Increasing Tension Between the UK and Argentina over the Falkland Islands

At a time when the Royal Navy has insufficient ships to train its sailors at sea, the Government would be well advised to pay heed to the distant sound of sabre-rattling in the South Atlantic. In recent months, Cristina Kirchner, Argentina’s president, has taken a steadily more belligerent stance over the issue of the Falkland Islands. The most recent provocation has been to detain a number of Spanish fishing boats on the grounds that they are in breach of Argentina’s “blockade” of the seas around the Falkland Islands.
If this seems rather petty, let us not forget that the Falklands conflict began after a group of Argentine scrap metal merchants landed on South Georgia and raised their national flag. Argentina is no longer run by a junta, but Mrs Kirchner remains as committed as her military predecessors to establishing Argentine sovereignty over the “Malvinas”. She also knows she can count on the support of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States, the new bloc of nations that has formally given its backing to Argentina’s claim.
The renewed tensions over the Falklands have arisen as the Duke of Cambridge, a flight lieutenant in the RAF, prepares to deploy to the South Atlantic in February. But unlike 1982 – when his uncle, Prince Andrew, served as part of the task force sent to recapture the islands – it is highly unlikely that Britain could repeat the mission, particularly since we no longer have an aircraft carrier available. Nor, given France’s ambivalence over the issue, would there be any realistic prospect of borrowing a French carrier, as stipulated under the recent Anglo-French defence pact.

Oh shush. If you think Englands navy is in recession just take a look at the Argentinian economy - they're just throwing their weight around

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/argentina/gdp-growth

Argentina is growing quite rapidly compared to the UK, but that is beside the point.

If Argentina were to launch a surprise attack and take the island's airfields, then Britain would be effectively unable to retaliate due to lack of an aircraft carrier.

Keep pretending everything is fine, though.

Firstly, growing rapidly sounds great untill you remember that it's growing rapidly - from a country that defaulted recently

What do you want to do exactly? we're already at war in several countries

I would hope that Britain, being a sovereign nation, actually defended its sovereignty.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/argentina/gdp-growth

Argentina is growing quite rapidly compared to the UK, but that is beside the point.

If Argentina were to launch a surprise attack and take the island's airfields, then Britain would be effectively unable to retaliate due to lack of an aircraft carrier.

Keep pretending everything is fine, though.

And i'm sure we will do - we can barely resist a bit of nudging by the yanks let alone sovereign land

What exactly do you want to do though?

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/argentina/gdp-growth

Argentina is growing quite rapidly compared to the UK, but that is beside the point.

If Argentina were to launch a surprise attack and take the island's airfields, then Britain would be effectively unable to retaliate due to lack of an aircraft carrier.

Keep pretending everything is fine, though.

Argentina - yes.

Argentina's armed forces - no.


Argentina launch a surprise attack? Well, it would certainly be surprising, not least to the members of their armed forces using the same kit they did in '82. They'd be astonished to learn that they had suddenly discovered the requisite experience, training and equipment to make such a landing possible.
Not to mention we have the southern hemisphere's most capable attack aircraft stationed on the FIs.

Yes, we're without an aircraft carrier, meaning we cannot retaliate in the same way we did in '82. However, this does not mean we cannot retaliate. We've proven that the Typhoon can fly from Ascension Island to the Falklands. The RN can still launch a task force that would, if allowed to fight openly, utterly decimate the Argentinian Navy and we retain the ability to launch Tomahawks directly through Ms. Kirchner's window should we wish.

They would have to be suicidal.

Most of Argentinas fighters are from the 50s and 60s and many of them still have propellers, the 4 Eurofighters based on the Islands are more than enough to destroy Argentinas entire airdefence. Also we have anti air warfare - guided missile destroyers which would render argentinas aircraft completely unusable.

In short, you do not really now what you are talking about.

What, you think Argentina will take a rational approach to this issue? They have barely any historical ties to the islands and the islands are populated by British people, in addition to being considered British by the international community. In other words, Argentina's demand for control is purely emotional.

That being said, as I have explained, if Argentina captures the airfields then Britain is ****ed (also, there are only 4 fighters stationed there now, hardly a deterrent).

Taking those islands without any air support would be disastrously costly.



No, sir, you are the ignorant one.

What is to stop Argentina, which now controls the seas around the islands, from covertly landing special forces troops and simply disabling the fighters?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA





























Snigger

































HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

What, you think Argentina will take a rational approach to this issue? They have barely any historical ties to the islands and the islands are populated by British people, in addition to being considered British by the international community. In other words, Argentina's demand for control is purely emotional.

That being said, as I have explained, if Argentina captures the airfields then Britain is ****ed (also, there are only 4 fighters stationed there now, hardly a deterrent).

Taking those islands without any air support would be disastrously costly.



No, sir, you are the ignorant one.

What is to stop Argentina, which now controls the seas around the islands, from covertly landing special forces troops and simply disabling the fighters?

I see, so you won't respond.

I can't say that I am surprised. I can only hope that our military commanders do not take such a cavalier approach to defending British territory from foreign agression.

No, they will not take a rational approach to it, but they are physically incapable of doing anything about it.

You might think 4 Typhoons are a token force, but they can and will take on and beat anything Argentina could throw at them. Your inability to process that simple fact - not opinion, fact - clearly shows you haven't got the first clue what you're talking about.

I did respond, I am laughing at you

Argentina would once against face humiliating defeat should conflict arise.

You don't seem to comprehend the point I am making.

I agree that the British fighters are technologically superior to the Argentinian fighters.

As I have repeatedly explained, though, this can easily be gotten around by destroying the fighters whilst they are still on the ground.

If that happens, Britain will have an incredibly difficult time holding, and then subsequently reclaiming, the islands.

Do you really think it wise to trust 4 fighters to defend against an entire, openly hostile military?

There are over 1,500 British soldiers on the island at any given time, Challenger tanks. And at least one guided missile destroyer in the region. And RAF installations are the most heavily protected.

Please go and make the tea.