Could there be another Falklands war?

[ICTJohnboy]

33 minutes ago, Grant228 said:

Doubt it, even with the British military being the smallest it's been since Napoleon it would see Argentina off again, Argentina knows that. 

If they were to do it then May would absolutely jump at the chance to have a Falklands mk2. 

 

I'm sure she'll remember it didn't do Thatcher's career any harm.

[git-intae-thum]

6 hours ago, Grant228 said:

Doubt it, even with the British military being the smallest it's been since Napoleon it would see Argentina off again, Argentina knows that. 

If they were to do it then May would absolutely jump at the chance to have a Falklands mk2. 

Hmm.....The problem is its a very long way away.

.......and ships...or lack of....and more to the point ships (aircraft carriers) with a lack of planes.

Small spanner in the works that.

Nah. The Argies could land a force of marines their and short of calling in international favours there is f**k all Ingleterra....sorry Britain......could do about it.

[Fullerene]

4 hours ago, git-intae-thum said:

Hmm.....The problem is its a very long way away.

.......and ships...or lack of....and more to the point ships (aircraft carriers) with a lack of planes.

Small spanner in the works that.

Nah. The Argies could land a force of marines their and short of calling in international favours there is f**k all Ingleterra....sorry Britain......could do about it.

Not sure about that.

Apparently there are 1,250 military personnel in the Falklands - almost one soldier per islander.
There are also 4 typhoon jets.
There is every indicator that if Argentina tried to invade, it would be detected early.

By comparison, in 1982, almost nobody even knew where the Falklands were, the military contingency was tiny, the HMS Endurance had been redrawn, Argentina was ruled by a dictatorship needing a distraction of its own and there was an impression, at least to the dictators in Argentina that they could take the islands and nobody would care.

If Argentina has any claim to these islands, they are not going to gain international support by military means.
Sure, some people might like another war, but the response would be "Why did you not see this coming - and especially when it has happened before?"

 

[Granny Danger]

15 minutes ago, Fullerene said:

Not sure about that.

Apparently there are 1,250 military personnel in the Falklands - almost one soldier per islander.
There are also 4 typhoon jets.
There is every indicator that if Argentina tried to invade, it would be detected early.

By comparison, in 1982, almost nobody even knew where the Falklands were, the military contingency was tiny, the HMS Endurance had been redrawn, Argentina was ruled by a dictatorship needing a distraction of its own and there was an impression, at least to the dictators in Argentina that they could take the islands and nobody would care.

If Argentina has any claim to these islands, they are not going to gain international support by military means.
Sure, some people might like another war, but the response would be "Why did you not see this coming - and especially when it has happened before?"

 

So at a time of austerity we are spending f**k knows how much keeping 1,200+ military personnel on a wee rock thousands of miles from home?

What price jingoism?

 

[Jacksgranda]

5 hours ago, git-intae-thum said:

Hmm.....The problem is its a very long way away.

.......and ships...or lack of....and more to the point ships (aircraft carriers) with a lack of planes.

Small spanner in the works that.

Nah. The Argies could land a force of marines their and short of calling in international favours there is f**k all Ingleterra....sorry Britain......could do about it.

I tend to agree with this. How are we going to get troops there and aircraft?

[Jacksgranda]

36 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

So at a time of austerity we are spending f**k knows how much keeping 1,200+ military personnel on a wee rock thousands of miles from home?

What price jingoism?

 

Aye, because they'd obviously get no wages and have to live in hedgerows if they were anywhere else.

[Granny Danger]

4 minutes ago, Jacksgranda said:

Aye, because they'd obviously get no wages and have to live in hedgerows if they were anywhere else.

Or we would need 1200 less folk.  Or is that only OK when it’s local authority workers or NHS workers?

 

[renton]

8 minutes ago, Jacksgranda said:

I tend to agree with this. How are we going to get troops there and aircraft?

After the war they built a fast jet, all weather airfield there. It's got a reasonably large garrison and a flight of Typhoon fighters that are now a couple of generations ahead of anything Argentina still have. The idea would be in the case of rising tension, they'd fly down reinforcements via Ascension island. The whole point being to defend the islands, rather than have to re-take them. 

[Jacksgranda]

2 minutes ago, renton said:

After the war they built a fast jet, all weather airfield there. It's got a reasonably large garrison and a flight of Typhoon fighters that are now a couple of generations ahead of anything Argentina still have. The idea would be in the case of rising tension, they'd fly down reinforcements via Ascension island. The whole point being to defend the islands, rather than have to re-take them. 

If that's what they did it would work. But if they totally ignored any rising tensions/signs of invasion it would have been pointless keeping the garrison and fighters there in the first place.

[Jacksgranda]

9 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

Or we would need 1200 less folk.  Or is that only OK when it’s local authority workers or NHS workers?

 

Only if you wanted to leave the Falkanders defenceless. Which you may well do.

[Trackdaybob]

As it stands, the capability to defend the islands is there 'until re-enforcement's' arrive.

Apparently.

What shape or form these re-enforcement's take, I've no idea. 

What I do know is that British Forces are in no shape to mount a similar 'task force' today to the one in 1982.  It could maybe be argued that that is not needed. 

Should MPA (and/or the islands) be taken by opposition forces (unlikely) I don't think we've the capability to mount offensive missions from Ascension. Similar to the 'Black Buck' missions in 82. I'm not sure the Typhoon has the endurance required, Tornado definitely hasn't. 

I don't think one non operational carrier with 4 non operational F35's quite cut it either.  

Calculated risks by government. As is pretty much every decision they make. 

[renton]

Just now, Jacksgranda said:

If that's what they did it would work. But if they totally ignored any rising tensions/signs of invasion it would have been pointless keeping the garrison and fighters there in the first place.

Not necessarily. The Typhoons should be sufficient to stop an initial attack, they really are light years ahead of the refurbished A-4 Skyhawks that the Argentinian air force still have. AFter that it's a question of getting one of the Navy submarines on station, or at least telling Argentina that you did. They wouldn't risk an invasion force at sea if they thought one of those was around. 

Basically, the Falklands isn't a live issue in a military sense. Argentina want to press the EU to press the UK about this during Brexit, which is a sign they know the other solution is not attainable. 

[Granny Danger]

5 minutes ago, Jacksgranda said:

Only if you wanted to leave the Falkanders defenceless. Which you may well do.

I don’t see how we have any legitimate claim over a rock thousands of miles away.  Supporters of our imperial past may disagree.

 

[renton]

Just now, Granny Danger said:

I don’t see how we have any legitimate claim over a rock thousands of miles away.  Supporters of our imperial past may disagree.

 

Where is the limit on what your allowed to claim, 12 miles, 100 miles? At the end of the day though, the claim of the people living there is paramount. 

[Granny Danger]

1 minute ago, renton said:

Where is the limit on what your allowed to claim, 12 miles, 100 miles? At the end of the day though, the claim of the people living there is paramount. 

Grant them Independence.

[Trackdaybob]

3 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

I don’t see how we have any legitimate claim over a rock thousands of miles away.

Whilst the vast majority of the population of the UK may not give the slightest of fucks about The Falklands, the islanders who inhabit the place opinion's are very different. 

They're British and proud of it. They'll never tire of telling you that either  

[renton]

Just now, Granny Danger said:

Grant them Independence.

I think they want to be British, not a sentiment I'd share - but it seems to work for them. In that case, what the hell can you do, other than defend them? (Obviously there is a great deal of hypocrisy and racism when looking at the plight of islanders on other notionally British islands to contend with here, but for me the underlying principle should be that the state needs to defend those who live under it's laws and wishes to remain doing so)

[Fullerene]

17 minutes ago, Jacksgranda said:

If that's what they did it would work. But if they totally ignored any rising tensions/signs of invasion it would have been pointless keeping the garrison and fighters there in the first place.

Are you seriously suggesting that the Falklands are full of distractions?

I suspect every Argentinian rowboat that strays into the area  will immediately have everyone on red alert - if only to relieve the boredom. 

[Granny Danger]

3 minutes ago, renton said:

I think they want to be British, not a sentiment I'd share - but it seems to work for them. In that case, what the hell can you do, other than defend them? (Obviously there is a great deal of hypocrisy and racism when looking at the plight of islanders on other notionally British islands to contend with here, but for me the underlying principle should be that the state needs to defend those who live under it's laws and wishes to remain doing so)

It’s an interesting principle but you are suggesting that there should not be exceptions.  I’m pretty sure exceptions have been made before.

The Falklands is a legacy of an imperialist past that is not easily defensible when looking from today’s perspective.

Maybe a long-term handover with  islanders getting the right to return to the U.K. would be a sensible way ahead.

 

[renton]

4 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

It’s an interesting principle but you are suggesting that there should not be exceptions.  I’m pretty sure exceptions have been made before.

The Falklands is a legacy of an imperialist past that is not easily defensible when looking from today’s perspective.

Maybe a long-term handover with  islanders getting the right to return to the U.K. would be a sensible way ahead.

 

No doubt the vast majority of our imperialist past is utterly indefensible, but the Falklands really was just a windswept pile of rocks with no real permanent residents when the British moved in (chucking off a Spanish naval crew). The current populace are the closest thing to an indigenous population, give or take the penguins. Even Argentina's claim is based on a historical claim by the defunct Spanish empire, rather than some traducing of sovereign soil and expulsion of local Argentinians. 

In that case, for whatever reason I don't think we can slopy shoulder this one in the name of our racist, expansionist past.