I would have thought that the Falkland Islands are much, much better defended against air attack than they were in 1982?

A seaborne troop carrier is relatively slow moving and requires an air defence and anti-submarine escort with up to date detect and destroy capabilities. Does Argentina have this kind of equipment, is it state of the art?

I can't believe they would be stupid enough to try the military option again. Could be wrong!

yes but it depends how determined the attacker is, yes they could go by sea, but wouldn't a para assault make more sense?

As for the air defences, you could think more WW2 big wing tactics, and the limited number of defenders are to overcome, afterall they carry a finite amount of weapons, and can only be in one place at a time. If you have 8 AA missiles and 16 attackers? Yes you would be sacrificing aircraft, but with the potential for several billion $ in oil revenue, the costs are fairly low.

Likewise we know that the odds favour the defender on the ground, but if they have neutralised the airborne defence, then they are free to shuttle more paras as required. How many sorties can they fly in a 24 hour period? Could they deploy sufficient SAMs to prevent us from flying in reinforcements, without taking the airfield? Then it becomes a siege mentality.

As ever it depends how desperate the enemy is, and what is at stake.

As an ex TEV Canberra Engineer that photo of the Bogey at Gadana beach is soooo sad.

Reference getting troops down there (or anywhere else!) by ship. As others have referred to there are no British companies left, Cunard has not been British owned for years however P&O was always a British Government "golden shares" company to ensure that ownership could never pass abroad for reasons of National security...I could never understand how that was allowed to change.

Incidentally with the exception of the QM 2, modern cruise ship design is vastly different form the line voyage days of the Canberra and Black Pig (even if she was a complete wreck and deemed too unreliable to actually go near the Falklands!) Would be interesting to see a modern ship trying to keep the revs up in a big sea if it was deemed necessary.

I would have thought that the Falkland Islands are much, much better defended against air attack than they were in 1982?

A couple of Otters and a C172 - Hmm

Maybe it is time to borrow a page from the swiss, and issue all islanders between 18-59 an L1A1 with an ammo allotment. Why did Japan, not invade the USA?

Fox amongst the chickens:)

75 volunteers, yes, that will give the Argies Pause, Not!

Political engineering
 

I don’t often entertain conspiracy theories, but you can call me a cynic if you like or go and read a few history books, That Sweet Enemy, is one I would thoroughly recommend.

Relations between UK and Argentina have been improving over the years
The Argentinean population needs galvanizing to perhaps divert civil unrest
Argentina will probably default on its loans
It could really do with it own natural resources outside of the rain forest

We are likely to have the backing of the UN, unconditional surrender and all that
The US will be on our side but will push for a peaceful resolution
The Labour party, whatever today’s polls show are heading for a fall, how big?
What saved Maggie’s government in the 80’s
What also saved the forces and re-justified to a skeptical public and cabinet in the need for investment in the forces
What frankly put the great back in Britain, temporarily anyway from the doldrums of the 70’s

Rising tensions, motions to war at the public’s and our level anyway, but all calm at the top, even arrogance displayed by the UKGov.

If Brown can rescue this i.e. saving face and the lions share now without spilling blood whilst appreciating his short comings in defence planning and then his Argentinean opposite number has ‘come to an agreement’ over his loans, ‘bigging up’ Brown again and got concessions over oil revenues, having got all the right noises from South American leaders with little to lose anyway.

“Whilst not appreciating the negotiating tactics used, we understand difficult times call for difficult measures, boot other foot etc and therefore no amount of oil is worth a single drop of our forces blood!” can they then say or that “its not all about oil”

Then what a brilliant piece of political engineering!

Who said that politicians were good at quoting history but so bad at learning from it? Might have been me and I hope I was wrong!

If I was right, then how will the RAF feel about going up against the Flankers? No specific details needed!

I seem to recall that we had some kind of agreement in place with Argentina about resources in the South Atlantic, however Argentina withdrew from it fairly recently - last year or the year before? (Kirchner, either male or female).

What would this agreement have meant for Argentina? Have they already walked away from an agreement that perhaps gave them access to some of the oil revenues or sharing drilling resources or something? Have they already cut their nose off to spite their face? Or did the agreement not cover anything like that? (May have to look that up if I get a chance, but there is an outside chance someone here has already done it...)

Is it just me or does anyone else find the title of this thread objectionable?
The Falkands war was fought and won to prevent the Argentine name being used and all which that implies. It's inappropriate, even if intended in irony.
We should not even recognise it. I request it be changed or a new thread titled 'The Falklands, (again?)' started and merged. :D

You are absolutely correct, Aeronut.

Clearly there are many here with no sensitivity to the recent history of these islands and, more importantly, to the feelings of those very British people who live there.

Personally I think Aeronut is being a bit po-faced about this. Its pretty obvious that Grabber was using irony in choosing the Spanish version.

It also points up the fact often missed or ignored by the Argentines that Las Malvinas is just the Spanish for Les Malouines (from St Malo), so called because the original colonisers were fishermen from the St Malo region , so neither Brits nor Spanish! Maybe the fairest thing would be to offer the islands (and the oil) to the French - I'm sure nobody would argue with that!

Dons helmet and retires to a VERY safe distance;)

Having spent the best part of 18 months of my life in the place, the French are welcome to it.
(Tongue in cheek)

Falklands defence
 

While some people might think we may be struck in the Falklands while distracted elswhere/s, frankly one nuclear attack sub even thought to be around will prevent a conventional amphib' invasion - the Argentinians are a sensible lot, and I doubt theyl'd follow a git into war again just for votes, especially regarding the state of their forces.

Plus there are a lot more ground based defenders, AFAIK now to deterr paratroopers and a lot else,let alone the signicant ( everyone likes to take the P', but who would actually choose a fight with them ? ) air defence forces.

This of course remains an opportunity to tar & feather all the political arses ( inc' military ) who objected to an AMRAAM equipped Seajet / Harrier 2+...

Falklands 2 ain't going to happen - fingers crossed for the brave people at the sharp end on both sides !

00

I hope your right but that is possibly one hell of a lot of oil under and around those islands. And two very money-desperate countries wanting it. enough said.

Vernon99/Viszla - Your negative comments surprise me. Does that mean that there are no Rapier units based in the Falklands now? No RN ship with sea to air capability in the area? No ground based air defence radar unit? Just these three items would amount to a very significant improvement on the air defences of pre invasion 1982.

Double Zero - You sound more optimistic!

Not sure who mentioned an airborne landing but you would have to pick a calm day otherwise half your force would end up in the sea and the other half would have broken bones after being dragged across the LZ! Para units travel light and are shock troops, you would still need a sea tail to back them up, arriving within hours of the drop, assuming any transports were left in the sky and able to drop.

If I remember my history correctly, the French gave it up as a bad lot and left.

And while I'm at it, this is what Dr Johnson said about the Falklands in 1770 when we took it from Spain.

"We have maintained the honour of the crown and the superiority of our influence. Beyond this, what have we acquired? What, but a bleak and gloomy solitude, an Island thrown aside from human use, stormy in winter and barren in summer: an island which not even the southern savages have dignified with habitation: where a garrison must be kept in a state that contemplates with envy the exiles of Siberia: of which the expense will be perpetual and the use only occasional: and which, if fortune smile upon our labours, may become a nest of smugglers in peace, and in war the refuge of future buccaneers".

..... if fortune smile upon our labours, may become ..... the refuge of future buccaneers"

Now wouldn't that be nice!

Jack

PS DW - Great quote:ok:

Forget about who has what kit and who's missile can sink what ship and make Britain and Argentina should make an agreement about how this huge amount of resources is going to be extracted and how both countries can benefit.

To successfully and efficiently extract a considerable amount of oil and other natural resources in this remote area, both sides need to work together and share the $4 trillion bounty that is estimated to exist.

Then maybe the Argentinian Polo ponies will still be available for our Royal Family to use when they jet over to eat steak and drink Argentinian wine!:rolleyes:

I am amazed about the number of lines dropped in this post!!!
As I said some days before, we must talk as gentlemen but please do not distort the history!! Why frenchs have to take the control of the islands? The Argentinan goverment was entitled in 1810 and by that time Spain had the control over the islands, and all the territories which belongs to Spain came to Argentina, not to the previous countries.
If you want to believe that those islands are yours... cheers for you! but who used to live there? EXILES. But now the situation has changed... it seems that there is oil, and the islands are important for you? I bet my right hand that if there were no oil at all this topic will not have place.
And for those who are claiming about if Venezuela should help Argentina, just remember what Chile, France and USA did in 1982. I do not like Chavez at all, but please try to look back and analise who helped the UK in the past...Pinochet was not a saint, but Mrs Tatcher was not worried in that.
Please go and visit the islands to know of what are you talking about.

I really hope this does not kick off again.

On the other hand:

1. Maybe Argentina senses weakness in the UK, in a financial sense. Could we afford and are we financially ready to repel an advance?

2. We are plainly heavily committed elsewhere unlike 1982. How ready would the UK be to open another front?

3. There may be oil reserves. The revenue from these could save Argentina (or the UK for that matter) from the big money troubles ahead.

4. Although 'Air' would be helped by the new Airbase, the RN are weakened since the last conflict. Mind you the Arg. Navy is nothing special.

5. Rightly or wrongly the Argentinians continue to assert their claim to the islands. their point of view enjoys a degree of synpathy.

I suspect if the did start again, HMG would find itself in quite a difficult position.

My own judgement, however, is that the Argentinians will do nothing.

Hope so.:hmm:

maddog37, we don't just believe the islands are ours - they are.

I have been to the islands and I have met and lived with many islanders. They are more British than most of those who live in UK now and none of them wish to change that status.

It is not the prospect of oil that makes us care about the islands and our people who live there - we cared so much in 1982 that many of our servicemen died kicking your invaders out.

Despite the best efforts of our politicians to weaken our armed forces I have no doubt you will get another kicking if you invade again.

maddog, a number of people in this thread are likely to have visited the islands for extended periods of time, many on several occasions, and therefore they DO know what they're talking about! Granted it is likely many have not. Have you spent any real time there?

Whilst perhaps the UK government were negligent in their duty to properly support and protect the islanders prior to 1982, The UK cared enough about the islands in 1982 to take them back, before any real talk of oil or natural resources. You could argue that Argentina wouldn't be making this much fuss if there was no oil! So I think you'll find oil doesn't play the part you think it does (although I'm not saying its irrelevant!). If we didn't care, you'd still have them after your 1982 invasion. I'll send you a postal address for your right hand if you wish?:)

You know, all of this could easily be resolved by asking the residents of the islands what they think...! Self Determination I think they call it, and a key part of the UN charter. Would that solve the problem do you think maddog, as both our countries are signatories to the UN charter, and therefore both our countries are bound by the wishes of the residents?

Escalating diplomatic row?
 

Re: BarbiesBoyfriend point;

See this in todays Buenos Aires Herald;

Buenos Aires Herald
Buenos Aires Herald

I suggest that they are doing something, and it's happening right now! What at first would appear to be a rather low(ish) key diplomatic affair that requires some face-to-face discussions to put to bed quickly, will quite easily escalate once they have the full backing of States in the region, including Chavez.

I agree with previous statements in this thread regarding the current economic status in Argentina and that in order to secure another term in the elctions next year that President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner is willing to venture into a risky game with Brown whilst garnering a lot of support for the sovereignty claims from other LA and Caribbean states. And we all know that Brown is a puppy when it comes to foreign policy, he just hasn't the guts to stand up strong against this sort of situation. And I wouldn't trust Ainsworth as far as I could throw him (see last night's abject performance on Newsnight!).

I'd also like to understand what the US may do if this situation does escalate? If Bush was still in the chair then I could see him getting his hands dirty, especially as this really is all about natural resources. Obama will go down the diplomatic route entirely (as this situation should be and not miltary action). But as they will not want to be putting themselves into direct conflict with LA states then inevitably they will expect UK to go it alone.

Maddog

I have visited the Falkland Islands many times & they are more British than parts of Britain itself. The Falklanders themselves want to remain British & want virtually nothing to do with Argentina. The UN will take consideration of the 2000+ inhabitants before several hundred miles of sea bed.

I have spent a total of 31 months on the islands, including a 23 month accompanied tour with the family. We still have many good friends there. Stuff the oil, it is about British people who wish to remain so and are more patriotic than the Pearly King.
I would far rather we put all necessary resources into protecting them than propping up that corrupt b*stard in Kabul.

However, the islanders are predominantly white, loyal to the Crown and hard working. Everything Labour and 'Dave' hate. :mad::mad:

Look on the bright side though, if they do find oil the Americans will invade.......:E

ISTR that the Government / MOD had NO contingency plans for what transpired in 1982 and the whole plan to retake the Falkland Islands had to be forged from essentially blank pieces of paper....

This sabre-rattling by Argentina may in fact be all very timely coming as it does just ahead of a general election and a SDR.

I only hope that this time the Government does have a contingency plan already drafted, to include both deterrence to disuade Argintina from taking military action (i.e. overt military re-inforcement) as well as plans to land troops to retake the islands if, for example, MPA was either captured by the Argies in an attack by SF or aerial mines or bombs put the runway out of action so preventing its use for re-inforcement. Even a few Argie SF with MANPADs would cause more than a few problems.....

MB

It is rather galling that the Falkland Islands are being maintained/supplied by an airline from the Seychelles.

Renaming of thread
 

Mods,

Why? I called the thread "Las Malvinas (again?)" as I was curious as to whether anyone else thought that a potential enemy may have spotted a weakness in the UK Govt's ability to project itself in two different areas with two different strategies. The thread title was to stimulate debate.

Not getting arsey I'm just curious as to why you've changed it.

Maddog,

Maybe you're right, if there was no oil, then maybe this sabre rattling wouldnt be going on.

maybe if there was no oil, Nestor would not have ripped up the agreement previously signed back in 1995 back in 2007.

Cuts both ways, chap.

I did four tours on the islands and from what I had seen of the place myself and the places where those who fought on both sides died, I sure as hell dont want to see anything kick off again. No way. But the islander's self determination is of paramount importance. And, they do not want to live under an Argentine administration. Its that simple.

Grabbers - I suspect this may have had something to do with it:

http://www.pprune.org/5530853-post133.html

Archimedes

Thanks, I see the two offended posters now. Sheesh!

Aeronut, you're not alone there are two of you. Good work on giving yourself a round of applause for acting as the morally outraged spokesperson. :D How was The Daily Mail today?

Soddim, I too have visited the islands, East and West and all stops between. You're quite correct that they are British. If your comment referring to those "with no sensitivity to the recent history of these islands" was aimed at me I must rebuff those too. I know from personal cost how much it took to defend the Islands. Also, how do you say that "They are more British than most of those who live in UK..."? I've neither the time or inclination to research population rates, immigrants vs indigenous Britishers and attitudes thereof but I very much doubt it if out of the approx 60 million people dwelling in the British Isles over 59 million people do not see themselves as British.

Now, let the debate carry on and if you find the points of view so reprehensible I suggest you try here:

Mumsnet Discussions - Am I being unreasonable?

Top of the day to you!

Oil Rig sabre rattling ?
 

Is there any truth in the rumour that they are going to rename the rig "Belgrano" ??
:=:=

Grabbers For what it's worth I think the Mods have a cheek renaming your thread just because it seems to have offended Aeronut's fragile sensiblities! I spoke up on your behalf before and I do so again. For what it's worth I'm 100% behind the islands remaining British, but that doesn't prevent me, or anyone else having a bit of fun with the name.

As I posted on the Persian/Arabian Gulf thread maybe we should follow the Irish solution to the Londonderry/Derry question and refer to them as the Stroke Islands (as in Stroke City).

TTN

Grabbers, yours was the offending post - if you cannot see that you have no sensitivity.

Most British people thought the Argies had a bloody cheek in 1982 and re-naming our Islands was part of that bloody cheek. So why would any true Brit want to perpetuate that new name??

Soddim, I apologise for being insensitive. While we are on the subject of sensitivity, I note your perjorative use of the word 'Argie'. Do you use the word 'Paki' or are you only selectively racist?