[Closed] Are the Argies eyeing up The Falklands again?

Does anyone need to sell more tools of war?

You're half right. It's just the "again" bit that's wrong.

They've always had their eyes on the Antarctic oil & mineral rights that the Malvinas package comes with.

row about sovereignty?

(Imagines a Masked Maggie on a Trolley being wheeled out a la Hannibal Lecter)

EDIT: And it has been done 🙂

[img] [/img]

I should imagine buttock face is hoping they do something stupid to boost his popularity thus hiding his lies and lack of spine over RBS

A more impartial news source will point out that the ship that is heading out is simply taking the place of one already stationed there. The telegraph will instead tell you that Dauntless is 'sending a powerful message'.

Personally I think its all part of an ongoing 80's revival

Well they can't have helped but notice that, after the defense cuts, the Royal Navy now consists of 3 of these:

[img] [/img]

So they might fancy their chances a bit more than last time. Is someone in Argentina up for re-election? That's normally the logic behind most saber-rattling

We have a big airfield down their now, as long as we defend that, we'll be OK

If we lost it, we're ****ed

Things are definitely hotting up with the discovery of oil. The Argies cause is now being supported by other South American countries too:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16280613

And a scary quote:

"Brazil and other countries know that thanks to Liam Fox's defence cuts, the UK no longer has aircraft carrier capability so British maritime power projection has been fatally weakened by the government."

jota - there's one Vulcan bomber (funded by charity) that could bomb said runway if we did lose it!

there's one Vulcan bomber (funded by charity)

Can you use gift aid when donating funds for the bombs?

As for the aircraft carriers/ships, it wouldn't be the first time a conservative govt, bought a ship back from the breakers yard and deployed it in a conflict.

binners - relax - we also have this:

[img] [/img]

S'alright, the Burger Eaters will come to our rescue.

Atleast the canadians have guns on their boats now

[img] [/img]

"Brazil and other countries know that thanks to Liam Fox's defence cuts, the UK no longer has aircraft carrier capability so British maritime power projection has been fatally weakened by the government."

It's a pity we didn't take up the offer of a couple of US nukes on a long lease

If they do have the capability to actually get to the Islands, and then take the defended purpose buit RAF base, the'y better do it quick before the UK sends elements of the joint rapid reaction force. I'd fancy my chances even less this time around if I were an Argentinian pilot, flying the same shit they had 30 years ago but now against FI based Typhoons.

HMS Dauntless is only taking over from the Montrose on South Atlantic deployment. With a possible issue in the Gulf the Navy could be stretched.

Calm down guys, nothing is going to happen.
Quite rightly Argentina want a share of the oil on their doorstep.

Plus of course they would not mind getting the islands under their control. Should they have them? Personally I would like to see it, its costing us a fortune to keep them.

Tis a great place..

I loved the time I spent down there.

[IMG] [/IMG]

[IMG] [/IMG]

[i]Quite rightly Argentina want a share of the oil on their doorstep.[/i]

Who the **** do they think they are? The Scottish?!!!!

Perhaps instead of a referendum we could resettle the SNP to the Falklands. They can have their independence there, where it will be useful for something.

Sod it, let's send the BNP down there too, could split the island in half and let them lob half bricks at each other.

Teetosugars - in the lower pic', how far away are those nuns?

Quite rightly Argentina want a share of the oil on their doorstep.

Who the **** do they think they are? The Scotch?!!!!

FTFY

[url=

believe the hype[/url]

[i]hels - Member
Perhaps instead of a referendum we could resettle the SNP to the Falklands. They can have their independence there, where it will be useful for something[/i]

Maybe that would be the only way of the "Scotch" getting fair share of oil money. Plus could always pppppick up a ppppenguin!

Argentina would need air superiority to have any chance of taking the islands and that's not going to happen as long as we have Typhoons based at MPA. Plus they have no credible airforce anyhow as its been starved of cash for many years (in a far worse way than ours has!).

Well they can't have helped but notice that, after the defense cuts, the Royal Navy now consists of these

[img] [/img]

So don't send any troops by sea Argentina.

It's never going to happen anyway

They're just playing the long game in the hope that one day we'll negotiate with them

Its a wee bit sad that they feel the need to political posture time and time again over a small spec of an Island in the Atlantic. Why aren't they out nicking land of Chile? 😆

You wait, a few years down the line
someone will broker a deal where they get some rights in return for renouncing their overall claim

And we get to not spend a few squillon quid on defence

just wait and see

TeaToo... That's a proper 80's SF tash there. You forgot the black nasty though.

Teetosugars, in the first pic are you sporting a button-nose erection? 😆

OP - Reclaiming the Falklands (Malvinas) remains a national priority for Argentina. Worryingly, they have spent a great deal of money on modernising and professionalising their armed forces. They are very keen to open a dialogue with the UK about the sovereignty of the Islands. However, the UK is unlikely to negotiate while the majority 3,000 Islanders want to remain British. The sad irony is that during the 1970s the British Government was quite open to the idea of handing sovereignty over to the Argentine. Had they not invaded in 1982, then the Falkland islanders may have been lured by promises of Argentinean investment and compensation.

It is possible that the Argentineans will use their armed forces to only threaten invasion, thus causing the UK’s already overstretched armed forces to struggle with their existing operations. This will bring the UK Government to the table. A prime time would be this summer during the Olympics. British troops will be committed in Afghanistan and thousands will be providing security for the Games. Also, it will be winter in the South Atlantic which will hamper the progress of any British Task Force. A cunning Argintenian commander may also threaten Acension, and St Helena, South Georgia or even the British Antartic Territory in order to tie down as many British resources as possible.

It is possible that a small group of military extremists will set up a base on a remote corner of the Falklands. This would place the UK in a difficult position. It could use force to remove the outpost, but it could be bloody. More likely, they will negotiate. Worst case scenario is that the outpost gains the support the Argentineans public forcing the hand of the Government.

The real question is: How many British lives are we willing to sacrifice for a small chunks of rock with a population of about 3,000 people? Already, 255 sounds too much.

One nuke.

That's all we need. May as well use them before they get obsolete.

Whatever anyone thinks of her she had more balls than any male Cabinet member. If we had stepped back/down. How the bell may have tolled for our prestige since.

Yes she closed a lot of industries however it was her own Churchillian moment (where are you Junkyard? Come and get me!) 😆

willard - Member
TeaToo... That's a proper 80's SF tash there. You forgot the black nasty though.

Hahaha..

It's the issue one.

🙂

Unlikely......

hora - Member

Its a wee bit sad that they feel the need to political posture time and time again over a small spec of an Island in the Atlantic.

pmsl

I reckon we should give the Falklands [s]back[/s] to the Argentines just as soon as the Spanish give back Argentina to the Incas...

Racist.

Teetosugars, yesterday.

[img] [/img]

I reckon we should give the Falklands back to the Argentines just as soon as the Spanish give back Argentina to the Incas..

😆

[i]zokes - Member
I reckon we should give the Falklands back to the Argentines just as soon as the Spanish give back Argentina to the Incas... [/i]

The Inca's? They were from the north and invaded the present day land of Argentina, but only a sidgen of it). Think you may mean the indigenous tribes of the region than the Inca's. It's like saying give Britain to the Vikings. History lesson over.

wallace1492 your irony filter is malfunctioning.

I think it should be given back to the Welsh

It's too early in the day for irony! That comes after lunch!

I had a quick look at Argentine Military in wiki yesterday. They really are still flying the same planes they had at the end of the 1982 war.

Lovely people the Argentinians, can anyone think of a modern conflict that has been fought with so little actual hatred? Lots of actual bloodshed, but the point being we can and will get along.

It's not going to be a poplar position in BA but young Argentinians ought to be damn thankful they didnt win in 1982. A thoroughly nasty, Fascistic, anti-semitic gang of murderous bastards were running that marvelous country into the ground and would have continued had they not been exposed for the thugs they were. Who knows how S.American politics would have gone had they remained in power. Things are better today.

So what's really going on over there? Is it just some Argentinian political posturing 30 years on or is there a serious threat of shots being fired? UN have told both sides to calm down, not sure what significance that has. Or have our leaders seen political capital in upping the ante?

is there a serious threat of shots being fired?

No, there isn't a serious threat of shots being fired imo.

Maybe the gov are trying to avoid past mistakes. If the Franks Report into the first and hopefully only Falklands War is correct, we sent mixed messages to Argentina about our willingness to defend the islands. Perhaps they are merely sending a "gentle reminder."

Certainly only a gentle one though given that we probably couldn't defend the islands militarily now anyway.

From Franks:

"116. In July 1981 the British Embassy in Buenos Aires reported, in a letter to the Foreign
and Commonwealth Office at official level, that several Argentine newspapers had
carried prominently versions of a report of an article in The Daily Telegraph on the
subject. The letter reported that all the newspaper articles highlighted the theme that
Britain was “abandoning the protection of the Falkland Islands”. [b]An intelligence report in
September 1981 quoted an Argentine diplomatic view that the withdrawal of HMS
Endurance had been construed by the Argentines as a deliberate political gesture;[/b] they
did not see it as an inevitable economy in Britain's defence budget since the implications
for the Islands and for Britain's position in the South Atlantic were fundamental. "

@redfordrider

Bit of man posturing on my part but I'd rather go to the FI and fight for them than go back to Afghan fighting for a people without an inkling of understanding about the value of their lives.

No, there isn't a serious threat of shots being fired imo.

Probably right. 1, The Argies couldnt win if we are to believe the state of their military & the ability of ours. 2, its highly unlikely HM Gov want another fight for many reasons. Mainly 'cos we are broke & cant really afford it & we have no real ability to get the necessary bits & bobs down to the FI with any expediency.

mu3266 - Glad to hear it. Let's hope that you don't have to. I have no doubt that our Armed Forces will do us proud in the unlikely event the Argies forget their history. However, I'm not certain that the British public has the stomach to take the sort of casualties as last time. I'm not even sure that we're willing to kill 700 Argies to keep it. Anyway, I don't think that this hypothesis will be tested anytime soon - Unless Argie Military Intelligence monitor this forum.

Mainly 'cos we are broke & cant really afford it

Well that's the point - Argentina knows that Britain is declining economically and therefore also militarily. It's all just a matter of time. Whether it takes 20, 40, or 60 years, eventually, Argentina will be in a much stronger position economically and militarily, as will her allies such as Brazil. In the meantime Argentina will tighten the noose causing the Falklands to be a further economic liability to Britain. Already Britain is spending far more than it would wish to as the price of defending 3000 islanders 8000 miles away, and it should probably be spending more. Expect also the economic burden to increase dramatically when the weekly flights from Chile cease.

Another reason Argentina would not want to take any hostile military action is due to the fact that it enjoys overwhelming global support for its stance on the Falklands Islands, it would make no sense alienating that, specially as Britain is in breach of UN Resolutions concerning the Falklands. And that support is huge, even the United States votes with Argentina at the UN. Moreover support from its South American neighbours is growing, even Chile which has traditionally been a bit out of sync with other South American countries and has historical territorial disputes with Argentina has now thrown its weight behind Argentina. And support from other South American nations is now beginning to also turn proactive.

My guess is that Argentina is playing a long game with subtle but increasingly relentless pressure on Britain. The only thing which I can imagine that would dramatically hot things up is if Britain starts extracting large amounts of oil from the region. I'm highly suspicious of what the Argentine government would do under those circumstances. Specially as they will be aware that Britain can ill afford to have a large permanent Royal Navy presence 8000 miles from the UK. Plus they have powerful trading partners such as China who are very likely to prefer Argentina rather than Britain extracts any oil. For me what the Argentine government would do should the situation arise where Britain is helping herself to "their" oil is pretty much an unknown, although it is something which they have undoubtedly discussed and have contingency plans for - whatever they may be. IMO

is there a serious threat of shots being fired

Highly doubt it, as many Chileans on the island as there are British. If Chile is behind Argentina at the moment that would be a pretty big wrong move.

Taff, the general assumption is that the Chileans will leave the Falklands as soon as direct flights from Chile cease - they will not want to go on 16000 mile home visits via the UK. Which probably is the main reason why Argentina has requested that direct flights from Chile cease, rather than to cause shortages other than labour shortages. I agree there is zero chance of them bombing the Falklands though.

If the Argies do try it on they'll get a bloody nose like last time and sent packing again..... The Falkland Islanders want to remain British and thats all that counts....

Unless they want to send a warship to frighten us....

Gotcha!!

8)

The only thing which I can imagine that would dramatically hot things up is if Britain starts extracting large amounts of oil from the region. [...] Specially as they will be aware that Britain can ill afford to have a large permanent Royal Navy presence 8000 miles from the UK.

Are you sure those two statements aren't somewhat contradictory?

Already Britain is spending far more than it would wish to as the price of defending 3000 islanders 8000 miles away

go on, how much?

if we have warships they need to sail and train, if we have warplanes they need to fly and train etc Or do you propose a reduction in these if we give the place away?

so what is the real cost?

I agree there is zero chance of them bombing the Falklands though.

are you related to the defence minister? how did you come by this insider information?

are you related to the defence minister? how did you come by this insider information?

I shouldn't really be telling you this but he's my uncle.

.

.

Although you would do well to try to understand the concept of "I agree" big and daft.
It is generally understood to mean "I agree with your opinion".

Speech/talking can sometimes be such a complex thing, wouldn't you say big and daft ?

Although you would do well to try to understand the concept of "I agree" big and daft.
It is generally understood to mean "I agree with your opinion".

and what do you base this viewpoint on? what your uncle told you at the family barbeque? 😉

Speech/talking can sometimes be such a complex thing, wouldn't you say big and daft ?

you have an audio version of stw?

at the family barbeque

It's called an "asado" for your information.

Really.......sometimes I truly despair at the lack of culture shown on STW.

From a UK military point of view, nothings changed. Just carrying on with what has been going on since 1982. I think that Kirchner's "militarisation" claims are more to do with deflecting attention away from the fact that her administration has decimated the Argentine military. In fact the UK is has been de-militarising the Falklands.

Well that's the point - Argentina knows that Britain is declining economically and therefore also militarily. It's all just a matter of time. Already Britain is spending far more than it would wish to as the price of defending 3000 islanders 8000 miles away

Argentina can have all the time it wants, it's the only thing it will be getting as long as the islanders want to remain "British".

and it should probably be spending more.

A curious quote, considering the state of Argentina's armed forces. you are almost saying that it's un-affordable.

And that support is huge, even the United States votes with Argentina at the UN. Moreover support from its South American neighbours is growing, even Chile which has traditionally been a bit out of sync with other South American countries and has historical territorial disputes with Argentina has now thrown its weight behind Argentina. And support from other South American nations is now beginning to also turn proactive.

The power of the UK Veto renders anything meaningful happening from an Argentine perspective.

The real issue is the same issue as before, deflect attention away from domestic issues. I do believe that there are fuel and transportation price increases going on in Argentina at the moment.

Kirchner is doing what all governments do when there are uncomfortable domestic issues...what the Romans called "do panem et circenses."

I think that Kirchner's "militarisation" claims are more to do with deflecting attention away from the fact that her administration has decimated the Argentine military.

And I think you'll find that 'decimating the Argentine military' was highly popular in Argentina. The days of their supreme privileges have long gone. You'll also find that Argentina has been working very closely with Brazil an emerging superpower which has been building up its navy in preparation for a more assertive role (as has/is China). Argentina has maintained its aircraft carrier qualifications by regularly operating its planes off Brazil's carrier. It is also in the process of helping Brazil build a fleet of nuclear submarines (soon to be operational) with its extensive nuclear expertise. Argentina will also have two nuclear powered submarines of its own. 30 years ago, although supportive, Brazil was not in a position to help Argentina, it will be in the future - even if it doesn't directly involve itself. France has already stated that it will not allow British planes to operate from the Charles De Gaulle in any possible future Falklands conflict. Argentina [i]is[/i] still comparably militarily weak, but things do not necessarily remain static, and Britain is unlikely to be militarily stronger in future years to come. I still think another Falklands war is extremely unlikely though, and not least because it's not necessary imo.

And I think you'll find that 'decimating the Argentine military' was highly popular in Argentina.

Yes, 1976-83 was the death blow.

You'll also find that Argentina has been working very closely with Brazil an emerging superpower which has been building up its navy in preparation for a more assertive role (as has/is China). Argentina has maintained its aircraft carrier qualifications by regularly operating its planes off Brazil's carrier.

The two countries that the UK has strongest political links with are Brazil and Chile. While banning Falkland flagged vessels is something these countries can do as it costs little, who would these countries really side with if it got nasty?

When the likes of landlocked Bolivia sign up to the ban, you know its pretty useless. They wouldn't go as far as to ban UK registered vessels.

The Uk has just sold three off shore patrol vessels to Brazil, so they can better protect their off shore resources.

It is also in the process of helping Brazil build a fleet of nuclear submarines (soon to be operational) with its extensive nuclear expertise. Argentina will also have two nuclear powered submarines of its own.

While both countries have extensive knowledge in building nuclear reactors for commercial purposes, fitting one inside a sub is a different matter. The French are helping Brazil build conventional subs and then Brazil will take one of these subs and fit a reactor into it. The French under international treaty cannot share nuclear technology, so Brazil will have to work out how to do it and they realise that a conventional sub hull is not perfect for this task. They will have to design and build a dedicated sub. So about the year 2030 before that happens?

Of course, if a shooting war does kick off(god forbid) they will go up against a Royal navy who have operated these type of subs since the 1960's and are among the best at anti-submarine warfare in the world.

Brazil was not in a position to help Argentina, it will be in the future - even if it doesn't directly involve itself. France has already stated that it will not allow British planes to operate from the Charles De Gaulle in any possible future Falklands conflict.

There wouldn't be any need for France to be directly involved. The UK will have two carriers. But, as you say that Brazil would probably not get directly involved, France will do what it did during the last conflict. I hear Argentina are still smitten with French aircraft.

Argentina is still comparably militarily weak, but things do not necessarily remain static, and Britain is unlikely to be militarily stronger in future years to come.

Dangerous to predict the future in both instances.

I noticed that Argentina's defence minister is making even more absurd statements. I like the one saying that HMS Vanguard has been sent to the south Atlantic. Vanguard is a ballistic missile carrying sub. At least we now know where the the former Iraqi information minister has been hiding.

Doesn't he know that the UK Subs are too busy crashing into their French counterparts in the North Atlantic?

Britain is unlikely to be militarily stronger in future years to come.

With the obvious exception of carrier capability - the lack of which is something people keep suggesting makes us weak at the moment.

Why all the fuss;

Because both of us want to claim the Oil and Fish down there.

We only claim to be justified in that Oil and Fish because we say we own the island, but didnt we just stick some people on it when it was uninhabited. Thereby giving us the excuse to "defend" it as ours.

Or is my history wrong ? Anyone know just how we end up with British people living on an island 8000 miles away ?

because we say we own the island, but didnt we just stick some people on it when it was uninhabited.

Well how else does anybody ever come to own territory?

Though in actual fact that isn't quite what happened - GIYF.

the general assumption is that the Chileans will leave the Falklands as soon as direct flights from Chile cease

OP - Reclaiming the Falklands (Malvinas) remains a national priority for Argentina. Worryingly, they have spent a great deal of money on modernising and professionalising their armed forces. They are very keen to open a dialogue with the UK about the sovereignty of the Islands. However, the UK is unlikely to negotiate while the majority 3,000 Islanders want to remain British. The sad irony is that during the 1970s the British Government was quite open to the idea of handing sovereignty over to the Argentine. Had they not invaded in 1982, then the Falkland islanders may have been lured by promises of Argentinean investment and compensation.

It is possible that the Argentineans will use their armed forces to only threaten invasion, thus causing the UK’s already overstretched armed forces to struggle with their existing operations. This will bring the UK Government to the table. A prime time would be this summer during the Olympics. British troops will be committed in Afghanistan and thousands will be providing security for the Games. Also, it will be winter in the South Atlantic which will hamper the progress of any British Task Force. A cunning Argintenian commander may also threaten Acension, and St Helena, South Georgia or even the British Antartic Territory in order to tie down as many British resources as possible.

It is possible that a small group of military extremists will set up a base on a remote corner of the Falklands. This would place the UK in a difficult position. It could use force to remove the outpost, but it could be bloody. More likely, they will negotiate. Worst case scenario is that the outpost gains the support the Argentineans public forcing the hand of the Government.

The real question is: How many British lives are we willing to sacrifice for a small chunks of rock with a population of about 3,000 people? Already, 255 sounds too much.

Bollocks! The Argies military isn't anywhere near as strong as it was in 82. The country does not trust it's military and any upgrades that have been made to their military have been those that are needed to keep their equipment operating.

Except perhaps their ancient Skyhawk's that have been upgraded with some old F-16 avionics packages but that's it.

The simple fact is, that there are 1500 military personnel on the Falklands now. To take a dug in island you need an initial landing force that is roughly 3 times larger. So who the **** in South America has the ability to amphibiously land 4500 soldiers on the Falklands? No one. Don't even mention dropping them by air, if it was going to kick off there'd be squaddies with Starstreak and Rapiers at all the drop zones.

No government is going to negotiate over the Falklands....REPEAT NO ONE....it would be election suicide. Any nutcases that landed on one of the outlying islands would be sipping morning coffee to the sound of 500lb JDAMs thudding around them and that would be it.

To top it all off the Americans are in the process of signing a Billion dollar contract for some of the Falklands Oil. So what do you think would happen if they got caught in the crossfire? Every Brazilian and Argentine military base along the coast would have it's furniture permanently rearranged by Tomahawk missiles. This whole "OMFG TEH ARGIES ARE COMING TO GET US....BRING BACK THE HARRIERS AND THE SLR" is getting old.

The Argies would need air superiority to be able to mount any sort of invasion

given the assets we have down there, that isn't going to happen anytime soon

Bwaarp - I doubt that anyone seriously thinks that there will be a full scale invasion. However, it is still possible that the Argies may use cunning, guile and surprise to bring the UK to the negotiating table. The UK has lost the ability to think strategically - others have not. All the Argentineans need to do is to create a situation where the UK government is forced to participate in negotiations. A limited occupation of a a remote corner of the archipelago during the run-up to the Olympics will attract the sort of attention that the UK would be keen to avoid. As for 500lb JDAMs, and TLAMs....Using overwhelming force to kill such a small group would not endear the UK to the rest of the world. Attacking the South American mainland would make the UK an international pariah and rank us alongside N Korea, Burma, and Iran. In fact, it's the sort of overreaction that should be avoided at all cost.  We may win the battles, but still lose the war. As Sun Tsu said, "Tactics without strategy is the sound before defeat."

Military top trumps means very little.  History is full of examples of the weak defeating the strong. After all, the Taliban don't look good on paper. Neither did the Vietcong, the Zulu, or the mujahideen. 

We should avoid overconfidence and not underestimate a determined adversary.

And there lies the Crux of the problem. Any fighter sweep to permanently knock out the airbase and the T45 would be huge. Let's say the RAF get 2 Tiffies in the air.... that's 16 AMRAAMS. Add say a minimum of 24 missiles for the Rapiers (don't know how many batteries are on the Island) and 45 missiles available for immediate use by the T45. Let's assume the T45 is parked off the runway. The Argentines and Brazilians (let's be nice to the Argies and add them) would have to launch at least that amount of aircraft at the island to guarantee that some of the attack planes manage to land strikes on the runway.

The Argentines at best would only ever have 35-40 aircraft in a combat ready state, the Brazilian fighters would either need to fly from Argentine airbases (which intelligence would notice before hand), fly from the Argentine carrier (again intelligence would see that steaming towards the Falklands within no time) or use air to air refuelling and launch extended range strikes (which would hamper their effectiveness). All in all, we'd see it coming and be able to reinforce the island with additional fighters whilst the Argentines would be risking their entire fast jet assets and the Brazilians would be risking the torpedoing of their prize naval asset.

Mate all the Argentines are doing by bleating to the UN; is making fools of themselves. If.....IF they sent some Spec ops types to camp out on one of the remote islands we have three options. 1) Starve the ****ers 2) Leave them be, can't do much harm can they 3) Send some black nasty types in. 4) Send Harry and his Apache over - when the British public witness the flir footage of Harry and his gunner lighting them up whoever is in power will win the next election, the international community will protest and then nothing will be done about it.

Yes, but what if 10 people land using a small fishing boat, hoist a flag and beam the pictures all over the Internet? Low tech can often beat hi tech.

How much food do they have, do they have unlimited supplies? Does Argentina have a Security Council Veto? Has "public support" stopped the IDF from being trigger happy? Has it stopped any other war in the past decade for that matter?

beam the pictures all over the Internet?

very easy to block