30 days, and said it will prove the junta was to blame.

"We continue to assert that you can't blame the Argentine people for a dictatorship's decision, in order to refuse to comply with what the United Nations has ordered, to sit down and negotiate and talk," she said.

 

[RabidMongoose]

This coming from one of the biggest trolls and derailers of any thread that has a tangential relation to the United Kingdom?

Also, Falklands, not Malvinas. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands

If everyone trolled who they believe is a troll, then the whole forum would just be trolled.

I consider you to be a troll, but I don't use that as a justification to derail a thread. As this is an issue with the Malvinas, please don't troll and instead try to discuss the Malvinas. I appreciate your understanding. Thanks.

 

[Nebor]

A former head of the UK army claimed that the UK would not be able to hold off an Argentinian invasion. I imagine he is quite knowledgeable on the UK's assets and capabilities.

As already pointed out to you earlier in the thread, he said they wouldn't be able to retake the islands if they were lost. But everyone is extremely confident in the UK's ability to defend the islands. Reading is fundamental.

Also, you've repeatedly called British officials liars and genocide enablers; why the sudden change of heart when it comes to trusting their words?

 

[BladeVenom]

The position also shows no support for the UK, and in light of the shift in US position, disregard towards the UK.

Believe what you want, but if Argentina attacks the Falklands again, the British will be the ones receiving US intelligence and arm sales, not Argentina.

 

[RabidMongoose]

After doing a little more reading, I don't think there is any way for Argentina to take the Falklands by force. The UK forces would include the 4 Typhoons, the HMS Dauntless, a ground force, SAMs and likely a SSN if it came down to it.

The HMS Dauntless is one of the finest AA ships in existence - at least a match for our own Arleigh Burke class destroyers. If it patrols off the islands, there isn't really any way for Argentina to bring in forces by the air. Combined with limited air cover (which are far superior aircraft to anything Argentina has) and SAM assistance, they could inflict heavy casualties on any air assault and have a fair chance of surviving. Without these assets neutralized, bringing in troops by the air is impossible.

A SSN could easily make sure no troop ships (I think Argentina has 2?) can land on the Falklands.

There are 1200 British troops - more than enough to fight off any covert assault (which in itself is unlikely to make it to the islands).

So taking the islands by force is a pipe dream for Argentina. Since most of the supplies come in from a flight from the UK, this could just be a long, drawn out episode of two countries whipping it out.

Unlike the 80s where the UK had only a token force, there is no easy play for Argentina. Yes, if they somehow lost the islands, the UK would have little to no ability on their own to retake it. But their prudent preparations have actually left them in a decent spot.

I respectfully disagree. The HMS Dauntless is not going to be there forever and the UK capabilities are on a downward trajectory, IMO. Moreover, I don't think that anyone for Argentina is talking about taking the islands by force. It appears that the UK is the one making signs of aggression, not the Argentinians or anyone who seems to support the Argentinians. For example, I am not calling for violence. Instead, I'm looking for peaceful resolution on this issue.

 

[CanOWorms]

Believe what you want, but if Argentina attacks the Falklands again, the British will be the ones receiving US intelligence and arm sales, not Argentina.

We're all welcome to believe what we want.

All this talk of Argentina attacking the Falklands is probably very premature anyways. They're asking for bilateral talks. Moreover, with the decline of the British, these types of situations are likely to arise elsewhere and tax their already crumbling resources. Argentina may be able take the Malvinas without any force.

 

[BladeVenom]

Argentina doesn't seem to give a damn about what the people who live on the islands want.

 

[Nebor]

If everyone trolled who they believe is a troll, then the whole forum would just be trolled.

I consider you to be a troll, but I don't use that as a justification to derail a thread. As this is an issue with the Malvinas, please don't troll and instead try to discuss the Malvinas. I appreciate your understanding. Thanks.

I'm still really confused about this Malvina thing. We're talking about the group of islands East of Argentina, right? Map for reference.

 

[RabidMongoose]

I'm still really confused about this Malvina thing. We're talking about the group of islands East of Argentina, right? Map for reference.

Yes, some people refer to them as the Malvinas.

 

[Nebor]

We're all welcome to believe what we want.

All this talk of Argentina attacking the Falklands is probably very premature anyways. They're asking for bilateral talks. Moreover, with the decline of the British, these types of situations are likely to arise elsewhere and tax their already crumbling resources. Argentina may be able take the Malvinas without any force.

And the UK may be able to blanket Argentina with Sarin gas without international repercussions.

 

[StinkyPinky]

A former head of the army claims that the UK would not be able to retake the Malvinas.

Britain could not reclaim the Falklands if Argentina invades, warns General Sir Michael Jackson



The British military is undoubtedly weaker than in 1982. Argentina has developed quite a bit. It has received support from other South American nations, including pledges of military support. The US has also distanced itself from the UK.

The UK may want to think about a graceful transition, particularly if they wish to retain a facade of still being an international power.

Come 2021 the UK will have two Carriers second only to the US Carriers in capability. They far exceed anything any country in South America can put in the water. They will also have an updated airforce for these ships.

So, yes, they are definitely limited at the moment but only for half a decade.

 

[CallMeJoe]

Come 2021 the UK will have two Carriers second only to the US Carriers in capability. They far exceed anything any country in South America can put in the water. They will also have an updated airforce for these ships.
So, yes, they are definitely limited at the moment but only for half a decade.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:
Again, if there were even the slightest chance that Argentina could seize the Falklands, Flight Lieutenant Wales would never have been posted there.

 

[CanOWorms]

Come 2021 the UK will have two Carriers second only to the US Carriers in capability. They far exceed anything any country in South America can put in the water. They will also have an updated airforce for these ships.

So, yes, they are definitely limited at the moment but only for half a decade.

2021 is so far away. Hopefully the UK will suffer a setback in its carrier program and the further militarization of the South Atlantic ceases.