Falklands War The Second?

invalid

It really should be noted by some posters that Argentina lost.
They lost despite knowing the Task Force was on its way and knowing the time of its arrival.
They lost despite there foe operating 8,000 miles away from home.
They lost despite the fact that the UK had to assault Argentine held territory.
They lost despite the UK forces having lost there helicopters and having to walk.
They lost despite having a numerical advantage.
They lost despite having the logistical and terrain advantage.
They lost despite having weeks to dig in.

If there was to be a repeat today I have no doubt that the UK would win, although to be honest I doubt that Argentina will every again be in the position to occupy the Falklands. Also the military position of the UK is stronger than ever, despite not having the carriers. The British Army, the Royal Marines and the RAF are battle hardened after a decade of war in Iraq and Afghanistan. There systems, tactics and equipment are tried and battle tested. In 1982 the UK military was training to deal with a Soviet Attack. The Royal Navy was all about chasing subs around the North Atlantic and not about power projection.
Today with the Type 45 Destroyer, Land based Tornadoes and an Infantry company stationed on the Falkland’s Argentina would not have much chance in invading unopposed. The UK only has to take out a few troop carrying ships or plans to turn any invasion into a disaster.

Plus in the event of an attack do you not think that if needed they would call in some if the favours owed to them by the USA? The USA and the UK are allies, and not in the theoretical sense. Their armies fight side by side. How can anyone not think that after the diplomacy breaks down the USA would not row in right behind the UK?

The talk about ownership is futile and immaterial. The people who live there, and have lived there for generations, wish to remain in the UK and there wishes have to be respected.

Te invasion in 1982 was the result of domestic troubles for the junta. The talk today is for exactly the same reasons. Argentina would do better to look into sorting out eth many difficulties it sill has internally. The economic cost of attacking sovereign territory of the UK would lead to severe sanctions from NATO, the EU, Australia & New Zealand and the USA which would be disastrous for them..

cyrusdvirus

BostonB wrote: »

While useful I don't think its a war winner.

The argentinian aircraft would have been able to carry more/heavier bombs/missiles if they hadn't had to worry about carrying the fuel to get home, if the airfield at Stanley been available for a splash and dash.

Therefore it COULD have been a war winner. Had one of the 2 CV's been knocked out, because of the increased weapons load that the attacking aircraft were able to carry....

Anyway, this is all straying into low level Mitty land, we both have valid points.

But History tells us the facts.

thecommietommy

invalid wrote: »

It really should be noted by some posters that Argentina lost.
They lost despite knowing the Task Force was on its way and knowing the time of its arrival.
They lost despite there foe operating 8,000 miles away from home.
They lost despite the fact that the UK had to assault Argentine held territory.
They lost despite the UK forces having lost there helicopters and having to walk.
They lost despite having a numerical advantage.
They lost despite having the logistical and terrain advantage.
They lost despite having weeks to dig in.

But things would have turned out very differently if the Argentineans had gotten hold of more exocet missiles in time. And many of the Argentines soldiers were badly equipped conscripts who in fairness to them, put up a good fight.

Plus in the event of an attack do you not think that if needed they would call in some if the favours owed to them by the USA? The USA and the UK are allies, and not in the theoretical sense. Their armies fight side by side. How can anyone not think that after the diplomacy breaks down the USA would not row in right behind the UK?

It's a more of a case where the Brits make a big deal out of their 'special relationship ' to America hanging onto US coat-tails on their various military adventures and resource wars. To the Americans the UK is only another colour on the map that is friendly towards them and expendable if needs be in global terms.

The talk about ownership is futile and immaterial. The people who live there, and have lived there for generations, wish to remain in the UK and there wishes have to be respected.

Te invasion in 1982 was the result of domestic troubles for the junta. The talk today is for exactly the same reasons. Argentina would do better to look into sorting out eth many difficulties it sill has internally. The economic cost of attacking sovereign territory of the UK would lead to severe sanctions from NATO, the EU, Australia & New Zealand and the USA which would be disastrous for them..

And domestic troubles for the junta of Thatcher, Tebbit and co.

Why not just give the two little craggy islands back to the penguins ??

BostonB

gatecrash wrote: »

The argentinian aircraft would have been able to carry more/heavier bombs/missiles if they hadn't had to worry about carrying the fuel to get home, if the airfield at Stanley been available for a splash and dash.

Therefore it COULD have been a war winner. Had one of the 2 CV's been knocked out, because of the increased weapons load that the attacking aircraft were able to carry....

Anyway, this is all straying into low level Mitty land, we both have valid points.

But History tells us the facts.

That's a lot of ifs there. They did attack the carriers with bombs and missiles and were not successful. So its not like it wasn't an option they couldn't try. I think the carriers moved further away after that. By missiles I assume you mean Exocets which they had 5 of and used them all. I assume if there were land based strike aircraft the task force would have changed its tactics accordingly. Certainly an in operative carrier, or two would have been a game changer. How likely is debatable. Many of the ships sunk were deliberately put in harms way, how easily they sank came as a shock. Hermes would have been a much tougher nut due to its construction.

Still its an interested scenario to play out.

invalid

thecommietommy wrote: »

But things would have turned out very differently if the Argentineans had gotten hold of more exocet missiles in time. And many of the Argentines soldiers were badly equipped conscripts who in fairness to them, put up a good fight.

It might have, and that shows how badly prepared the Argentines were and how they totally underestimated the British reaction. If you were going to have to defend territory form a sea based attack surely you would prepare for that.

thecommietommy wrote: »

It's a more of a case where the Brits make a big deal out of their 'special relationship ' to America hanging onto US coat-tails on their various military adventures and resource wars. To the Americans the UK is only another colour on the map that is friendly towards them and expendable if needs be in global terms.

That is such a nonsensical reading of Anglo/American relations. Yes to some Americans the UK is a funny shaped island but I am not talking about some inbred hicks in West Virginia. At the highest level of Government, Military and Business the UK and US are close friends, allies and partners. The USA are very happy about there special relationship with the UK and it is as beneficial to them as it is for the UK. Look at the powerhouse of US finance and see just how many Brits work there.

thecommietommy wrote: »

And domestic troubles for the junta of Thatcher, Tebbit and co.

Why not just give the two little craggy islands back to the penguins ??

First, how ever you look at it the Tory government was overwhelmingly elected by the British people in a free and fair election and to call them a junta is pathetic. Second, yes it most certainly helped there re-eltection BUT it was a huge risk, far riskier for the Tories than for the Junta

I am pie

invalid wrote: »

Te invasion in 1982 was the result of domestic troubles for the junta. The talk today is for exactly the same reasons. Argentina would do better to look into sorting out eth many difficulties it sill has internally. The economic cost of attacking sovereign territory of the UK would lead to severe sanctions from NATO, the EU, Australia & New Zealand and the USA which would be disastrous for them..

Once again, Argentina will not attack the Malvinas/Falklands. Repeat. The argies...not going to attack. Not this year. Not next, not going to happen.

Really, do at least 10 minutes reading around to understand the difference between today's (corrupt -yes, populist - yes, economically baffling -yes, MILITARISTIC - NO!) government and that of the Junta.

They know they cannot win a military encounter. They are going to aggressively pursue diplomatic means within an atmosphere of new regional solidarity. They will make it logistically extremely difficult to maintain a connection between the islands and the rest of South America.

The current government has spent 10 years locking up members of the military junta. Being ex military in Argentina comes with a kind of mild social stigma. There are no ex military in government.

I'd be surprised if you can unearth one newspaper article in Argentina ( i'll translate for ya) calling for an attack. The British are characterised as the agressor and the Argies as the 'sane' party trying to establish UN talks on sovereignty. That's basically (i'm not commenting on whether this is correct or not) the Kircher party line. She is more likely to sing God Save the Queen on live TV than invade. It would be political suicide, this is a woman intent on building a Chavez style psuedo democratic dictatorship all wrapped in shiny democratic clothing to fool the masses. Losing wars does nothing for your long term political future. Ask Galtieri and co.

Maoltuile

Dogwatch wrote: »

Old news, they finished that war 140 years ago!!!!!!!!!

I was just replying to the OP's rather startling claim that the Chinese "respected" the return of a piece of China that was seized from them at gunpoint by Western imperialists.

getz

i honestly think the womans politically retarded,there is argentina now the holding president of mercursor over in the EU desperately begging for a mercursor EU trade agreement,and at the same time [latest] banning all british goods ,its of no surprise to me that they have been sent away untill the next mercursor president[a brazilian] comes into office.

invalid

I am pie wrote: »

Once again, Argentina will not attack the Malvinas/Falklands. Repeat. The argies...not going to attack. Not this year. Not next, not going to happen.

Really, do at least 10 minutes reading around to understand the difference between today's (corrupt -yes, populist - yes, economically baffling -yes, MILITARISTIC - NO!) government and that of the Junta.

They know they cannot win a military encounter. They are going to aggressively pursue diplomatic means within an atmosphere of new regional solidarity. They will make it logistically extremely difficult to maintain a connection between the islands and the rest of South America.

The current government has spent 10 years locking up members of the military junta. Being ex military in Argentina comes with a kind of mild social stigma. There are no ex military in government.

I'd be surprised if you can unearth one newspaper article in Argentina ( i'll translate for ya) calling for an attack. The British are characterised as the agressor and the Argies as the 'sane' party trying to establish UN talks on sovereignty. That's basically (i'm not commenting on whether this is correct or not) the Kircher party line. She is more likely to sing God Save the Queen on live TV than invade. It would be political suicide, this is a woman intent on building a Chavez style psuedo democratic dictatorship all wrapped in shiny democratic clothing to fool the masses. Losing wars does nothing for your long term political future. Ask Galtieri and co.

I didn't say they would attack, I said they would loose if they did, which was the original point to the thread. As for Argentine politics i glean what i can from the international press and the intertubes but i what i said was it appears that the reason she turned up the retoric was for the same reasons as Galtiei.

thecommietommy

invalid wrote: »

It might have, and that shows how badly prepared the Argentines were and how they totally underestimated the British reaction. If you were going to have to defend territory form a sea based attack surely you would prepare for that.

Yes but they were blocked from buying more exocets by the EU.

That is such a nonsensical reading of Anglo/American relations. Yes to some Americans the UK is a funny shaped island but I am not talking about some inbred hicks in West Virginia. At the highest level of Government, Military and Business the UK and US are close friends, allies and partners. The USA are very happy about there special relationship with the UK and it is as beneficial to them as it is for the UK. Look at the powerhouse of US finance and see just how many Brits work there.

You British really try to delude yourselves over the so called ' special relationship '. The Americans actually scoff at you behind your back -

US officials privately mocked Britain’s 'paranoia' over maintaining the 'special relationship' http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8180709/WikiLeaks-Britain-mocked-by-US-over-special-relationship.html

First, how ever you look at it the Tory government was overwhelmingly elected by the British people in a free and fair election and to call them a junta is pathetic. Second, yes it most certainly helped there re-eltection BUT it was a huge risk, far riskier for the Tories than for the Junta

I was speaking figuratively

cruasder777

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rn51K4yCppg

Apparently it was the longest supply line of any conflict in history.

Also the first war between two western nations since WWII.

invalid

thecommietommy wrote: »

You British really try to delude yourselves over the so called ' special relationship '. The Americans actually scoff at you behind your back -

I am not British, I am Irish.

Anyway, not going to bother correcting the rest of your post as arguing with you is pointless.

Manic Moran

thecommietommy wrote: »

US officials privately mocked Britain’s 'paranoia' over maintaining the 'special relationship' http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8180709/WikiLeaks-Britain-mocked-by-US-over-special-relationship.html

Perhaps, but though they are amused as to how much the British wanted to keep it going, the article does indicate that the US is quite happy with the relationship as well and do not want to do anything which may risk it.

NTM

Happy Monday

Should the people of Argentina follow the lead set by the people of the Republic of Ireland in relation to Northern Ireland and accept the democratic wishes of the people of the Falklands?

Maoltuile

Manic Moran wrote: »

Perhaps, but though they are amused as to how much the British wanted to keep it going, the article does indicate that the US is quite happy with the relationship as well and do not want to do anything which may risk it.

NTM

Yeah, but the relationship works like this: the Yanks tell the Brits what to do, and the Brits get to take what scraps fall from the table.

Fratton Fred

Maoltuile wrote: »

Yeah, but the relationship works like this: the Yanks tell the Brits what to do, and the Brits get to take what scraps fall from the table.

Thanks for the insight, you are obviously well connected.

Maoltuile

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Thanks for the insight, you are obviously well connected.

Cheers - you're welcome.

Buffman

Interesting article about the Falkland Radio presenter during the war that gives some insight about conditions for the Islanders.

http://news.sky.com/home/world-news/article/16200173

"It was amazing how well prepared the Argentines were. They had tapes they wanted me to play in Spanish and English with their various edicts on.
"A week later we were being made to drive on the other side of the road. The penalty for not doing so was arrest and people needed to know that.
"The currency changed. They were speaking Spanish in schools. If you were sick you had to put a white flag in the window. These were all things people needed to know."

As soon as he got power back at the station, Patrick went on air and played Land Of Hope And Glory and God Save The Queen.
He can't remember in which order but he does remember clearly what he said.
"'You are listening to the Falkland Islands Broadcasting Station. No longer LR60 Radio Nationale es Las Malvinas', I am pretty sure that is what I said.
"And it was great to say that. It really, really was."

thecommietommy

Got the last few minutes of the usually excellent Max Hastings on BBC last night with The Falklands Legacy. He seemed to conclude it was the last pretence for British imperialism and more importantly quoting Hillary Clinton, Uncle Sam is more interested in relations with South America and Argentina than it is with Britain. It's probably only a matter of time until it's handed back to the penguins, sorry Argentina

http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/proginfo/2012/14/the-falklands-legacy.html

Happy Monday

thecommietommy wrote: »

Got the last few minutes of the usually excellent Max Hastings on BBC last night with The Falklands Legacy. He seemed to conclude it was the last pretence for British imperialism and more importantly quoting Hillary Clinton, Uncle Sam is more interested in relations with South America and Argentina than it is with Britain. It's probably only a matter of time until it's handed back to the penguins, sorry Argentina

http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/proginfo/2012/14/the-falklands-legacy.html

Ah no - it won't be going anywhere until the people of the Falklands decide otherwise.
Roll back 20 years for Northern Ireland.
You would have said then that it was only a matter of time before they withdrew from there as well.
You need to study the Anglo Saxon a little closer my communist friend.

thecommietommy

Happy Monday wrote: »

Ah no - it won't be going anywhere until the people of the Falklands decide otherwise.
Roll back 20 years for Northern Ireland.
You would have said then that it was only a matter of time before they withdrew from there as well.
You need to study the Anglo Saxon a little closer my communist friend.

Yeah I do know my history - Hong Kong, India, Kenya, Cyprus, Suez, Malaya etc, etc, etc

Happy Monday

thecommietommy wrote: »

Yeah I do know my history - Hong Kong, India, Kenya, Cyprus, Suez, Malaya etc, etc, etc

Not where the population is 100% British as in this case.
Not where Anglo Saxon blood has been spilled to defend the rights of Anglo Saxon citizens.
The proof is in the pudding my Stanlist chum. :P

bwatson

thecommietommy wrote: »

Got the last few minutes of the usually excellent Max Hastings on BBC last night with The Falklands Legacy. He seemed to conclude it was the last pretence for British imperialism and more importantly quoting Hillary Clinton, Uncle Sam is more interested in relations with South America and Argentina than it is with Britain. It's probably only a matter of time until it's handed back to the penguins, sorry Argentina

http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/proginfo/2012/14/the-falklands-legacy.html

As much as you would obviously love to see such a thing happen, it is probably not only a matter of time

If you combine the greater defensive capabilities of the British forces stationed in the Falkland Islands, the stagnation of the Argentine military, and the hardening of British resolve which has been brought about by heightened media coverage following the arrogance of the Argentine govt and the 30th anniversary, it all looks as if there is less chance now than at any point in the last few decades that such a thing will even be considered.

So, your desire to see further political humiliation put upon the British will not likely be fulfilled in this way.

johngalway

There was a (presume) former UK general on the radio today, he thought Argentinas best plan would be to let it all settle down at the moment, and play nice with everyone. Then, when the guard is down try their best to retake the islands by surprise and if they were successful this time, without a UK carrier, that would be that.

Cardinal Richelieu

Happy Monday wrote: »

Ah no - it won't be going anywhere until the people of the Falklands decide otherwise.
Roll back 20 years for Northern Ireland.
You would have said then that it was only a matter of time before they withdrew from there as well.
You need to study the Anglo Saxon a little closer my communist friend.

The cost of living in the Falklands isn't too cheap these days with the embargo from South America and the grazing for sheep is pretty poor. The oil millions better start rolling in or there might not be too many Falkland Islanders left to defend.

Happy Monday

Cardinal Richelieu wrote: »

The cost of living in the Falklands isn't too cheap these days with the embargo from South America and the grazing for sheep is pretty poor. The oil millions better start rolling in or there might not be too many Falkland Islanders left to defend.

They seemed to have got on fine grazing sheep since 1833.

cruasder777

Cardinal Richelieu wrote: »

The cost of living in the Falklands isn't too cheap these days with the embargo from South America and the grazing for sheep is pretty poor. The oil millions better start rolling in or there might not be too many Falkland Islanders left to defend.

I dont think people live there for the money.......or the nightlife.

You can buy a hse there for 20 grand.

Its a paradise for sheep.

A bit like Mayo, lol, but with Penguins and more snow.

Cardinal Richelieu

cruasder777 wrote: »

I dont think people live there for the money.......or the nightlife.

You can buy a hse there for 20 grand.

Its a paradise for sheep.

A bit like Mayo, lol, but with Penguins and more snow.

One can only live on so much sheep! You could make a bit of money smuggling some fruit and veg onto the Islands.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16980747

OS119

Cardinal Richelieu wrote: »

One can only live on so much sheep! You could make a bit of money smuggling some fruit and veg onto the Islands.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16980747

you'd have to sell them at some price to re-coup the deisel for the 700 mile round trip!

also, trying to smuggle stuff into the FI might not be particularly good for your health given the rachetting up of tension recently...

SNAKEDOC

the islands are much more protected these days with the constant rotation of the type 43 frigates from the uk typhoons on station with tanker support. a squadron of light and medium helicopters a detachment of 500 plus troops with support squadron signals and transport group. if an attack happened, even a surprise on like in 82 the islanders would have some limited warning, enough for the military to dig in fighters to scramble choppers to get troops to key areas and to be used as gun platforms for advance troops. the frigates would be no match for the arges navy which is out of date. all in all it would be a bad day at the office for the Argentine military and another embarrassment for the junta. the PM wouldnt even have to dispatch the fleet never mind there are no harriers or carriers