Argentina Reasserts Claims To Falklands (again)

[Journeyman]

Don't be too sure JM

I tend to be; it's my nature, coupled with many years' practice watching humanity and getting paid to "be sure." *

For all the reasons stated above, this is not 1982....I remain convinced it's a non-event. Time will tell.


* I was wrong before, but the divorce lawyers corrected that one.  ;D

 

[Stoker]

The Brits were lucky that Argentina didn't hand them their butts in 82. If the Argentian pilots were a little more skilled in dropping their bombs, they would of lost a lot more ships, especially ships like the Canberra sitting at anchor at San Carlos waiting to discharge their troops. Just think of all the bombs that hit ships and failed to detonate because the Argies didn't set the fuses correctly, didn't the BBC let the cat out of the bag on that one? If Argentina really wanted to win they would of waited six months , let the cuts proposed by John Nott go through and Britian would of had a hard time sending a task force to the Falklands. If Argentina is planning something else, wait until the Brits get half their navy mothballed.

 

[The Rifleman]

The Argie pilots were very skilled and extremely brave - and it wasn't just the fuse settings on their bombs that defeated them. The RN's AD assets (Sea Wolf, Sea Dart & even Sea Slug) claimed hits, as well as small arms (7.62 from GPMGs), and the CAP provided by Sea Harrier. Once Rapier was set up they had no chance on Bomb Alley.

On land they had no chance.

The BBC reporting didn't help the Argies - even when they said that 2 Para were on their way to Goose Green!

 

[Cloud Cover]

If Argentina is planning something else, wait until the Brits get half their navy mothballed.

Which is just around the corner:  http://navy-matters.beedall.com/

 

[The Rifleman]

I wouldn't worry about that too much now that Tony & George are bestest buddies  :-\ ;D ???

The Brits can hitch a ride with the USAF 

 

[Old Sweat]

As I mentioned above, I was in the US at the time. In fact I was the CFLO at TRADOC, Fort Monroe and had discussions with a number of people before battle was joined. One was with a gentleman who was employed by an operational research company. He told me that they had 'played' a number of different scenarios and the Argentinians won each and every time. In fact, he said, the Brits would be unable to maintain their fleet in the Falklands area against attacks from the Argentinian air force and naval aviation. I asked him if they had factored in 'the Nelson touch' and he looked at me like I had two heads, so I let the matter drop other than to suggest that the RN would, despite all odds, get the troops ashore and that would be that.

There is the old story about the senior UK civil servant commenting that the war took the foreign office by surprise as they had never imagined that an unpopular, domineering leader would do something that foolish. The response was to the effect that the Argentinian junta must have been desperate, to which he replied, "I was not talking about the Argentinians."

I tend to agree with JM that conditions are very different, but in the end, one never knows. Even after all the intelligence indicators light up, there still is a chance that someone will do something rational or irrational, depending upon the circumstances. In this case, I am willing to bet that the sabre is being rattled in its scabbard for public consumption.

 

[Stoker]

The Argie pilots were very skilled and extremely brave - and it wasn't just the fuse settings on their bombs that defeated them. The RN's AD assets (Sea Wolf, Sea Dart & even Sea Slug) claimed hits, as well as small arms (7.62 from GPMGs), and the CAP provided by Sea Harrier. Once Rapier was set up they had no chance on Bomb Alley.

On land they had no chance.

The BBC reporting didn't help the Argies - even when they said that 2 Para were on their way to Goose Green!

Yes the Brits equipment preformed on the most part very well during the conflict, I think it was a mixture of luck and professionalism that allowed Britain to prevail over the Argies. The Argies were made up mostly of conscripts, however there were some instances where they fought bravely and fiercely against the Brits, I guess they believed in what they were fighting for. The Rapier was pretty overhyped, I read claims that they shot down over 14 aircraft, I also read that there were multiple claims on aircraft downing and the rapier only accounted for a couple of aircraft at most. The early production model of rapier they were using were problemtic, coupled with the fact that the operators didn't have any practice for almost a year before. They were suppose to test the units at Ascension Island, but didn't.The blowpipe operators accounted for quite a few aircraft as well, along with the Stingers, shot down one aircraft.
A lot of weapon systems got tested during that conflict, and a lot of weaknesses were found.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

IIRC the Falklands was the war that made some world navies backaway from building their warships with aluminum vice steel. If anything that was the most important lesson learned to come out of that conflict.

 

[Stoker]

IIRC the Falklands was the war that made some world navies backaway from building their warships with aluminum vice steel. If anything that was the most important lesson learned to come out of that conflict.

Naval shipbulding certainly changed with the Falklands. The material used in deckheads on the RN ships caused a lot of injuries from the way they shattered, the wiring used when burnt caused alot of fatilities, firemain redundancy, materials used in uniforms etc, I could go on. The way we conduct FF/DC in the Canadian Navy today is from lessons learned from the Falklands. Equipment like the EMMs clamps we use on the ships came from lessons learned. The way we brace for shock is from experiences in the Falklands.

 

[Old Sweat]

Hey Old  Sweat, we need to play a game or two of risk!

SB,  I think I played one game of Risk many, many years ago, if it is the one that has an aim of world conquest. My total number of war gaming type board games probably totals no more than ten, so I would probably be easy pickings. I have not played any computerized ones either, so I guess I am a real loser.

In 1982 the Argies must have been almost as surprised as the war gamer/op researchers who believed their own assumptions.

 

[The Rifleman]

The Nelson touch is one of those factors the Yanks don't quite understand. The Royal Navy is brought up on a tradition of heroics and daring deeds, but also as the Senior Service it has a duty to be seen to do things above and beyond the call of duty. During the battle of Crete in 1941 the Royal Navy was taking heavy losses while trying to keep the invading Germans at bay, and also during the evacuation. The losses were so great that it could have shifted the balance of naval power in the Mediterranean, something the Allies could not afford. During the evacuation Admiral Andrew Cunningham was determined that the "navy must not let the army down." When army officers expressed fears he was losing too many ships, Cunningham said that "It takes three years to build a ship, it takes three centuries to build a tradition."

I also have a personal story regarding the Royal Navy's determination to help the Army at all costs. When I was in Bosnia in the winter of 1995 we had a serious casualty who had been shot in the head. He needed an immediate casevac but the RAF refused as there was a blizzard blowing and it was too dangerous. The man was going to die if he didn't get to a field hospital, so a RN Sea King crew flew in and got him. The weather got worse and at times it was a complete white out, but it never deterred them. The lad survived.

I also think that the American military mindset at that time was totally different from the Brits. Most of the senior officers in the US Army were Vietnam vets. In Vietnam the main effort was a body count, regardless of cost. If the US Army/Marines took a position/location from the enemy, they counted the bodies and moved away, allowing the enemy to retake it and consolidate. The Brits however, were more dogged in their approach. Generally, if it takes that much effort to take the position then there's no way we are giving it back. There was no way the British could sustain a lengthy campaign in the South Atlantic, so all that hard work getting there would have been wasted.

Another thing that might have thrown the Yanks was that at that time the Brits main effort was on the North German Plain where they trained for a holding action against the Red Army, waiting for the US to come and save the day (Hollywood anyone?  ). What they forgot was that we were trained to counter attack locally to exploit weaknesses and disrupt reinforcements. That would have been done at Brigade and Battalion, even Company level. Just as the attacks were in the Falklands.

 

[midget-boyd91]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6501693.stm

  Argentina ends Falklands oil deal

Argentina has scrapped a deal with the UK to share any oil found off the Falkland Islands - days ahead of the anniversary of the war for the islands.
Argentina says co-operation with the UK had to be linked to reopening talks over the sovereignty of the islands.

Argentine foreign minister Jorge Taiana said the UK used the deal to justify "illegitimate" claims to the islands.

Monday marks 25 years since the start of the War when UK forces reclaimed the islands after an Argentine invasion.

Oil exploration

Scientists estimate that there may be billions of dollars worth of oil under the waters around the Falklands, which are known to Argentina as the Malvinas.

The 1995 agreement between the UK and Argentina is aimed at encouraging oil exploration in the area.

Mr Taiana said Argentina had taken the step after the UK had unilaterally drilled for oil.

He said: "The Argentine decision brings an end...to an instrument the United Kingdom sought to use to justify its illegitimate and unilateral action to explore for resources that belong to Argentines."

Mr Taiana added: "Argentina is not opposed to co-operating with the United Kingdom, but only if this contributes to renewing dialogue over sovereignty."

'Political courage'

Since coming to office in 2003, Argentine President Nestor Kirchner has increased calls for the UK to discuss the sovereignty of the islands.

The 72-day war over the South Atlantic islands in 1982 claimed the lives of 255 Britons and 655 Argentines.

Last week, Tony Blair said going to war over the Falklands took "political courage" and had been "the right thing to do".

Argentina claims it inherited the islands from Spain before they were occupied by Britain in 1833.

Found this at BBC, thought I'd update this thread a little. Still a little mentioned about soverignity.

"Argentina is not opposed to co-operating with the United Kingdom, but only if this contributes to renewing dialogue over sovereignty."

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

I never said the US supported Argentina's keeping the Falklands.  The US and Canada both cravenly decided that this was not a NATO matter, and let the UK stand alone.  The US applied pressure to both parties to settle the dispute diplomatically.  I was ashamed of both North American governments non action in that matter, even as I was more impressed with the UK and Canada reacting more properly in Afghanistan when an unconventional, rather than conventional, assault on the US took place. 
As one of the second tier NATO powers, Canada really should take comfort in the knowledge that today when a NATO country is attacked, at least the English speaking powers will reply with force, and not empty diplomacy, in their defence.  Of course if we elect another Liberal, we will see our national resolve disappear again......

While the Americans engaged in some pretty intensive shuttle diplomacy to try to prevent the initial crisis from escalating into an all-out war, in the end the British have a much different interpretation of the support given by the US (hint: both Reagan and Caspar Weinberger were Knighted (KBE))! 

{Is Knighted supposed to be capitalized?}

 

[Old Sweat]

Regarding the supposed lack of direct support from both the US and Canada, I have a different opinion.

As I recall, the British made a decision to go it alone as far as direct military operations went. As a result, exchange officers were left at home and at least one offer of naval support (from New Zealand) was politely declined. There was a published account of the war that included a snippet about the outrage felt by a USMC exchange pilot over not being invited to the war. (I also had a discussion with the Canadian officer who was on exchange with 3 Para at the time, and he told me he was originally told he was going both by his CO and the Canadian Defence Liaison Staff in London, but the British then decided to exclude exchange personnel.)

 

[time expired]

Maybe the Argies.will be inclined to think this over a little further after watching the robust action
of the Brit. politicians over this latest Gulf incident Ha Ha.That would definitely give any potential
aggressor something to think about.Unfortunately there is no Maggie Thatcher in the present Brit.
government and in the Labour party no one even close. 
                            Regards

 

[geo]

Timeexpired
The UK has NOTHING to be ashamed about
They have fought a good fight in Iraq AND Afghanistan.
Given that they are not at war with Iran and their personnel are not in any direct danger, there is nothing to gain by going in with guns blazing...
The UK has been steadfast in all decisions and actions since 9/11.... what's your beef?

If Argentina is unhappy about the seriousness of negociations with the UK, it might just well be that the UK is preocupied at present with their own internal & external war on terror...

If Argentina is mouthing off via international channels, I would suggest that means they are still interested in talking.... else their ships would already be docking in the Malvinas.

 

[Flip]

Geo

You hit the nail right on the head!

Argentina is played the "what about my needs?" card very much in the same manner
that North Korea and Iran have in the last few years.

The considerable restraint shown Argentina by the British through the last go
has been forgotten or misconstrued.

What could have happened? the Argentine navy could have been destroyed in port.
Airfields on land could have been attacked. Their army could have pounded at will.

The Argies need a well written PFO letter from Her Majesty's Government.
That's all.

 

[tomahawk6]

The UK thanks to the Blair government could not mount a Falklands style naval operation today as half the RN has been tied up due to budget cuts and experts feel it would take a year to get back up to speed. The Argentine position reflects British weakness.

 

[Jammer]

Agreed.
The UK is so tied up in Afghanistan and Iraq  that even if the Argentinians were to make a military move against the Falklands, besides the lack of military assets, would there be the fervent support that was there in 1982?

 

[Flip]

Given the historical precedent, I doubt the British would allow the Argentine effort to get that far.

One nuclear submarine can ruin your whole day. ;D