The Falklands War plus 30

This month marks three decades since Argentina’s invasion of the Falkland Islands, and by all accounts, the Argentines still want them back.

Protesters burned a Union Jack and an effigy of Prince William outside the British Embassy in Buenos Aires Monday.

The United Kingdom, as we’ve seen, is still committed to defending them. It’s deploying its newest Type 45 destroyer, the HMS Daring, to the South Atlantic in an unsubtle reminder of that fact.

What will come of all this posturing? Nothing.

Although the prospect of a second Falklands War is a perennial topic in the defense world, the odds seem impossibly remote. There is almost no appetite for war among Argentines, and it’s hard to imagine a British public deeply disenchanted with Iraq and Afghanistan would go along with an actual shooting war to defend the Falklands again.


Thread started at Forum 4 Politics on 04-04-2012 01:29 PM

 

Another Falklands war in the offing?...

Oil Fuels British-Argentine Standoff Over Falklands
February 06, 2013 — Argentina stepped up its row with Britain over the Falklands on Wednesday with its foreign minister thanking God for the decline of the British Empire and vowing to prosecute oil firms exploring off the remote South Atlantic islands.

 

Iraq and Afghanistan aren't like WW1 when millions of British died, so nobody wanted to fight WW2, in Iraq and Afghanistan only 2,000 at the most British people have died, the people would be willing to fight for the Falklands once again. The military does what it is told to the best of it's ability with what it has. Argentina's military is crap, so there is no threat from Argentina's military, their civilians are a problem if they a few fishing boats full of protester the British would have a problem, as they couldn't just sink the fish boat.

 

The Falklands are still there.

The UK is militarily weaker than in the 1980s, although they have been more alert lately and have at least put a credible garrison in place.

Like the 1980s, Argentina is going through yet another economic crisis and their government needs an external affair to get the poeple's minds off their poor handling of economic affairs.

 

The UK military is better than in 1982, it would find it much easiers to do this kind of long range operation today than 1982. Our Para's and Marines could still do the same job, and we could Tomahawk the Argentine air bases.

 

OIL = WAR

Otherwise, who would care who had the Falklands/Malvinas? Why not just let the people who live there decide whether they want to be Argentine, British, or perhaps independent?

How many people world wide have died fighting over oil? I don't know the answer to that one, but the number has to be depressingly large.

 

I just remember how hard NATO had to struggle to deal with Libya. At one time it came to light the RAF only had eight airworthy strike planes.

If something in your back yard is difficult, the other side of the planet may be beyond them.

 

But it is still nothing like the conditions in 1982. Back then you had a military junta that found it's support was rapidly crumbling. After a decade of increasing domestic terrorism, the junta stepped in and tried to restore peace, and was very popular. But after 7 years the number of the "dissapeared" had grown to over 30,000 and it was starting to collapse. The invasion was more of an attempt to regain popular support then it was to actually sieze and maintain the islands.

However, they badly miscalculated. The UK got their islands back, and in less then 6 months the military Junta was out, and the Constitution was reinstated.

So I doubt that the current Democratically elected government would do anything even remotely like the Junta did in 1982.

 

Now this would be a politically suicidal thing to even consider.

You may not be aware of this, but the political climate of 1982 almost had the UK trying to fight a continent. Most of South America has a long memory, and they also remember that the British tried to invade Argentina twice before (as well as other South American countries). It was primarily the fact that the fighting was contained to the islands that prevented other countries from jumping in on the side of Argentina.

If the UK was to launch missiles at Argentina itself, expect WWIII to start right then and there. With Brazil, Peru, Ecuador, Chilie, Venezuela, and many other countries jumping in on the side of Argentina. In fact, such an attack would almost guarantee that the US will either sit it out once again as a neutral party, or might even join in and demand that the islands be demilitarized and turned over to the UN for "final disposition".

Yes, the US and Uk are allies, but there is still the Monroe Doctrine.

 

So does it not work the other way that Argentina is attack the Falklands and South Georgia and starting a war in South America? The political impact of seeing UK ships being sunk and British troops being attacked when the government could have stopped it would be very bad for any government, the opposition would rip them apart in Parliament, even if the Falklands were taken back. Any other nation in the UK's shoes would attack the Argentine bases in the south of the country. What if the UK ends up needed and getting the French carrier, would the south Americans go to war with French as well as the UK? Chile is a UK ally, Brazil wouldn't want to hurt it's economic recovery, and Venezuela is right now politically not in a position to start wars. Uruguay, Peru, Ecuador, possible would join Argentina.

 

It could be settled in no time, but both governments need it to distract attention from the mess they are making at home.

 

No all 3 government have hardline position, the Falklands government doesn't want to talk about a hand over of power to Argentina, the UK government isn't willing to talk about a hand over of power because the Falklands government doesn't want it and Argentina wants to talk only to the UK government about nothing other than a hand over of power. I think the UK is doing the right thing now, were aren't repeating the same mistakes we made with Hong Kong and the British Indian Ocean territory, Argentina wants the UK to make that mistake again and so do some people in the UK mainly leftwingers like George Galloway. Some Conservative's in the UK say the Falklands is British, I don't think that for a second, I think the Falklands belong to the Falklanders the UK is their to defend them until such time as they can defend themselves or Argentina gives up it's claim, so the oil and gas around the Falklands is the Falklanders, not the UK's or Argentina's.

 

The Falklands administration, after all, is the equivalent of a parish council. More of my people - even my family, I should think - live in Chubut, a lot of them in Gaiman. I'd have thought their opinion was relevant, incidentally. To give a few thousand people a veto on reducing the spending of billions by two countries seems to me silly. If they find oil, let them control it and pay for their defence. Otherwise why not discuss the question rationally?

But you know the answer, of course. As with the Cold War this sort of stuff suits governments very well.

 

Billion of what? The UK spends just £70 million a year on defending the Falklands, Argentina doesn't spend anything. Those few thousand people have rights that should be defended, so they have a veto on anything the UK wants to do with the Falklands. I don't know many parish councils with a budget of £140 million a year, do you?

The Answer is Argentina gives up it's claim and share in some of the oil and gas revenue, allows ships access to it's ports and starts exporting to the Falklands. The UK has done this before with Belize and Guatemala, it was the right thing to do and you don't have independence protests like in Hong Kong or people fighting to get their homes back like the Indian Ocean territory.

 

Billions over the long years of this game. No - parish councils shouldn't have this sort of money from us, should they? An answer that depends on what someone else should do is not a useful one, I think.

 

Anything costs billions over the long term. I am say the Falkland islands isn't a parish council, it's a government. If the parish council is better at maintaining the roads and bridges than the county council I would give them that much money. The UK should do what's it's been doing since 1982, giving the Falklanders power and power control over their own affaires and keep defending them. The UK is doing what it must do, what would you rather see the UK government do?

 

However, in 1982 they did not. They attacked them on the islands, and on the way to or from the islands, but did not attack them in Argentina itself.

And remember, you talk about attacking an independent country with a pre-emptive strike. Are you even aware of what will happen after you do that? Remember, people and countries have been castigating the US over that since 1991, and the US had given Iraq multiple warnings as well as a UN resolution in hand authorizing the use of force to remove them from Kuwait.

So what you are apparently proposing is a stroke into Argentina before they can sieze the islands back. In this kind of bold action, you would have almost all of South and North America against you. Last time it was because Argentina had taken action first that most remained neutral (or only supportive of Argentina). An attack without actual provocation would result in a real (*)(*)(*)(*)storm (and yes, in this instance "(*)(*)(*)(*)storm" is a real geopolitical technical term).

 

There has been a misunderstanding. I am saying if Argentina takes the Falklands from the Falklanders then the UK could attack their southern air and naval bases, mainly at Rio Grande and the air and naval bases near the state capital in Argentina's southern most region. This would only be if Argentina attacks and takes the Falklands, it wouldn't be a pre-emptive strike. Nobody would support the UK attacking Argentina in a surprise attack, the same way nobody would support Argentina attacking the Falklands. The Tomahawk is a new weapon we didn't have in 1982, it's is one of the reason why Argentina will not start another war over the Falklands.

 

Yeah. The Royal Navy today is far better than it was in 1982. Back in 1982 it had no fleet airborne radar, for a start.

 

The British cared about the Falklands in 1982, and so did Argies, and that was long before oil was even discovered there.

 

Must have been something else back then. Oil will be the issue from now on, of course.

From Wiki:

I'm guessing fishing and tourism back in '82.

 

you are right but politics, and irrational patriotism gets in the way...patriotism being a wonderful election tool used by most governments when opinion polls show a loss of support...the Argentina did the same when they invaded the islands and they're doing it again today, rallying support but appealing to patriotism and diverting attention from their own dismal performance...

 

And they still do not.

The Royal Fleet of 2013 is as bad if not worst then that of 1983. It seems they have learned no lessons in the years since that debacle. No real AWAC, no real dedicated Air Defense ships, just a bunch of "almost good enough" ships, and still so lacking in amphibious assets that this time they will be asking for the QE III instead of the QE I to bring their troops down there.

 

Why would oil be the issue now? Why is it that to far to many people, oil seems to be the most important thing in the world? It seems that whenever you mention that black stuff, people just turn off their brains.

If there is another war, it will be about the same thing that has been an issue for over 150 years, the islands themselves. Argentina was willing to go to war over them over 30 years ago, when nobody knew anything about oil. Why would that suddenly change things?

And 30 years ago, the islands were barely self-sufficient. They exported sheep to the UK for money, and mostly provided with what they produced or imported (mostly from South America). And no much has changed, the islands are still barely self-sufficient.

 

Did you really have to ask that question?

It seems obvious to me:

source