I'm more than a little bemused to see so many here from what I'll call "our" side indulging in what amounts to a dick measuring contest, comparing the state of the art kit possessed by Britain versus the aged kit in the Argentinean inventory.
There might be one other nation apart from the UK which should have a better appreciation of being on the receiving end of a successfully waged asymmetric war. That nation, the US, lost a war 40 years ago to a third world nation, not because it didn't have the ability to win, but because it didn't have the national will to win.
Today, history may well repeat itself if a bunch of mostly illiterate irregulars who don't even represent a nation state are as willing to hang in for the long term as the North Vietnamese were. (Despite the recent optimistic comments by General McCrystal.)
Another set-to in the South Atlantic will be yet another example of asymmetric warfare, and its outcome will have far more to do with the national will of the leaders of both sides than who's got the shiniest jet or ship.
Someone's said it already. If the Argentinean leadership was willing to commit a small SF force to take the airfield by stealth, the really big question will be whether a British PM of either political persuasion will have the political balls to commit his near(?) bankrupt country to the considerable expense - to say nothing of the considerable expenditure of 'blood, sweat and tears' - to take the islands back. Just as importantly, would the voting (and non-voting) population of the UK be prepared to suffer that economic and personal pain? (Any such move might have the back hand benefit getting quite a few "British passport holders" to leave the country.)
I for one don't think either man likely to be occupying No 10 Downing Street in the next few years has those (forgive the perhaps unfortunate use of Spanish) political cojones to do so.