Seeing how Ukraine have put a big dent in the Russian navy can the isles be defended successfully with drones?
Do we have more drones than they do ships?
Why would you want to? And do the Russians really want to invade?
I thought the RAF has Typhoons stationed there, and presumably plans to deploy more if things kick off. I don't think the Argentine Air Force has anything capable of fighting Typhoons. Even if the Typhoons weren't there, as we saw in Ukraine, trying to fly troops in to an airport defended by surface to air missiles is suicide. I can't see an airborne invasion succeeding.
Invading by sea would be just as suicidal. It would only take one submarine to wipe out an invasion fleet with enormous casualties.
I don’t think the Falklands is high on Putins invasion list 🤷🏻♂️
I’m guessing the OP was talking about an Argentinian invasion not a Russian one? The Falklands don’t hold much of a resource or strategic advantage to Russia so can’t see why they’d be interested in it.
The Argentinian military has been neglected and hollowed out even more than ours since the days of Galtieri.
The UK military presence at RAF Mount Pleasant is small but proportionate and much more of a deterrent than the tiny force which was there pre-invasion in 1982.
There is no realistic possibility of them having a pop, much less succeeding. Whatever a few chants and a repurposed white surrender flag might say.
It would only take one submarine to wipe out an invasion fleet with enormous casualties.
How would we know if they were really injured - or just flailing around in the sea pretending!?
I thought the RAF has Typhoons stationed there
1435 flt, four aircraft named for historical reasons Faith, Hope, Charity and Desperation.
The bigger question I think is does 'our' claim to them as sovereign territory still hold water in 2026.
As with most things in life it's complicated.
- Argentina as it exists today did not exist at the point 'we' claimed them as a sovereign territory. At the time they were completely uninhabited and we shipped in the colonists to set up the whaling station and a resupply station for ships going around Cape of Good Hope prior to the Panama Canal. And a bit of farming to stop everyone starving.
- The Argentinian claims to them is and always has been a populist distraction tactic to take the eye away from domestic issues.
- The people currently living on the Falklands voted overwhelmingly in a referendum to remain a UK sovereign territory in 2013.
- There are supposedly oil and gas reserves in Falkland waters - though decades of exploration seems to have got no closer to extraction.
Having said all that......I'm not convinced the UK's claim to them holds a lot of water in 2026. The views of the people seems a good reason.....but they would say that wouldn't they, what with the majority being of British descent, the rest European and relatively few of South American.
If anything the islands seem like a poison chalice and we were the mugs left holding it. It's eye wateringly expensive to defend and to prop up the inhabitants, it's strategic value is practically non existent, it's natural resources appear difficult to extract and as time goes on become more and more irrelevant and I'm not convinced the Argentina would know what to do with the islands if they ever got their hands on them. All the time we get to look like the out of touch ex colonial dickheads holding on to something we don't even really want.
If anything the islands seem like a poison chalice and we were the mugs left holding it. It's eye wateringly expensive to defend and to prop up the inhabitants, it's strategic value is practically non existent, it's natural resources appear difficult to extract and as time goes on become more and more irrelevant and I'm not convinced the Argentina would know what to do with the islands if they ever got their hands on them. All the time we get to look like the out of touch ex colonial dickheads holding on to something we don't even really want.
Yes, this is Galtieri's gift to Argentina and the UK. I'm utterly convinced the UK would have handed them over if Galtieri had just waited, but he invaded as a distraction from his other political problems. Once he did that, he made it impossible for any British leader to give them up. The more that Argentina threatens to try retaking them, the less room for compromise for British leaders.
How would we know if they were really injured - or just flailing around in the sea pretending!?
🤣 🤣
If anything the islands seem like a poison chalice and we were the mugs left holding it. It's eye wateringly expensive to defend and to prop up the inhabitants, it's strategic value is practically non existent, it's natural resources appear difficult to extract and as time goes on become more and more irrelevant and I'm not convinced the Argentina would know what to do with the islands if they ever got their hands on them. All the time we get to look like the out of touch ex colonial dickheads holding on to something we don't even really want.
Can you imagine being the Prime Minister that gave up the Falklands? I tend to agree with all the points but it would be political suicide to ever give them up.
The people currently living on the Falklands voted overwhelmingly in a referendum to remain a UK sovereign territory in 2013.
This is the issue though - there is a well-established principle of self-determination and so long as the Falkland Islanders wish to remain British, that is that.
As you've identified, the Argentine territorial claim is a bit sketchy anyway (and I think there was a period in the 19th C when they actually relinquished this).
I'm utterly convinced the UK would have handed them over if Galtieri had just waited
The issue about expense and questionable strategic value is of course what led to the mood music in the early '80s which made the Junta think we couldn't/wouldn't defend them, not that either us or Argentina would be able to refight that with current resource. IIRC there were also attempts made to persuade the islanders that they would be better off with shared sovereignty and ultimately becoming part of Argentina?
Do we have more drones than they do ships?
Have a read about the state of Argentina's navy and air force. I reckon theres more chance of the Welsh successfully capturing the Falklands.
Yep, the pre war discussions were moving in that direction and the cultural, travel and economic benefits of closer ties to Argentina or even full control were beginning to sway the islanders. It probably would have been a good thing for all parties. The invasion torpedoed that forever. I think the fact that Argentina invaded whilst simultaneously appearing to negotiate in good faith, has coloured the islanders' view of their potential as rulers for generations to come.
We may be "ex-colonial dickheads", but ALL claims to the islands are colonial in origin and tenuous at best. In light of that, the strongest "claim" is the views of the long settled population. I believe the ball is in Argentina's court, to show they would offer benign, light touch and economically beneficial governance. If they can convince the islanders of that, then it will be time for Britain to let go. I don't see that happening any time soon.
No other country has a "better" right to the Falklands, and until the islanders vote otherwise, they will remain our problem.
We certainly couldn't recover them in the (unlikely) event of an invasion in the way we did in '82.
As someone wisely said in another thread, the Malvinas are a dog whistle in Argentine politics the way "immigrants" are in the UK
theres more chance of the Welsh successfully capturing the Falklands.
I've been, they'd feel very at home there 🙂
Can you imagine being the Prime Minister that gave up the Falklands? I tend to agree with all the points but it would be political suicide to ever give them up.
This.
Just imagine the froth it would generate from the flag lovers.
No government for the foreseeable is going to do it. Maybe if financial circumstances change and a deal could be made, such as post-war when the country needs money, then maybe.
The issue about expense and questionable strategic value is of course what led to the mood music in the early '80s which made the Junta think we couldn't/wouldn't defend them,
And if Thatcher hadn't been going through something of a popularity crisis at the time and a general election looming in the not so distant future, we might not have bothered.
As someone wisely said in another thread, the Malvinas are a dog whistle in Argentine politics the way "immigrants" are in the UK
That's it! The solution! Two birds with one stone.
Send all our immigrants to the Falklands. Then, because jammed full of immigrants, Argentina won't want them any more. Peace and love for everyone (except perhaps the Falklanders. But who's gonna ever think of those islands again anyway?)
The issue about expense and questionable strategic value is of course what led to the mood music in the early '80s which made the Junta think we couldn't/wouldn't defend them,
And if Thatcher hadn't been going through something of a popularity crisis at the time and a general election looming in the not so distant future, we might not have bothered.
Not just Maggie. The Navy were facing massive cuts, HMS Invincible was to be sold to the Australians. The Admirals took a massive gamble to prove that they were still relevant.
The Task Force was the last throw of the dice for them. There were no reserves and no contingency. They were one Exocet away from complete failure. If the Exocet that sunk the Atlantic Conveyor had hit their intended target of a carrier, then that would of been it.
It was a much closer thing than what was portrayed at the time.
And if Thatcher hadn't been going through something of a popularity crisis at the time...
https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/15211
Slight tangent, but Argentina could learn a thing or two from their former colonial master. After years of delicate diplomatic negotiations between Spain and the UK, the hard border and passport controls between Spain and Gibraltar have just been removed. To the joy and relief of both Spaniards and Gibraltarians. Without the need to threaten or use military force.
It would only take one submarine to wipe out an invasion fleet with enormous casualties.
All 5 of the UKs attack submarines were in dock it was reported in June. Not sure if that has changed...
We certainly couldn't recover them in the (unlikely) event of an invasion in the way we did in '82.
True. The Vulcans aren't flying any more, so it's a non-starter.
All 5 of the UKs attack submarines were in dock it was reported in June. Not sure if that has changed...
Probably not. As part of the DIP there was something about increasing the SSN fleet to 12 again though, which is what we had when the S- and T- boats were all in service not that long ago...
Not just Maggie. The Navy were facing massive cuts, HMS Invincible was to be sold to the Australians.
Yup. If they had waited a year the taskforce would have been non-existent. Thatcher was lucky the military hadnt been so screwed over by the tory changes that they were still able to respond.
Slight tangent, but Argentina could learn a thing or two from their former colonial master.
Spain has only slowly been learning that lesson. Historically they did take the same approach of trying to inconvenience/piss off the locals.
From what I've read, due to 'Military Top Trumps' the 4 Typhons based there are more than a match for Argentina's entire air force.
The Islands are economically unimportant really, one of the last few pockets of Empire, but they're strategically important as they bolster our territorial claim over Antartica, should the Antarctic Treaty be revoked for mining rights or whatever. With the metaphorical wind blowing away from fossil fuels towards renewables and lithium, it might not be so important in the future. Of course, now it's very politically important because of the war in the 80s, makes certain types all misty eyed about blighty etc.
But yeah, drone warfare is going to be massive, never has it been so cheap and easy to kill people and destroy stuff. The Public didn't seem to lose too much sleep when a $30m Reaper drone, piloted from an airconditioned shipping container in Las Vegas was used to kill people in the Middle East, a few grands worth of DJI blowing up people and ships won't both us either I guess. Maybe even a fleet of hundreds of them all piloted by and AI system launched from the back of a ship or hanger. The solders and civilians they destroy? Just more meat for the grinder.
a few grands worth of DJI blowing up people and ships won't both us either I guess
Aye, and one of the issues there is using tens/hundreds of thousands of pounds of missile to shoot down a few hundred pounds worth of drone.
Not sure how much effect GPS jammers will have (which of course will have a knock-on on civilian use, and is already a factor in Europe) or whether radar guided light AA guns will make a return as these seem ideal for knocking down something flying relatively slowly and predictably.
but they're strategically important as they bolster our territorial claim over Antartica, should the Antarctic Treaty be revoked for mining rights or whatever.
I'm not sure if there was ever a carve up those carving up would give a toss about ownership of some islands nearby. The UK is a spent force for that kind of pressure.
Give the islands to Chile.
I know I could google this but as there's a thread on it, isn't NATO 'an attack on one of us an attack on us all'?
I'm pretty sure with the support of NATO we'd stand a pretty good chance of dissuading something military, but why didn't NATO get involved in '82 and what would stop them today?
I know I could google this but as there's a thread on it, isn't NATO 'an attack on one of us an attack on us all'?
Its geographically restricted to attacks in "Europe or North America"
I know I could google this but as there's a thread on it, isn't NATO 'an attack on one of us an attack on us all'?
I'm pretty sure with the support of NATO we'd stand a pretty good chance of dissuading something military, but why didn't NATO get involved in '82 and what would stop them today?
North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. The Falklands are not in the North Atlantic and not within the physical limits of the treaty.
I know I could google this but as there's a thread on it, isn't NATO 'an attack on one of us an attack on us all'?
I'm pretty sure with the support of NATO we'd stand a pretty good chance of dissuading something military, but why didn't NATO get involved in '82 and what would stop them today?
The North Atlantic Treaty does not cover the South Atlantic. Article 5 covers direct attacks on the territory of member states, all of whom are in Europe or North America, but not their ex-colonial possessions, dependencies etc. I think there is also a get-out clause about countries which are subject to territorial disputes with neighbours, which is one reason why Ukraine would not be allowed to join.
Edit: beaten to it.
why didn't NATO get involved in '82 and what would stop them today?
Depends how you define 'involved'. French intelligence service heavily involved in disrupting Exocet supply, American satellite imagery, other members backfilling UK (and particularly Royal Naval) NATO commitments etc.
why didn't NATO get involved in '82 and what would stop them today?
Depends how you define 'involved'. French intelligence service heavily involved in disrupting Exocet supply, American satellite imagery, other members backfilling UK (and particularly Royal Naval) NATO commitments etc.
Well during the conflict, Dassault Aviation had a team of technicians in Argentina trouble shotting their Exocets, which directly led to the loss of the Atlantic Conveyor and HMS Sheffield. If they had sunk a carrier, then the Task Force was finished.
other members backfilling UK (and particularly Royal Naval) NATO commitments
Are you sure? I thought New Zealand was the only country to do that?
Well during the conflict, Dassault Aviation had a team of technicians in Argentina trouble shotting their Exocets, which directly led to the loss of the Atlantic Conveyor and HMS Sheffield. If they had sunk a carrier, then the Task Force was finished.
What would have caused even bigger problems was the right low-altitude fusing for iron bombs, which the French declined to supply - this meant that a number of task force ships were hit but the bombs didn't explode. The French also stopped sales of Exocets to Argentina and to anyone else in S America who might have passed them on (e.g. Peru). I may be misremembering but I am sure there was also something about the slightly suspicious death of someone on French soil who was trying to obtain more missiles.
Are you sure? I thought New Zealand was the only country to do that?
You're right about NZ but that was in the Indian Ocean. I am pretty sure we did have support from NATO allies covering e.g. standing naval forces etc.
Well during the conflict, Dassault Aviation had a team of technicians in Argentina trouble shotting their Exocets, which directly led to the loss of the Atlantic Conveyor and HMS Sheffield. If they had sunk a carrier, then the Task Force was finished.
What would have caused even bigger problems was the right low-altitude fusing for iron bombs, which the French declined to supply - this meant that a number of task force ships were hit but the bombs didn't explode. The French also stopped sales of Exocets to Argentina and to anyone else in S America who might have passed them on (e.g. Peru). I may be misremembering but I am sure there was also something about the slightly suspicious death of someone on French soil who was trying to obtain more missiles.
I thought that the failure of the bombs to explode was caused by mistakes by the Argentinian armourers? They simply did not set them correctly?
I thought that the failure of the bombs to explode was caused by mistakes by the Argentinian armourers? They simply did not set them correctly?
Again, I'm sure I read somewhere that Matra had fuzes with a lower minimum drop height but didn't supply them
How would we know if they were really injured - or just flailing around in the sea pretending!?
Upload straight to you tube. You can watch the frantic flailing in real time.
We certainly couldn't recover them in the (unlikely) event of an invasion in the way we did in '82.
Not sure that's entirely accurate. The army in particular is setup more for expeditionary warfare than we were in '82.
Corporate was a success due to the brute force of the taskforce which mitigated our own strategic failures and the ineptitude of the Argentinian plan which played in our favour.
The irony is the current force structure is why there is such angst about a ding-dong with Russia, because we lack the heavy hitting kit and mass for near peer conflict.
