You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
... Hypothetically.
Technology has moved on since '82. Better protection again air to sea missiles for a start.
Typhoon fighters but only the islands runway to fly them from. Our 2 carries are still with Yodel.
Our subs would keep most enemy ships at bay I would think?
New guided missile destroyers.
That and many other new factors, political as much as anything. On both sides.
Would our depleted armed forces be able to take the islands back this time?
What do you think?
I think the Argentine armed forces are even more depleted and knackered than our own. We would probably end up having to rescue their invasion fleet...
May would be up for it. After all, it worked for Maggie.
TBH I doubt there would be the political will today. A negotiated settlement would be much more likely.
Probably true but I do wonder if we could put such a complex task into action now?
I think on man power and hardware we would really struggle if they had a good foot hold on the island, took over the landing field etc.?
In some dark room in the MOD, this must be dusted off and war-gamed on occasion?
https://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=united-kingdom
(though you can mark the uk's available manpower down by 1, I'm fighting for no butchers apron! 😆 think that might just tip the balance!)
v
https://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=argentina
If we're doing hypothetical war games, whilst we might be missing a carrier or three, most of the Argentine technology hasn't changed much since last time, thus most of it is a lot older and outmoded. Theoretically at least, the Typhoons and T45 parked down there should be able to engage and significantly damage anything the Argentinians have long before it could engage the British assets. Finally, our submarines have have a slightly more intermediate weapon than either sink a single ship or nuke an entire city - sub-launched cruise missiles bring a credible tactical threat to mainland assets that we could not project in the 1980s.
So, if the kit we do have does what it should, even without carriers it should be more in our favour than it was last time. It's quite an "if", though...
It's,a big "if" for sure but we live in strange times these days. 🙁
The Cruise missiles did come to mind but didn't know if our subs carried them.
Do our new destroyers? I think at the moment they don't??
Destroyers carry SAMs mainly. And the new ones don't really work. Apparently a lot of their engineers have been getting MBE/OBE/nervous breakdowns as they are so bad...
I doubt we could fight another falklands. Maggie was so proud of our armed forces keeping her in power, and sorting those pesky Iranian terrorists out, that she started a process of decimation that continues today...
The difference is collateral, or rather, isn't.
Back in the early 1980's any strike on mainland Argentina would have been out of the question, because the resource to make that strike and the likely collateral damage would have been un-acceptable.
Today, a couple of subs / destroyers 100miles away outside of territorial waters, could post a couple of missiles straight through the letter box on the front door of the War Ministry in Buenos Aires. I'd imagine that after a few of those, the political will to occupy a valueless, windswept island way off their shores would be minimal.....
thanks to google, it's not something easy to hide:
[url= https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Ministry+of+Defence/@-34.6097022,-58.3674873,15z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x9d2dbd5aa893e93a!8m2!3d-34.6097022!4d-58.3674873 ]HitMe[/url]
I don't think it would be too much of a challenge, our armed forces might be depleted somewhat but so are most other countries except the few at the top.
negotiated settlement would be much more likely.
Only if there was a zero tariff trade deal.
337 transport aircraft ??
Where are they getting their figures ?
Actually, I'll go beyond the "if" and say it doesn't matter. This is their currently active airforce. Look out for those damned Cessnas...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_aircraft_of_the_Argentine_Air_Force
we still have one of the largest military in the world.. although you have to ask what they do....
We lost them last time as there was nobody guarding them, that situation is a bit better now. Probably don't need the urgent capability to take them back if they don't get lost in the first place.
[quote=zokes ]Theoretically at least, the Typhoons and T45 parked down there should be able to engage and significantly damage anything the Argentinians have long before it could engage the British assets.
You're assuming we have those parked down there - if the original attack hadn't happened I doubt we'd have any military assets there now.
I don't think there's any doubt that an attack launched now would be repelled - the question is what the situation would be if the original attack hadn't happened and they attacked now.
A couple of rocks in the middle of an ocean, they’re welcome to them.. quite why the UK hangs onto them is purely out of guilt rather than need.
the question is what the situation would be if the original attack hadn't happened and they attacked now.
Well, no, that's not the question asked by the OP.
But to play it out, unless Wikipedia is very very inaccurate, they seem to have four active destroyers and a few corvettes, none of which appear to have reliably active weapons, or have much in the way of operational readiness due to lack of parts. One of their T42s sank in harbour and the other can barely move given our understandable reticence about supplying parts. Discounting the loss of the belgrano I doubt it would still be sailing now, and even if it was it would be hopelessly obsolete. Their carrier was scrapped years ago.
So, to follow your scenario, it appears that they could indeed get troops there, but would have almost no means of defending them should we decide we want the islands back. Their pucaras would make things unpleasant for any of our troops out of range of naval SAM support, but apart from that all I can see it being is a numbers game about how many troops we'd want to send down there to take them back, backed up with SAMs from the destroyers, choppers for close support, and sub-launched cruise missiles for tactical strikes.
Apparently they are trying to buy some Chinese jets though, which would change the situation, assuming the T45 doesn't live up to its billing.
quite why the UK hangs onto them is purely out of guilt rather than need.
Potential for oil...
Potential only, nothings been done about it though.. so potential for extraction is very costly and no one wants to take up the risk.
Hand them back in exchange for free Beef for 150years.
TBH, Argentina don't need to invade, just threaten to screw the WTO option and the UK will come to an agreement.
although you have to ask what they do
Most lately
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/hurricane-irma-uk-military-provides-relief-to-the-caribbean
Flippin' waste of space an d money eh?
I think the modern addition of our Apaches would significantly change the conventional ground war. Our battlefield comms are light years ahead of 1982 too and I suggest the current Argentine kit as most if our kit/units are. Our military may be small but the units pack a lot of surgical punch nowadays.
I don't understand why we don't sell the islands. They seem massively important to Argentina, we should sell them at a price that reflects the oil value. I mean a massively inflated price.
And a huge chunk of that should go to veterans in the forces, both those who defended them and those out doing stuff recently.
I don't understand why we don't sell the islands.
1. The islanders don't want to be sold.
2. There are war-dead down there.
3. Due to the above, the government that did it would definately lose the next election - it would not play well in the tabloid press.
If the Argentinian government had sense, they would stop teaching all the nonsence in their schools (at least they used to) and stop using the islands as a convienent distraction. Then reach out on friendly terms and be patient. After a few generations (and probably after all those who remember 1982 have passed) a deal might happen.
The islands cost this country a lot to defend and don't really have strategic purpose. The oil looks to be non-viable, and even if it was, working in partnership with Argentina would still boost theirs & the islands economies. The whole thing could and should be managed on a win-win basis but I doubt it will happen anytime soon.
Why would the islanders be “sold” ?
And what would a human cost these days?
Plenty of war dead from Nations all over the World, scattered all over the World... not many brought “home” to thier member state.
Not sure those are good enough reasons.
Why would the islanders be “sold” ?
And what would a human cost these days?
Maybe you could ask the 97% of the Falkland population who voted to stay a British community.
Seems like an overwhelming majority to me.
Plenty of war dead from Nations all over the World, scattered all over the World... not many brought “home” to thier member state.Not sure those are good enough reasons.
“There is a corner of some foreign field...” etc.
The Falklands were never, ever Argentinian, but a Spanish colony; the only colony they had there was a penal one, and that was when the islands were still officially British, until we kicked them off again.
You might raise the same question about Gibraltar and Spain, while asking Spain about the North African colonies [i]they[/i] hold, and show little inclination to hand back...
Thankfully, it will never come to war again, but were it to, we could defeat Argentina just by catapulting our under-employed admirals, rear admirals, commodores and captains at the enemy.
Which would actually solve a problem for the Royal Navy, cutting costs and allowing them to be far more dynamic and efficient.
we still have one of the largest military in the world.. although you have to ask what they do....
They post some good result at northern road and CX races.
If you can't be bothered watching the whole of that cartoon, at least watch the last minute - the subtitles get really whacky 😆
It's worth watching the whole thing. Puts the end in context, sort of.
"We must comport ourselves with valour,
and we must resist the climate,
Who the **** decided to have a war in April?"
The current plan is to not lose them in the first place! Air is the key, and Argentina don’t have any! If you think of the consequences of failure, given the current Argentine inventory, it’s hard to think of a plan that has a good enough chance of success. This chap analyses it nicely:
[url= https://thinpinstripedline.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/reality-of-capturing-falkland-islands.html?m=1 ]Recapturing the FI[/url] A lot of people don’t realise that the FI are over 300 miles off the Argentine Coast, we’re not talking about the Isle of Wight here, Argentina has no more claim on them than anyone else.
Yup, not convinced that all of those subtitles are a 100% faithful translation!! 😆
Bit of misunderstanding about the roles of SSN vs SSBN above. Hunter-killer boats vs bombers. The hunter-killers (in old money) attack ships and other submarines, or fire cruise missiles, the bombers don’t participate except in the doomsday scenario. It’s very hard to imagine a FI conflict going nuclear.
So, you are saying UK citizens would be sold then?
Please clarify.
CountZero - MemberMaybe you could ask the 97% of the Falkland population who voted to stay a British community.
Seems like an overwhelming majority to me.
Don't worry about that, we can just borrow some spanish stormtroopers, get them to smash all the islanders heads in, then say it's an internal matter and the islanders are reckless.
As part of the money (I am thinking trillions) that Argentina (or other bidder) would pay, I would force the islanders to relocate, or take their chances under the new regime. If it's the choice of annoying them or war, it's pretty clear to me.
I would like to see of that trillions, billions go to the surviving veterans & families of the 1982 conflict.
As for who would win the conflict now, have we learnt nothing?
I would force the islanders to relocate,
What, at gunpoint & stuff.
You sir are a Divvy & I claim my £5.
🙂
I was thinking of a huge, unrefusable wad of Argentine cash 🙂
[quote=ugarizza ]As for who would win the conflict now, have we learnt nothing?
I don't know - what have you learnt?
I suggested above - clearly incorrectly - that the original question was whether the islands could be retaken by current UK forces after an attack by current Argentine forces against the '82 Falkland defences. Because the idea of current Argentine forces successfully taking the islands with current defences is ludicrous, they wouldn't have a hope. They wouldn't even have a hope with '82 Argentine forces against current defences. So "war" isn't actually really an option, any attempted invasion would be repelled with minimal losses on our side to no advantage for Argentina - and they know this.
Maybe you could ask the 97% of the Falkland population who voted to stay a British community.
Surely the 3% didn't accept the outcome of the vote. That's not the STW way.
[quote=zanelad ]Surely the 3% didn't accept the outcome of the vote.
Fake news. It was 3 votes (out of 1500), not 3%!
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/shortcuts/2013/mar/12/falkland-islanders-who-voted-no
Don't forget the importance of the Falkland Islands in maintaining our claim to a slice of Antarctica. Minerals and oil may not exist in commercial quantities on the islands, but the Antarctic continent is much more interesting in that respect (though currently protected by international treaty, who knows what happens in the future).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_claims_in_Antarctica
Bit of misunderstanding about the roles of SSN vs SSBN above. Hunter-killer boats vs bombers. The hunter-killers (in old money) attack ships and other submarines, or fire cruise missiles, the bombers don’t participate except in the doomsday scenario. It’s very hard to imagine a FI conflict going nuclear.
No confusion at all. In 1982, our SSNs could only fire torpedoes. Thus, about the most destructive they could ever be was sinking enemy capital ships in the context of the FI. My remark was simply noting of course that we did have means of striking land targets from subs (obv not the same ones), but Polaris missiles would be about as useful as torpedoes for attacking mainland Argentina in realistic terms ie wouldn't be usable.
Now our SSNs come with cruise missiles, which greatly changes the risk to Argentina itself, should it ever come to another shooting war.
It was 3 votes (out of 1500), not 3%!
That's democracy for ya!
& I bet those 3 would have voted Remain!
Fake news. It was 3 votes (out of 1500), not 3%!
There was always something suspicious about Jose, Manuel and Jorge....
Now our SSNs come with cruise missiles, which greatly changes the risk to Argentina itself, should it ever come to another shooting war.
Apologies!
[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/09/britain-prepares-war-north-korea-new-carrier-could-rushed-service/ ]telegraph[/url]
It's ok if the Queen Liz could be pushed into service to deal with Lil' Kim early there would be no problems sending her south...
I read that story and cringed...
Well don’t forget Hong Kong.
No one voted to stay, no one had a vote in fact. The UK Govt decided to hand over to the Chinese and that was that. Plenty of UK citizens repatriated to the UK, two of my mates lived and loved it there but Ccame back because the regime would change. Plenty of folks couldn’t understand the UK Govts decision then, nor now and it was strategic important to.
And back to the Falks, who organised a vote to stay in the UK? Surely the referendum last year was a different question.
bikebouy - Member
Well don’t forget Hong Kong.
But wasn't that because of a time limited treaty, and time was up?
Yup, we had Hong Kong on a PCP and didn’t want the balloon payment
If the attack hadn't happened, Britain may well have handed over the Falklands to Argentina a long time ago, despite what the islanders wanted.
There wasn't much appetite for retaining expensive but apparently useless colonial possessions in the early eighties.
Was it? I can’t remember.
Anyway I posted that as an example because some posters argued about Gib ..
The UK Govt decided to hand over to the Chinese
The lease was up.
Surely the referendum last year was a different question.
It was but the Falklanders didn't get to vote. Similar reason as why Scots people living in out of Scotland didn't get to vote in their referendum.
The Falklanders [i]didnt[/i] get to vote.. how interesting.
We still have a military presence on there though, and Ascension Islands don't we?
I like the PCP analogy, that my small brain can deal with.
I guess for the foreseeable the Islanders get to "remain" here's to that ..
3 very similar circumstances. HOng Kong - simply handed it back 'co s the chinese have stuff we want, Falklands go to war because of oil, Chagos islanders - continually illegally refused access to their land despite multiple court victories
If the attack hadn't happened, Britain may well have handed over the Falklands to Argentina a long time ago, despite what the islanders wanted.There wasn't much appetite for retaining expensive but apparently useless colonial possessions in the early eighties.
This.
The UK regarded the islands as a liability, not an asset. The Argentines and the British Government were engaged together in a serious hearts and minds campaign to win the Islanders over to the idea of becoming Argentinian. The Uk government wanted rid of the Islands.
That's why the Argentinians thought they could safely invade and made it a fait-accomplis without the UK re-taking the Islands. Hence Lord Carrington, the British Foreign Secretary had to resign because Foreign Office policy was directly responsible for the invasion.
Unfortunately for all concerned, whilst the Argentinians were right to think that no sane country would want to fight for territory they were trying to give away, it's also true that no sane country can allow a foreign power to help themselves to territory by force. Hence there was a war.
3 very similar circumstances. HOng Kong - simply handed it back 'co s the chinese have stuff we want, Falklands go to war because of oil, Chagos islanders - continually illegally refused access to their land despite multiple court victories
Well, not all that similar really. A big chunk of HK was only leased from China for 99 years and had to be returned anyway, whilst the Falklands were never Argentinian. As you well know, the Chagos Islands are different again.
[i]we still have one of the largest military in the world.. although you have to ask what they do....[/i]They post some good result at northern road and CX races.
Hmm, they got disqualified from the Gorrick 12:12 so maybe those 'good' results aren't what they seem.... 😯
Zokes - HOng kong - not all of it was leased and anyway we could have refused to hand over. Falklands have had numerous owners including the argentinians. Chagos islanders - very similar to the flaklands - apart from we acted differently. a small Island group under our control and ownership. We kicked the natives off under a series of lies so the US could have it as a base. Now we refuse to let them come home again. Where is the differnce with the falkloands - yes they are brown people and there is no oilo there. But if we can shaft and entire nation then whats wrong with shafting a few sheep farmers?
[quote=tjagain ]Falklands have had numerous owners including the argentinians.
For a couple of months in 1982 you mean?
and prior to that ( before independence from spain?). Not that the british claim is great either.
FWIW i just finished reading VULCAN 607, a retelling of operation BLACK BUCK 35 years ago. It's by Rowland White and was published in 2002 iirc. Well worth a read for anyone interested in the period and/or aviation.
That the Vulcan bomber raid? A real boys own / british phlegm type story
That the Vulcan bomber raid? A real boys own / british phlegm type story
yes. I'd seen documentaries on it but was loaned the book. Gripping stuff.
The Uk government wanted rid of the Islands.
Its similar to Gibraltar. In todays military world neither have much purpose as compared to the past (unlike the Diego Garcia). Both are a diplomatic headache but the problem is Spain and Argentina are utter morons and fail to try and charm the relevant populations (okay its now going to be tricky for the Falklands but in theory doable) and instead wind them up with pointless harassment.
For the Falklands it was sheer ineptitude from Thatchers government which put them at risk and if the Argentinians had waited a year Thatcher would have sold off vital elements of the task force.
That combined with Thatcher had nothing to lose resulted in the force being sent and her ending up a hero.
As opposed to the previous government who, according to some, dealt with Argentinian posturing by simply mentioning a hunter killer sub (like the conqueror) was in the area and would be happy to uphold UK sovereignty.
aracer - Member
tjagain » Falklands have had numerous owners including the argentinians.
For a couple of months in 1982 you mean?
France claimed it in 1764.
Britain claimed on it in 1766 even though it's relatively small - it's not even known if the French camp and the British camp knew each other existed.
France abandoned it in 1766 and gave it to Spain - so in 1766 both Spain and Britain laid claim to it.
in 1770 the Spanish Camp and British camp discovered each other and we almost went to War with Spain over it, they gave the British camp back.
Until 1774 we lived in happy co-existence on the island, but then we left - but we left a Plaque on a a wall somewhere saying it belonged to King George the 3rd.
Then in 1806 we invaded Argentina and Uruguay, although they weren't called that then and because of that the Spanish Government on the Islands fled, their military left in 1811, but some farm hands and fishermen stayed because they liked it I guess - they would have been Spanish subjects, but could have come from anywhere.
So 1811 to 1816 it's sort of part of Spain, but they've abandoned it, in 1816 though Argentina is born declaring independence from Spain and claims all of Spain's territories in the South Pacific which included the Falklands - they think so highly of it that they pretty much give it to a German Fisherman to fish from, he got into an argument with some whalers and somehow this lead to the Americans invading the place with a warship and dissolving the government.
In 1832 Argentina set up a Garrison on the Island, but they mustn't have paid them enough as they mutinied and went independent, the following year we retook the island, wasn't hard and have had it ever since - Argentina have been protesting to varying levels ever since.
So it's got a long history of nothing much happening until it does, there's no such thing as a 'native' Falklander, it was uninhabited until Europeans settled there, 99% of it's history it's been of little or no use to anyone, so it was abandoned by every nation that claimed it at one time or other, it's only when it's needed for something anyone cares.
It's been of little use to us for most of the time we've had it - it's of use now, it wasn't really in the 80's and it's been of use for specific periods since the 1700s.
It must cost a fortune to defend it, but international relations says you can't have sand kicked in your face by a country the size of Argentina if you're the UK.
As others have said, if they hadn't been so stupid about it, they could have had it - I think they sent a non-military force first and no one really complained, but their government needed a war and sadly for them and all the people who died we had our first female leader who have to prove she was as hard as the lads, this was the 80s after all.
Somebody , I can't remember who , summed it up nicely at the time regarding the Argentinians wanting the islands " Seduction was to be encouraged , rape was unacceptable "
I think the Falklands has one of the most sophisticated air defence systems in the world now. I doubt much could get through to be honest. I think Argentina has enough on its plate at the minute without worrying to much about the Falklands.
ta PJ
England landed on it in 1690
[quote=P-Jay ]France [s]claimed[/s] established a settlement on it in 1764.
...
if we're basing ownership on who was there first, then Britain appears to have at least as good a claim as anybody else. Apart from geographical proximity it also has at least as good a claim on any other basis - but the Falklands are over 300 miles offshore from Argentina, so their claim is also fairly tenuous on that basis.
Zokes - HOng kong - not all of it was leased and anyway we could have refused to hand over.
This is just ****ing daft, fighting the PLA even in the 90's, would have been a whole lot different to fighting a 3rd world corrupt South American government and their inept military.
Destroyers carry SAMs mainly. And the new ones don't really work
well they have issues moving but their Aster 15, Aster 30 and harpoon weapons all work and the sea viper ADS is more advanced than the US Aegis system.
England landed on it in 1690
Well if we’re going to unleash the pendantry 😉 technically an English Salior landed on it, noted its location and left, he was a trader and didn’t claim it.
Personally I think British have the strongest claim to the islands, especially of the two counties who give a shit we’ve held them the longest and never gave up sovereignty over them, even when we left.
But if we can shaft and entire nation then whats wrong with shafting a few sheep farmers?
So you accept that if we were to hand over the Falklands against their residents' will to a foreign power we'd
be shafting them? We're getting somewhere now...
Just because we have in one case doesn't mean that we should in another.
No - I am asking what the moral difference is - why we had to kill 1000 people to get the Falklands back, but we gave hong kong away and we illegally removed an entire population from chagos to give it to our friends and now won't give the people their island back despite multiple court rulings
No - I am asking what the moral difference is
Well, I've already explained the difference between HK and FI. You can read it again if you want: http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/ok-so-the-falklands-was-invaded-by-argentina-today/page/2#post-8766596
I'm not condoning what was done on the Chagos Islands, I'm simply saying that it shouldn't happen in FI.
As others have said, perhaps if the Argentinians had asked nicely, rather than invading, the outcome would have been different. Anyway, [i]we[/i] didn't kill 1000 people. If you're going for such hyperbole (as sadly is usual when you discuss an issue that you're emotionally attached to), then this really isn't a useful debate.
Zokes - HOng kong - not all of it was leased and anyway we could have refused to hand over
The New Territories was the leased part that was due to be handed back to China (Kowloon, Lantau etc), however without the New Territories Hong Kong would be a little stuck for electricity and water (let alone an airport as that at the time was on the Kowloon side).
Once we had finagled a made up passport for the locals to kind of make them feel safe after the handover, the BNO, to keep HK made no sense.....and Zhao Ziyang did say he could easily just march his army over any way and take it.
What happen to the Chagos Islanders is of a different sort of immorality.
As for the question on the Falklands, all its takes is another defense cut and all bets are off again.
Yup things can change quickly, we're in a position of strength now, so seems a good time to sell them.
I can't see Argentina ever calming down about them, so would be better to sort it out now and get a ton of cash for them.
As for the question on the Falklands, all its takes is another defense cut and all bets are off again.
Well, it would also require some impressive increases in spending on the Argentinian side.
Yup things can change quickly, we're in a position of strength now, so seems a good time to sell them.
I can't see Argentina ever calming down about them, so would be better to sort it out now and get a ton of cash for them.
Given that our coffers don't exactly seem to be brimming with the well invested rewards of the sale of many public assets, i'm not sure selling them would really be beneficial either. As has been said above, they're pretty important from the perspective of our continued involvement in Antarctica.