Falklands 1982 vs 2012
 

BBC has a nice vis-a-vis comparison of chances and resources used in a Flakland war today, and back then.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17157373

^ Flakland, eh? :D

Does Britain have the political will to fight for it?

I have in some article read that Brazil and some other country i South america is on Argentines side on it's demand.

So I believe that this time Argentina would not fight alone, if it should come to that.

Markus

There are maybe now a lot of AA guns in the island ...

Another thing : if UK had today to use cruise liners for transporting their reinforcement troops, I would not be a good idea for the Royal Navy to requisition any Costa ship ... :haha:

Most the South American countries would jump in this time.

Hugo Chavez would use it to poke at America using Britain as a proxy. Kinda like cold war era "proxy" wars.

A second Falklands war would actually be a noble undertaking for America to help its British friends.

We can help free the savages in Iraq and Afghanistan, why not help our mother country.

Don't most the Falklanders enjoy being under the British commonwealth? I always got that impression.

You guys oughta trade the Falklands with us for Puerto Rico. I will not throw in Guam. That is ours.

Where did you learn such imperialism son?

I LEARNED IT FROM YOU!:O:

(old anti drug commercial, sorry)

To requisition any vessels we'd have to invade Panama or Mauritania first, we don't have any left! :o

The article says the Brits can´t take the island back without carriers, which the Brits does´t have. Maybe they can borrow one from the US, according to the article one of those is equal to 10 of the ones the Brits had in 82. America has 11, surely they can put one on a southerly cruise.

I got the impression that the British argument is that the Argentinians find it hard these days to even reach the island in strength, with an unsuspected airdrop on the airfield being their only option. Said airfield also is the British main supply gate now, and reinforcement gate. I think they know how to defend it, therefore. Back then, main supply was via ships.

Just 4 fighters nevertheless looks thin to me. Maintenance breakdowns, repairs, wear-and tear, the lucky hit for the enemy, accidents during refuiling... 4 can very fast falling down to 3 or 2 or 1.

Brazil will not throw its military weight into any war, i think. Its not good when two nuclear powers start shooting at each other, and the business ties to Europe and the Yanks are precious. Venezuela is far away.

I think chances for an Argentinian attack are very very very slim anyway.

I think that this whole story will end up with some kind of a UN-resolution that makes the habitant on the island vote for who they want to control them
England or Argentina.

Or perhaps none of them

Markus

For Britain, it's enough !!!

It was already the case during WWII in Malta, with the 3 Hawker Hurricanes defending the island : Faith, Hope and Charity ...

Whatever happened to the Monroe Doctrine? NO EUROPEAN CONTROL IN THIS HEMISPHERE! :O:

Definitely just kidding, but it is an interesting question. :sunny:

That is what the Typhoons deployed to the Falklands are named, they added Desperation for #4. :salute:

BTW I thought they were Gloster Gladiators?

You are right, there was also a dozen of Gloster Gladiators.

But the myth is more beautiful with only 3 heroic planes ...

Until the Wasp arrived with planes, that got bombed the moment they landed, then Wasp returned again along with Eagle carrying more planes. Saving Malta. Another happy ending.