I think it would depend on how crippled the UK is by PCness:dead:. Assuming that the PCness is overcome by patriotism, I'd think the British subs armed with torps, harpoons, and cruise missles could wreak havoc on any navy.

Then, send in the Royal Buna Brigade; 1 Buna= 50 Argentine soldiers. Game over, time enough to make the evening cricket match.

The US would be a non-factor, as we are too occupied with socialism. Now if Argentina was smart, they'd contribute to obama's and HRC's election fund. Obama, with his glib tongue, would invoke the monroe doctrine again. The British would be overwhelmed by obama's oratory skill and immedetly capitulate to his will.

...or not to be out-foxed, the British allow obama to annex the falklands and let them become states, thus adding 2 more senators and (x) amount of congressmen.

What were we talking about again?

You mean this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVDeN...eature=related

Skybird please confirm the whole broadside thing. AFAIK that is unconfirmed and still is.

CastleBravo. Yes you gave us access to the AIM-9L and with back channel supplies of stingers but in the most part the Falklands was fought by the UK alone. In fact there were quite a few in US govt. cirlces who were not happy with Maggie socking it to the Argentines.

Also there is a permanent fighter force on Falklands which could take out the Argentine air force way out from the islands.

Oh and please can you confirm about the UK subsidising the Argentines?

Xabba, find the old threat(s) on the issue from some years ago, there I told names as well as links, plus it was BBC major news, if I remember correctly. I struggle to find it again. But it was confirmed by either the admiral commanding that expeditionary fleet, or the chief of the British navy . It has been revealed just some years ago, like it also was revealed just 5 or 6 years ago that the British had send nuclear weapons to the fleet, that then were transferred from the transporting frigates to the carriers. the argentininians had four submarines, two WWII-era boats, and two German modern Type-209, the latter definitely had the capability to penetrate the ASW screen of the fleet. that 209 also fired repeatedly at the fleet but over too great distances, thus all shots missed. The British failed to detect it for the whole duration of it's operation time - the entire war.

If I were the navy, I would not talk much about my capital ships escaping by sheer luck, too. ;) It raises the question why politicians should pay for new carriers if these are so vulnerable to enemy subs.

One word on the human side of the war. Today, the number of losses on British side is counted to be smaller than the number of veterans of that war who have commited suicide due to posttraumatic stress syndrome since the war ended. Suicides on Argentinian side equal roughly two thirds of their KIA numbers.

I searched more a bit and found Admiral Woodward, commander of the British, admitting that in his views the Argentinians had a solid chance to win the war if only they would have focussed their air war on the British carriers, instead of scattering them somewhat. I understand that he reveals that in his biography published in 1997.

Reader'S comments made me curious on that book, maybe I read it. I have read "Into the Storm" by Gen. Franks three times, too, an found it very valuable. Woodward'S book seem to describe the Falkland war from the same persective, on the same level of command and with comparable objective attitude.

You wouldn't be the first person to make that particular misjudgement...

IIRC there was a lot of concern about Argie subs in the area and the ASW was out in force, including a few Oberons (one of which rammed a rock and broke a torp tube during a SpecFor landing).
Today, as I was saying during one of our Teamspeak gatherings in the Lolwaffles the other night, our fighter force would certainly do well against the Argies however I do worry about our carrier CAPs.
Eurofighters and Tornados are all well and good but we'd have to tanker them there. Our current carrier based Harriers are the GR9s, which are primarily ground attack aircraft, enough perhaps to put up a fight against the Argies, but I'd be a lot happier if they had upgraded the Sea Harriers to cover the gap between their use-by date and the incoming F-35s.

Although, to be fair, our new Type-45s would blat a good number of incoming Argie ASMs, so hopefully no Sheffield repeats, then once the way was clear onto the island, we'd get our lads ashore and then, Argie or no Argie, the Falklands would be ours again in no short order.

Of course, the question also is, would the British public want to go to war over the islands? There was a reasonable sized amount of the population in the last war who didn't even know where they were, some people, I'm told, thought they were off Scotland :haha: And with our current government, I strongly suspect that we'd vacate the islands and then apologise to the Argentinians for being on them in the first place.

But, if it came down to it, I reckon we'd pull through, perhaps a little more bloodied than before, our forces have been dramatically downsized since the end of the Cold War, but, as Neal said, Never bet against England, we often do our best when the odds are against us :03:

x2. When put to it, British resolve is no trivial thing. In that regard, Oberon is correct: If the British decide that they want to keep the Falklands, then they are going to keep the Falklands.

This. I can't really imagine that Argentina would risk a war like that again.

Aren't there any Argentinian subsimmers who could fill us in on how they feel about this?

When I look at the map I can't help but notice that those islands sure are a lot closer to Argentina then they are to the UK. They are also quite costly to maintain in this time and era.

I don't think they have this resolve anymore.

-S

Which was precisely the misjudgement the Argentines made the first time around...

I belive you to be mistaken as were the Argentinians first time round.

The People of the Falklands wont accept argentine governance ever.

The argentines know this now. there is no prestige gain or profit in the
this media age in forcibly subjugating and incarcerating an unwilling people.
they would have to literally occupy by force under the eyes of the world.
not gaining any prestige and although it might distract internal dissent on
invasion day it would only provide more ammunition to the dissenter's in
every subsequent hour.

They were clearly made fun of after the last war in
"An Ungentlemanly act" for not having even the barest
clue what they were going to find, they expected suppressed
spaniards and discovered they were oppressing hostile anglos
and occupying there farms.

there is no real resource gain in Argentinian occupation, and the strategic
location that Britain and the RN hold dear about the islands is a
strategic location that argentina is already located in.

The only real purpose of an occupation ( or just threatening one )
is to divert attention away from massively failed internal policy, staving
off the non confidence of the people for another month.

admittedly there is prestige to be gained in facing down the UK
victoriously but that wont happen Neal is right, and I am in agreement
with Tom Clancy on the weight we should give to a perisher graduate
on the battlefield.

finally the whole thing can be stopped cold by bringing the
falklands into the main of the UK instead of as a colony basically
making it a direct Province, then there is no question of Resolve
as invading the UK is generally a bad Idea, several people better
at it than the argentine's have tried.

jmo

M

Why not? If their land gets invaded, they should fight back, if they have the means.

If anyone is to learn anything from history, let it be never to underestimate the resolve of the British when faced with adversity.

Whilst fully recognising how downsized our military has become in recent decades, don't forget how Maggie used the Argentinian invasion to turn the tide of negative opinion towards her and her government into a positive one.

I reckon Gordon Brown would see any similar opportunity as a political Godsend should the need arise before the next election.

The standing force on the islands are much better prepared this time round and might just hold out long enough for relief to arrive.

I think the major chink in our armour is the feeble air assets on the island.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._1435_Flight_RAF

4 Typhoons seam an adequate match to the ~10 A4 Skyhawks former
Argentinian Defense Minister Horacio Jaunarena claims Argentinia can field.

Besides, no aircraft at all where present in '82.

Actually they had two, one of the old GUPPY boats was decomissioned at that time and the second Type 209 was in dry dock.


Today the TO&Es of the two sides would be quite diffrent. The ARA lacks a CV and CL however most of their DDs (which are equivlent to most navies FFs) are more modern then in '82. While the RN has heliborne AEW capablity that they did not have in '82 also they have E-3 Sentry aircraft that they lacked which could be based at Acention and be refueled by VC10/Tristars or by loaned USAF tankers aircraft. AEW was probaly the RN major failing in '82.

The RN's subs are now armed with highly capable torpedoes, not to mention SLCMs (both Anti-Ship and Land Attack). So this time around the UK could hit Argentina's mainland.

The ARA's three subs would be a problem but in that case I figure that an area denial stratigy would work best. Keep the RN surface ships far out at sea and force them to enter deeper water to attack where they are more detectable when snorkeling while RN SSN isolate the Falklands from supply kinda like the Allies did in the Pacific durring WWII. No point in holding the islands if you can't keep the troops there fed and equipped.

That's true.....it simply looks dangerously threadbare/minimalistic to me though.