• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Argentina Reasserts Claims To Falklands (again)

No worries mate.
Not slagging anyone's opinion at all. But 1982 was a long time ago and the geopolitical situation has evolved somewhat, my point is not whether or not the UK military would be militarily victorious, but could they undertake an operation the reclaim the Falklands in the next twelve months (hypothetically), if Argentina (hypothetically) took the islands by force.
1982 yes, 2007 not so sure.
 
SME? Moi? Hardly... I just have a good idea of how ruthless the British can be!

Now, you pose an interesting scenario which could very well play out differently than the events of 1982. A quick invasion by the Argies followed by a more lengthy build up of UK forces, as well as diplomatic pressure, prior to a counter attack - or negotiated withdrawal - of some kind. This would depend pretty much on the Argies achieving strategic suprise on a very large scale though which, as we know, is hard to do in a democracy. I would also assume that, given their continuing interest in the Falklands, the UK has taken steps to penetrate their startegic decision making networks. Again, this would be easier to do in a democracy than in a government run by a military junta. Also, given the growth of other types of information/ intelligence gathering technology since 1982, it would be pretty much impossible to guarantee a surprise on that scale. They've basically gibven the game away already.

Regardless, you'd see an invasion force heading south pretty quick - heedless of the potential risk. And you might see the USA brought in more comprehensively this time to pay back the UK for their recent contributions to the GWOT. Knowing some of the current decision makers in the UK forces as I do, I'm also thinking that not many puches would be pulled this time around either. You might see the war carried to the Argie mainland, with no similar threat to the UK mainland. They're still blubbering over the Belgrano. I wonder how a ruined harbour and smouldering airport in Buenos Aries would go down with the voters?

A bit of Argie sabre rattling designed to bring the UK to the bargaining table would be more likely.

But of course, all the above is mere speculation. Almost FBT (First Beer Time) on this coast, when the real 'what iffing' should begin  :cheers:
 
Ah you’re the closest we have to one in this thread.  ;D

Anyway well past FBT in this time zone so my dos pesos worth.

First the changes both in the Argentine military/political structure already touched on and the advances in technology would make a surprise invasion as happened in 1982 very unlikely.

As an aside that one was a a bit of a farce intelligence wise on both sides. The Brits ignored intel from the commander of HMS Endurance which was in the region that something was coming. In addition no one bothered to advise Major Norman the RM commander on the Falklands that the Argentine forces had tracked amphibs so he ended up defending the wrong beach near Stanley with his small contingent. Not that made muuch of a difference.

Later British intelligence seriously underestimated the Argentines abilities with reagards to the Exocet ASM, presuming that as they just received them they wouldn’t have them up and running yet. There was also the “slight underestimation” of the garrison size at Goose Green.

On the Argentine side all they had to do was wait a few months until the Notts naval cuts were due to be implemented. They would have included scrapping both Landing Ships HMS Fearless and HMS Intrepid prior to replacements being ordered which would have left the RN/RM with no real amphibious capability. I really can’t see them doing a Galliopoli style invasion with the QE2 launching life boats full of squaddies right onto the beach at San Carlos Sound.

Especially with no air cover. Both carriers HMS Hermes and HMS Invincible were also due to be sold off to the Indian Navy prior to HMS Ark Royal and HMS Illustrious. Were operational. I know the Junta were on a time line do the worsening domestic situation, but there was a window a few months later that had they used would probably have given them the islands unless the Brits got them back though diplomatic means. Mind they even chose to attack the week the RM garrison was doubled in size as the new contingent had just arrived to replace the outgoing one.

Of course there biggest intelligence error was presumign the Brits would roll over. Even if the Notts cuts had happened soemthing tells me the RN would have tried to retake the islands even if all they had was a couple of dories each with a matelot armed with a .22 8)

Both countries and their respective militaries have changed especially Britain’s. In 1982 they were still a NATO centric force concentrated on operations/warfighting in West Germany and/or Norway. Now they’ve operated in more far flung places and developed the skill sets and equipment to do so.

There is also the US to consider. In 1982 they stayed for the most part benevolently neutral. Now the relations between the US and the UK are such that I would bet they would take a more proactive role. Not necessarily militarily, as noted they are stretched although one carrier battle group might be spared, but at least exerting more diplomatic/economic pressure on Argentina.

Ok beer’s almost done. To sum up I’d say some sabre rattling and emotional stories from both sides should be the extent of it this time round. Mind I’ve been wrong before.
 
25 years ago, on April 9th 1982, I stood on the jetty at Southampton and waved farewell to my husband, a member of 42 Cdo.  I never saw him again he was killed by a landmine as his troop yomped their way across the islands to Port Stanley.

In 1997, Margaret Thatcher made a promise to the widows and mothers of the fallen:

"May I finally say this. It was not done at great loss. As we know and we heard this evening. At the memorial service at St. Paul's when the Queen unveiled the memorial tablet to all of those who lost their lives, there was a reception afterwards and I and many of the rest of us were among the relatives, one very nice Scottish mother came up to me rather quickly, I could see she was very anxious, I went up to her. And she said this to me, she had lost her son who[fo 6] 19 years old in the campaign, so she said to me, "you will never let the Falkland Islands go will you Mrs. Thatcher, you will never let them go?" I said "no, never." And I believe that pledge will be honoured by future Prime Ministers, Parliament and people of our great country that we may finally honour all of those who gave their lives for the liberty and land of the Falkland Islands." http://www.margaretthatcher.org/speeches/displaydocument.asp?docid=108370

In her speech, Thatcher alludes to what is commonly known as the Nelson Touch and for all the stats, Jane's and little lists one can give to bolster an argument of which force will prove their readiness, those arguments leaving out the Nelson Touch variable remain flawed. 

"We were so very fortunate in all our Commanders. I have often thought that had we used computers in those days to assess the risk as to whether we should go, eight thousand miles away to the South Atlantic, arriving in the winter, our people having been on board for three and a half weeks, there were people in the Falkland Islands, far more Argentine troops than we could ever have, they were fresh, we would unload ours, they were tired. Had we fed it into a computer, the computer would have said "you would be mad to go." But of course a computer cannot tell the spirit of the people. It cannot tell the spirit of the nation. It cannot tell the proud competence and resourcefulness of the Commanders, the marvellous morale and the resourcefulness armed forces, and their wonderful resolve never to be defeated. And so the Task Force sailed."

Nelson recognized the intrinsic value of this and was able to tap into that spirit, so did Churchill, Thatcher and now Blair.  It doesn't necessarily mean that they are good leaders that their constituencies will blindly follow, it means that they were smart enough to recognize and utilize the spirit of a nation and use it.

I can recall quite vividly the reports in the papers and newscasts during the build up.  It was not the images of Royal Marines lying on the ground that inspired a nation to sail to their rescue, it was the reports that British women, children and men were locked in a community centre against their will.  In the windows, bumpers of vehicles and on the doors and front windows of British houses these stickers quickly appeared.  Now one can argue that stickers does not a victory make nor do they continue to motivate a nation.  I would argue that no matter how well one thinks they understand defence capabilities, the use of military power or strategic, tactical and operational abilities, or run AHP models with variables up the ying yang and down to the 50th level, if one neglects to incorporate the essence of a nation and it's spirit and identity, then the outcomes will be very different from what was anticipated and predicted. 

The yearly assertions of rights to the islands is also a mundane aspect of legal doctrines to not be deemed to abandon, cede, surrender, transfer, grant, or convey land. 




 
Danjanou,

you might not know that the RAF stated that they could cover the Falklands with fighter cover and the MoD believed them. That was one of the reasons that Nott decided to axe naval assets. It turned out that a planner in the RAF had redrawn the map of the world to fit the then currant capabilities of the RAF's Fighter Command, using much closer South Africa as a stepping stone - despite the obvious international political outcry if they did!  ;)
 
RIFLEMAN
            Just another in a long time effort by Crabair to do in Navy air,its been going on for a
long time .The RAF convinced the MOD that they could cover all the sea lanes that were of any
importants to UK defence with landbased aircraft and after the withdrawl from "east of Suez"they
claimed that the Navies aircraft carriers were no longer needed,a convincing argument to any
government bent on saving money.But one only has to look at their poor performance in the
Suez crisis to have serious doubts,and when the first "out of area" operation came up (Falklands)
they were found seriously wanting.The Black Buck operation was a perfect example ,A Guinness
book of records 9000 mile performance to put 1 bomb on the runway at Stanley airport,not an
effective use of the resources IMHO.Incidentally the was not just a Brit. problem the RCAF did its
best to hinder the reestablishment of naval air in the RCN after WW2 and the USAFs battles with
the USN over carriers and naval air are well documented.
          I am also interested,as a serving soldier in UK forces,what is your take on the" write an
article in the Sun get a million pounds"controversy going on right now?.Maybe another thread?.
                        Regards
 
Out of interest, I just returned from a visit to the UK and, having talked to several people in the forces there about the Argie threats, came away with the impression that while this wasn't sending them into a panic, they certainly seemed keen to give them another bloody nose if required. I wouldn't say that they were being jingoistic about it but, if you listened closely, you could hear the sound of bayonets being sharpened ...
 
Let worry about the real threats now shall we???
Besides they might stop corned beef shipments.
 
As someone who has made it their life's vocation to pursue the study of history, I can readily recall countless examples of history repeating itself, and military history is no exception.  Britain's 25th anniversary Falklands War victory celebrations come at an awkward time for the Argies, during an election year.  The Argies may be bluffing, but we would be foolish and reckless to take that for granted.  Niner Domestic speaks from a perspective that the most of the rest of us Army.ca members do not have.  Her warnings should be heeded very seriously.

Also just because in '82 the Argies were foolish enough to strike before the Brits finished handicapping their fleet doesn't mean they'll make the same mistake this time.  If Argentina decides to wait until half of the RN fleet is mothballed before attacking again, then Britain could be in deep shit.  On the flip side, the fact that RN hunter killer subs are now armed with the Tomahawk may give the Argies some pause.  Would any Argentine government be willing to face the political risk of being responsible for Argentine soil being subjected to cruise missile attack?
 
On the flip side, the fact that RN hunter killer subs are now armed with the Tomahawk may give the Argies some pause.  Would any Argentine government be willing to face the political risk of being responsible for Argentine soil being subjected to cruise missile attack?

And there you 'ave it - the trump card.

The Royal Navy was very sporting about staying off the mainland in '82.
The entire Argentine fleet was in harbour after the Belgrano went down.

Sink one or two ships in harbour or mess up their airfields and I think the RN
would be dictating terms to Argentina.

Since the British are at war now, the public could only be so shocked by
what their armed forces were doing. In '82 Britain was at relative peace
and the public were easily shocked. I remember the outrage in the press
about the Belgrano sinking. They called it "inhuman" to sink a ship with that
many men aboard. - Of course that changed when the British losses started
to mount.

Bottom line - I think it's typical second world bluster.







 
We in the UK would obviously like to meet force with force where the Falklands are concerned, but the lads are very tired with our extensive commitments and severely reduced capabilities. Overstretch isn't even close to the situation. Units might be on a tour every three years officially, but companies are often sent to bolster battle groups even after just returning from ops and men are transferred from one battalion to another to make up the numbers. That means an average soldier is doing a tour every 18 months. The lads are tired. Mistakes are being made and casualties are mounting. Divorce rates are at an all time high and fathers (and mothers) are strangers to their own kids.

Could we win another Falklands? Quite possibly, but at what cost?
 
daftandbarmy said:
Out of interest, I just returned from a visit to the UK and, having talked to several people in the forces there about the Argie threats, came away with the impression that while this wasn't sending them into a panic, they certainly seemed keen to give them another bloody nose if required. I wouldn't say that they were being jingoistic about it but, if you listened closely, you could hear the sound of bayonets being sharpened ...

What exactly would you have expected otherwise?  You can bet dollars to donuts that if you recently returned from Argentina you would have essentially the same 'impression'.
 
Oh, this should end well....  ::)

Argentina launches naval campaign to isolate Falkland Islands

Argentina has launched a naval campaign to isolate the Falkland Islands that has seen it detain Spanish fishing vessels on suspicion of breaking the country’s “blockade” of the seas around the British territories.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/falklandislands/8936750/Argentina-launches-naval-campaign-to-isolate-Falkland-Islands.html
 
daftandbarmy said:
Oh, this should end well....  ::)

Argentina launches naval campaign to isolate Falkland Islands

Argentina has launched a naval campaign to isolate the Falkland Islands that has seen it detain Spanish fishing vessels on suspicion of breaking the country’s “blockade” of the seas around the British territories.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/falklandislands/8936750/Argentina-launches-naval-campaign-to-isolate-Falkland-Islands.html

Partie deux....

On a tangential note:  It will be interesting to see how Air capabilities match up against Sea capabilities.

The Brit's game plan on the Falklands is to defend with Air assets (1 runway at Port Stanley thousands of miles from Ascension, their next nearest base) and fly in the Army to deter landings.

The Argies seem to have decided to adopt the Ancient, (and unfashionable) Brit game plan of Naval Blockade.  Given that I can't see any way in which a Typhoon can "shoulder" an Argie trawler masquerading as a fighting vessel out of the way it will be interesting to see how long it takes for David "We can work it out" Cameron to decide to repeat the Belgrano incident.

Which warehouse were those Harriers in again?
 
I knew this kind of stuff was going to start as soon as the RN announced the disbandment of the Sea Harrier Sqns, and that the new carriers would not have aircraft on them for some years in the future.  This must look like an open door to the Argies.

Mr. Cameron is no Maggie Thatcher by a long shot, so this time around it's going to be real interesting!

 
BillN said:
I knew this kind of stuff was going to start as soon as the RN announced the disbandment of the Sea Harrier Sqns, and that the new carriers would not have aircraft on them for some years in the future.  This must look like an open door to the Argies.

Mr. Cameron is no Maggie Thatcher by a long shot, so this time around it's going to be real interesting!

Funny, I remember somethign like that happening in 1982...

"In 1982 Hermes was due to be decommissioned in 1982 after a defence review by the British government, but when the Falklands War broke out, she was made the flagship of the British forces, setting sail for the South Atlantic just three days after the Argentine invasion of the Falkland Islands."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Hermes_(R12)
 
Not just Hermes IIRC, HMS Invincible was about to be sold off before HMS Illustrious was ready for duty, HMS Endurance was to be paid off and no replacement on order and several of the Destroyers and Frigates that did sail were due to be paid off in a few months as part of another Defence cutback designed to turn the RN into a 50 ship coastal and ASW force geared towards stopping the Soviets. The Argies could have waited 1-2 months and the RN really would not have been able to generate much of a task force.

They also chose to invade the week that the incoming and outgoing RM Garrison were in the midst of the handover thereby doubling the defenders. ::)
 
There is an excellent thread on Militaryphoto.com on the Falkland, with contributors from both sides try to piece together the history and from Vets as well.
 
Back
Top