Ok, this is just a bit of posturing from the Bloc at the moment, but knowing we now have a zero percent capacity for projecting air power at sea, will the Argentines be tempted to attempt another invasion?
Or will we just station another attack boat down there, i suspect 2 nuclear attack boats with associated weaponry would be enough to severely mess up any invasion fleet?
No chance. We have around over 1000 troops stationed down there.
i suspect 1 nuclear attack boat with associated weaponry would be enough to severely mess up any invasion fleet?
FTFY
i suspect 1 nuclear attack boat with associated weaponry would be enough to severely mess up any invasion fleet?
will the Argentines be tempted to attempt another invasion?
Like Gibraltar not ours but we wont give it back
If anything did happen again, I'm not sure we could rely on the support from the USA as Obama now refers to the Falklands as the Malvinas. I think he's saying something without saying it.
La malvinas son argentinas
Argentina have no legitimate claim to the Falklands.
If anyone does aside from the UK, its Spain.
Regardless of posturing, It'll never be Argentinian, certainly not in our lifetimes anyway.
(iirc) Spain has a claim to the falklands, Argentina doesn't - since Argentina is no longer part of Spain.
(the falklands were British before Argentina existed as a country)
will the Argentines be tempted to attempt another invasion?
They really don't need to. They only need to be sufficiently belligerent and threatening for long enough, and Britain would not be able to maintain the costs associated with a permanent task force in the South Atlantic. Hostile acts short of full invasion, indefinitely, would do it. Argentina isn't going anywhere, and the costs to them would be minimal, the costs to Britain would be horrendous.
Part of the reason that it was over so quickly last time was that the invasion had been a last ditch attempt by a discredited military government to save itself from collapse - it was seen as a highly popular move. It failed, the junta collapsed very quickly afterwards and the whole issue was temporarily shelved in Argentina. Whatever Argentina are up to now, they will be playing a long game - you can be sure of that.
I'm with Lord West on this one... send a submarine down there to pop its periscope up and remind them that they'd lose again if they try anything.
What claim except relative geographic proximity does Argentina have to them?
Bring on the development of British anti ship ballistic missiles!
Are the bloody french going to sell them exocets and mirage jets again?
They only need to be sufficiently belligerent and threatening for long enough, and Britain would not be able to maintain the costs associated with a permanent task force in the South Atlantic. Hostile acts short of full invasion, indefinitely, would do it
Assuming that we don't find oil there.
If we can deliver them there, British forces would make mincemeat of the Argentinians even with significantly less numbers. We've been engaged in proper war fighting for a good few years now which no training exercise can get close to replicating. They are very well aware that we'd not use the nuclear capability (quite rightly)
Are the bloody french going to sell them exocets and mirage jets again?
War isn't much fun when the other side has an air force - is it ?
jon1973 - Member
If anything did happen again, I'm not sure we could rely on the support from the USA as Obama now refers to the Falklands as the Malvinas...
I'm sure we can rely on our allies in the EU to help out...
Surely all's even since that cocky short fella nudged the ball with his arm way back when...
British forces would make mincemeat of the Argentinians even with significantly less numbers.
I can't see a problem then. Carry on.
Obama now refers to the Falklands as the Malvinas
What claim except relative geographic proximity does Argentina have to them?
about the same as any other spanish-speaking south american country?
fwiw, i don't think that Britain has a moral right to the territory, but 200 or so years ago we were arguing with the spanish over them. They don't seem to care much anymore, so i guess they're 'ours'...
(and now that we know there's oil down there, it just seems silly to give them away)
Is it part of the EU, strictly speaking? I know some European overseas territories are.
Ummm, What about the small issue of what the islanders want? (to remain with the UK) Or is self determination an irrelevance?
It is an anachronism of our military imperialism. The fact we did it a long time ago is no reason to assume it is just.
If Israel do a jewish plantation to Plaestine [ we kicked the argies out in 1832/3 [i forget which] will it be ok in 100 years time? 200 years?
A colonial remnent. compare the fate of Diego Garcia where we refuse to allow an entire peoples back to the islands they lived on because we allowed the USA to build an military base on them. the people were forcibly removed in the 60s and despite court orders that they be allowed to return to their lands they remain banned from the land they lived on for generations
No oil of course and they are brown people
The Falklands are recognised as colonies by the Unites Nations.
UN resolution of December 1965 :
Resolution 2065 (XX) The Assembly considered the issue General.Habiendo the Malvinas (Falkland Islands), Taking into account the chapters of the reports of the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples relating to the Malvinas (Falkland Islands) and in particular the conclusions and recom ¬ mendations approved by the same regarding the Terri ¬ tory, whereas its resolution 1514 (XV) of December 14 1960, was inspired by the cherished aim of putting an end to colonialism everywhere and in all its forms, one of which fits the case of the Malvinas Islands (Falkland Islands).
Invites the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to proceed without delay with the negotiations recommended by the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples with a view to finding a peaceful solution to the problem, bearing in mind the provisions and objectives of the Charter of the United Nations and of General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) and the interests of the population of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas);
More recently, UN General Assembly June 2011 :
Special Committee on Decolonization Adopts Draft on Falkland Islands (Malvinas)
What about the small issue of what the islanders want?
Because the UN recognises the Falklands as colonies, it is only concerned with their "interests", not the wishes of the population.
v8ninety - MemberUmmm, What about the small issue of what the islanders want?
Diego Garcia? The wishes of the islanders are paramount?
from ernies link
Imploring the Special Committee not to adopt the resolution as presented, Roger Edwards, an elected official of the Legislative Assembly of the Falkland Islands, and one of several petitioners to take the floor on the issue, pointed out that the text had been drafted without a reference to the wishes of the Falkland people and their fundamental right to self-determination. “Falkland Islanders do not wish to see a change from British sovereign status,” he declared. The Islands had never formed part of Argentina; they were self-sufficient, self-governing and enjoyed a high standard of living. “Please respect our people’s wishes and our right to self-determination,” he said.On the other side of the issue, petitioner María Angélica Vernet, Director of the National Historical Museum of the Buenos Aires Old Town Hall and May Revolution, traced her roots to the Malvinas Islands, where Argentine citizens had been stripped of their property and expelled by the United Kingdom in 1833. The population on the islands today was not a people in the legal sense of the term, as they were British either by birth or by origin. “The usurpation of the Malvinas Islands in 1833 was the usurpation of a territory that, both in fact and in law, belonged to Argentina,” she insisted.
Weighing in as an observer, Héctor Marcos Timerman, Minister for Foreign Affairs, International Trade and Worship of Argentina, reiterated his Government’s “unrenounceable” rights over the Malvinas, South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands and the surrounding maritime spaces. In accordance with the United Nations mandate, he said, Argentina had included in its Constitution the commitment to take into account their interests and respect their lifestyle.
Further, while Argentina had always advocated the right to free determination of peoples, the United Nations, on the question of the Malvinas Islands, had determined that such a principle did not apply, he said, since the inhabitants of the South Atlantic Islands had not been subjugated to a colonial power. He extended a formal invitation to the British Government to resume negotiations, in good faith, to resolve the sovereignty dispute and end an “incomprehensible” colonial situation that was unacceptable in the twenty-first century.
will the Argentines be tempted to attempt another invasion?
He extended a formal invitation to the British Government to resume negotiations, in good faith, to resolve the sovereignty dispute
konabunny - what about Diego Garcia? whats the difference?
I'm going to extend a formal invitation to Junkyard to resume negotiations, in good faith, to resolve the ownership dispute over the contents of his wallet.
And you think there is a comparison ? 
The UK is a member of the UN, and a Security Council member at that, it has clear obligations which come with being a UN member. If the UN exists at all then it is to deal with issues concerning territorial disputes - it is its bread and butter. And one of the principle reasons why it was formed in the wake of World War 2.
Ignoring the UN should not be an option for Britain, but it does. Time for sanctions against Britain maybe? And as we know military action should never be ruled out - always keep that option on the table. Says, Bush, Blair, Cameron, Obama, etc.
Regardless of any claim to the Falklands Islands, I cannot see any possible claim from the Argentinians on South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands, which have never been under Spanish control.
Like Gibraltar not ours but we wont give it back
A minor problem of the population not wanting to change, as with the Falklands.
The situation is a political construct playing to the mob. They are using a lull in our expeditionary capability to force a political "solution" against the wishes of the population. If the majority of islanders wanted the change I really couldn't see a British goernment opposing it.
On the other side of the issue, petitioner María Angélica Vernet, Director of the National Historical Museum of the Buenos Aires Old Town Hall and May Revolution, traced her roots to the Malvinas Islands, where Argentine citizens had been stripped of their property and expelled by the United Kingdom in 1833.
in 1833 it's debatable whether Argentina formally existed
using the same logic we "own" lots of France, somehow I don't see it happening
konabunny - what about Diego Garcia? whats the difference?
I believe we recently replaced the Tornadoes which were stationed there with Typhoons - a move which the Argentinians considered 'warmongering'.
Regardless of colonialism and your views on it, the Falklands' population considers itself to be British. And that should be where it ends.
If the Argentinians want to get sulky, perhaps they should consider giving their own country back to its natives, and bogging off back to Spain. But I suspect there may be a few issues with that...
You must log in to post.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
